official Tom Clancy's The Division

[Pupik]

Checked whatifgaming and I don't see any similarities in the English. Also checking that site, I learned that the developer is actually from Ubisoft Massive like I guessed before; which explains the not so good (but still completely understandable) English.

 

Re-read what I wrote. I said the game performance (which gets worse when you raise thee graphical quality of the game) effects the latency. You can test it easily by yourself by limiting the FPS of an MP game that you play on regular basis and see how that effects the latency to the worse. Or if you got an old computer in your house, just launch a new game on it that will straggle to run it at good frame rate and see how much of a worse latency you'll get, even though it's still connected to the same modem/router that your newer PC is connected.

 

And it's true that the dedicated servers aren't rendering the game as you see it on your own monitor (when I ever said it did?), but if those calculations that the server has to perform is too much for it to handle; everyone on the server will get worse latency to the server the same way as you get worse latency to the server if your own computer can't handle the game well (see above).

 

And do you really expect to see the same graphics that you saw in the E3 demonstrations upon release?

[Athernar]

Checked whatifgaming and I don't see any similarities in the English. Also checking that site, I learned that the developer is actually from Ubisoft Massive like I guessed before; which explains the not so good (but still completely understandable) English.

 

Re-read what I wrote. I said the game performance (which gets worse when you raise thee graphical quality of the game) effects the latency. You can test it easily by yourself by limiting the FPS of an MP game that you play on regular basis and see how that effects the latency to the worse. Or if you got an old computer in your house, just launch a new game on it that will straggle to run it at good frame rate and see how much of a worse latency you'll get, even though it's still connected to the same modem/router that your newer PC is connected.

 

And it's true that the dedicated servers aren't rendering the game as you see it on your own monitor (when I ever said it did?), but if those calculations that the server has to perform is too much for it to handle; everyone on the server will get worse latency to the server the same way as you get worse latency to the server if your own computer can't handle the game well (see above).

 

And do you really expect to see the same graphics that you saw in the E3 demonstrations upon release?

 

I read what you wrote fine, and you're still wrong. Connection latency is not effected by graphics. A slow client is a slow client, latency doesn't come into it.

 

The point you're trying to make regarding dedicated servers is invalid, as short of running the server on a potato - any halfway modern server is going to have more than enough compute capacity to host at least one instance. The base world simulation is not horrendously expensive, even in a MP environment the client has to run a local world simulation - and that's precisely why people notice "bad reg" issues with certain titles, because the local sim's interpolation is not accurately reflecting the server-side sim.

 

Besides, you still haven't explained to any degree why moving the main (authoritative) world sim out to a remote server would impact the local framerate. If anything it would improve performance as the burden (however small) of performing the server role has been offloaded.

 

No, I think you're too caught up in your little Ubisoft bash-bandwagon - which while may be deserved for recent actions, this certainly is not one of them.

[astropheed Veteran]

 

Let's keep it friendly guys. :)

[Pupik]

Well, alright. I'll be nicer this time (even though I was nice in my previous reply).

I read what you wrote fine, and you're still wrong. Connection latency is not effected by graphics. A slow client is a slow client, latency doesn't come into it.

It seems like you just ignored what I wrote, so I'll just paste you a few videos to watch:

 

Graphics (there's a lot of stuff included in that. It's not just texture resolutions and anti-aliasing) always played and always will play a roll in the performance of the latency. Both in server and client side (differently in both). If it's a new information to you, I'd recommend you to "read up on client/server architecture in games".

[Athernar]

Well, alright. I'll be nicer this time (even though I was nice in my previous reply).

It seems like you just ignored what I wrote, so I'll just paste you a few videos to watch:

 

Graphics (there's a lot of stuff included in that. It's not just texture resolutions and anti-aliasing) always played and always will play a roll in the performance of the latency. Both in server and client side (differently in both). If it's a new information to you, I'd recommend you to "read up on client/server architecture in games".

 

No, I didn't ignore what you wrote. You're just making the typical gamer mistake of using unreliable ingame "testing" as the basis of your reasoning. In the same vein, if I had a dollar for every gamer that claimed having stupidly high frame rates in tickrate-locked games actually made a difference I'd be a Billionaire. The latency of a connection does not impact the local framerate, and the local framerate does not impact the latency of a connection. A slow client is a slow client, simple as that.

 

Now if you're done wasting time on that one minor point that is not really relevant to the core argument, I'd be more interested in hearing your response/explanation for the other point I raised in (95% of) my previous post, and which you ignored even after criticising me for ignoring your post.

 

If you prefer less reasoning and more appeal to authority, I've also ran this article past people working for a game studio, and their response was "it's just words" too.

