DynamiteCop 2,085 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 (edited) This all makes perfect sense. Quote That was obviously a really tough decision, we went into this launch with a lot of caution. Wrecking Zone is something totally new for us, there was a huge investment in enabling a full cloud physics solution for multiplayer games. We ran a lot of technical stress tests leading up to launch even with player pools up to 3 million, but to be honest we were expecting to have issues at launch and learn a lot from the huge scale that GamePass is bringing us. So far indicators are looking good, we're trending with a success rate of about 96% right now, the Azure infrastructure is rock solid, best news is lots of games are getting played, and we're continuing to monitor. But the reality is we were very, very risk averse heading into launch because of all the unknowns and that meant keeping the match making flow as straight forward as possible, and that meant holding back on party support. The good news is now that we've launched successfully we have already tested this in our dev sandbox. It was a tough decision but it's on in our dev sandbox now; we did that today, and we're going to test that and update Wrecking Zone with party support as soon as we possibly can. Edited February 17, 2019 by DynamiteCop! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Remij 4,667 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 Uh... no. It's called.. you don't release the game until that shit is ready. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DynamiteCop 2,085 Posted February 17, 2019 Author Share Posted February 17, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Remij_ said: Uh... no. It's called.. you don't release the game until that shit is ready. Sorry but no, you're being a moron. It's untested waters with a cloud implementation never seen in a game before that under scale could have collapsed, it could have been a Master Chief Collection debacle all over again and they avoided that by launching in a simpler state. This is all perfectly reasonable, you're being dumb. Edited February 17, 2019 by DynamiteCop! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Remij 4,667 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 Just now, DynamiteCop! said: Sorry but no, you're being a moron. It's untested waters with a cloud implementation that under scale could have collapsed, it could have been a Master Chief Collection debacle all over again and they avoided that by launching in a simpler state. This is all perfectly reasonable, you're being dumb. Nope. It's their job to test the waters and do this shit before release dummy. You don't drop BASIC features that everyone expects because you need to test some more... you do the testing and get it working before you launch. It is NOT FUCKING REASONABLE to ship a game in 2019 without party support for a mp competitive game. Stop defending this fucking shit, my god. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DynamiteCop 2,085 Posted February 17, 2019 Author Share Posted February 17, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Remij_ said: Nope. It's their job to test the waters and do this shit before release dummy. You don't drop BASIC features that everyone expects because you need to test some more... you do the testing and get it working before you launch. It is NOT FUCKING REASONABLE to ship a game in 2019 without party support for a mp competitive game. Stop defending this fucking shit, my god. They literally pioneered a technology for online gaming never seen in a game before and you're questioning some launch concessions to ensure function and stability. Do you know how ridiculous that comes off? You're being dumb. There's no baseline for them to go off of, no manual to run to, pushing this to launch scale always breeds different results than isolated pre-launch testing. You can't just throw caution to the wind and wing it, you have to approach something like this tactful and delicately. Edited February 17, 2019 by DynamiteCop! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JonDnD 2,606 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 That's what betas are for Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DynamiteCop 2,085 Posted February 17, 2019 Author Share Posted February 17, 2019 1 minute ago, Jon2B said: That's what betas are for Beta's never reach launch scale, ever. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JonDnD 2,606 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 It could have . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DynamiteCop 2,085 Posted February 17, 2019 Author Share Posted February 17, 2019 Just now, Jon2B said: It could have . But they never do, people always put them off, or they don't care, or they forget the times, can't get home in time to play etc. They reach a fraction of post-launch load for a number of reasons. If this was a traditional game that would be one thing but they're in uncharted waters with the whole cloud infrastructure, no one has done this before. I don't think you guys are really grasping the gravity of what they've done here, they've offloaded geometric destruction to servers that's synced between every player in the game seamlessly. It's such an effective implementation on a first go that you can't even perceive latency between action and result. Having parties as part of this from the get go could have negative consequences that are too high to risk. You're not even trying to understand what the implications are if myself and a friend from say Australia try to join the same server. How is that going to affect the other players and latency? What kind of de-sync issues can result from not having localized match making? How is match making going to be parsed with people from completely different regions? That's just one side of it but something I can already see being a big issue. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lynux3 2,043 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 Who cares about Crackdown 3 at this point? It's a financial and critical disaster. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DynamiteCop 2,085 Posted February 17, 2019 Author Share Posted February 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, lynux3 said: Who cares about Crackdown 3 at this point? It's a financial and critical disaster. It's not just about this game, regardless of how this game fairs the bigger issue is the technology and ensuring proper operation. This could greatly benefit games in the future, not just for destruction but in other ways as well. As poor as the game is being received this is the most next-gen game there is, there's nothing else like it and it's pioneered never before seen multiplayer technology which has much broader application. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Goukosan 2,249 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 I have to agree with @Jon2B... that's what Betas are for. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Remij 4,667 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 32 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said: They literally pioneered a technology for online gaming never seen in a game before and you're questioning some launch concessions to ensure function and stability. Do you know how ridiculous that comes off? You're being dumb. There's no baseline for them to go off of, no manual to run to, pushing this to launch scale always breeds different results than isolated pre-launch testing. You can't just throw caution to the wind and wing it, you have to approach something like this tactful and delicately. They should have pioneered a technology for online gaming along with the ability to play with your friends... STOP FUCKING MAKING EXCUSES DUDE. I'd just like to point out, that your view point on any given thing at any given times changes with the wind depending on who it's affecting and who it involves. You're really fucking hypocritical when it comes to shit.. You don't even realize it. You aren't consistent in your views AT ALL. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DynamiteCop 2,085 Posted February 17, 2019 Author Share Posted February 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, Goukosan said: I have to agree with @Jon2B... that's what Betas are for. This coming from a Smash advocate is hilarious, online problems out the ass. A beta helps with isolated stress testing but doesn't paint a picture for post-launch state. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
McWicked 825 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 DamageControlCop! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lynux3 2,043 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 8 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said: It's not just about this game, regardless of how this game fairs the bigger issue is the technology and ensuring proper operation. This could greatly benefit games in the future, not just for destruction but in other ways as well. As poor as the game is being received this is the most next-gen game there is, there's nothing else like it and it's pioneered never before seen multiplayer technology which has much broader application. I think we can all agree on that this game was also a technical disaster seeing as how it's original vision was scaled down significantly. Evident by reviews and recorded footage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DynamiteCop 2,085 Posted February 17, 2019 Author Share Posted February 17, 2019 Just now, lynux3 said: I think we can all agree on that this game was also a technical disaster seeing as how it's original vision was scaled down significantly. Evident by reviews and recorded footage. Scaling back doesn't imply some kind of disaster, the technology clearly works and can be scaled; obviously. The original concept could spin up like 36 servers, they settled on 12 and built from that. It's all about balancing not only the resources but the financial side of things, and it has to be playable, and an actual game. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lynux3 2,043 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 Just now, DynamiteCop! said: Scaling back doesn't imply some kind of disaster, the technology clearly works and can be scaled; obviously. The original concept could spin up like 36 servers, they settled on 12 and built from that. It's all about balancing not only the resources but the financial side of things, and it has to be playable, and an actual game. I never said scaling back would indicate a disaster, but scaling back so significantly to where your original vision doesn't even come close to being met does indicate it's a technological disaster. The game didn't even come close to its original vision. It was ambitious, but at the end of the day the technology was over hyped and ultimately an under delivered mess. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Twinblade★ 3,889 Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 (edited) All that technology and for what exactly? The destruction isn't even impressive and it doesn't benefit the actual gameplay in any way. This is just yet another area where they overhyped and underdelivered. Edited February 17, 2019 by Twinblade 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DynamiteCop 2,085 Posted February 17, 2019 Author Share Posted February 17, 2019 Just now, Twinblade said: All that technology and for what exactly? The destruction isn't even impressive and it doesn't benefit the game in any way. "the destruction isn't even impressive" It's the largest scale destruction in any video game in existence, and it's doing it in multiplayer... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.