[Pupik]

Not relevant to the core argument? This whole argument started with you saying "Graphics don't have any relation to the latency on an internet connection." and when I proved to you that it actually does, you retaliate with "A slow client is a slow client" without anything to back it up and then shove extra to that a completely unrelated "tell me the cons and pros of cloud computing"? Dude, I don't have time for that. And just so you'd know; I tweeted that to a big black woman and her response was "right on!".

 

(By the way: One paragraph out of four, is not 95%)

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Instead of this "you ignored x post / paragraph" back and forth, agree to disagree and move on please.

[Razorwing]

 

Very Accurate I'd say. 

[Dane]

When is the new gameplay video coming?

[Pupik]

When is the new gameplay video coming?

According to their twitter: new gameplay footage (from Xbox One) going to be shown at Gamescom 2014.

[fusi0n]

I can't wait for this game!!

[Dane]

According to their twitter: new gameplay footage (from Xbox One) going to be shown at Gamescom 2014.

Ahh ok thanks.

[dipsylalapo Supervisor]

Just had an email with a code to try the Alpha. It's starting on 9/12 and ending 12/12. Finally a chance to try this game.

[Razorwing]

This is a bit late.. not sure if you guys have seen this yet. 

 

 

[jnelsoninjax]

8 minutes ago, Razorwing said:

This is a bit late.. not sure if you guys have seen this yet. 

 

 

That's pretty badass looking!

[Razorwing]

New Trailer ! 

 

 

 

[+Asmodai MVC]

I really don't understand what this game is.

 

For example if I look at the wikipedia entry for it it starts out with:

"open world third-person shooter role-playing video game with survival elements"

That absolutely sounds like something I'd be interested in and the graphics and such look amazing!

"open world", "role-palying", and "survival elements" are all things I enjoy in games.

I don't play online multiplayer games though and wikipedia also lists MMO in the category the game is in.

I know the game has a single player aspect but can it be played completely offline?  Is that aspect alone an open world RPG with survival elements or is the single player part just a somewhat linear "campaign" and the "open world" is the online component?  Or even worse is the single player just the online part with bots instead of other players?  I also see this stuff about "Dark Zones" but some things I read about it makes it sound like all the best loot is in these zones and they are PvP zones so if you're single player/offline only then you're out of luck.

 

I can't figure out if this game is more like Destiny (which I personally can't stand... just my personal preference) or Fallout 4 (which I love).  I assume it's somewhere in between but I just can't seem to get a clear picture of where exactly in that gap it falls.

[HawkMan]

23 hours ago, Asmodai said:

I really don't understand what this game is.

 

For example if I look at the wikipedia entry for it it starts out with:

"open world third-person shooter role-playing video game with survival elements"

That absolutely sounds like something I'd be interested in and the graphics and such look amazing!

"open world", "role-palying", and "survival elements" are all things I enjoy in games.

I don't play online multiplayer games though and wikipedia also lists MMO in the category the game is in.

I know the game has a single player aspect but can it be played completely offline?  Is that aspect alone an open world RPG with survival elements or is the single player part just a somewhat linear "campaign" and the "open world" is the online component?  Or even worse is the single player just the online part with bots instead of other players?  I also see this stuff about "Dark Zones" but some things I read about it makes it sound like all the best loot is in these zones and they are PvP zones so if you're single player/offline only then you're out of luck.

 

I can't figure out if this game is more like Destiny (which I personally can't stand... just my personal preference) or Fallout 4 (which I love).  I assume it's somewhere in between but I just can't seem to get a clear picture of where exactly in that gap it falls.

I believe you have story single player "instances", and multiplayer/pvp areas you can avoid if you want, and then you have the world where you walk between the zones/instances and probaby can't fight, maybe if you're PVP tagged manually. So I would guess it's like a modern spruced up version of Hellgate:London but less demons and stuff. 

[Razorwing]

On 1/15/2016 at 11:17 AM, Asmodai said:

I really don't understand what this game is.

 

For example if I look at the wikipedia entry for it it starts out with:

"open world third-person shooter role-playing video game with survival elements"

That absolutely sounds like something I'd be interested in and the graphics and such look amazing!

"open world", "role-palying", and "survival elements" are all things I enjoy in games.

I don't play online multiplayer games though and wikipedia also lists MMO in the category the game is in.

I know the game has a single player aspect but can it be played completely offline?  Is that aspect alone an open world RPG with survival elements or is the single player part just a somewhat linear "campaign" and the "open world" is the online component?  Or even worse is the single player just the online part with bots instead of other players?  I also see this stuff about "Dark Zones" but some things I read about it makes it sound like all the best loot is in these zones and they are PvP zones so if you're single player/offline only then you're out of luck.

 

I can't figure out if this game is more like Destiny (which I personally can't stand... just my personal preference) or Fallout 4 (which I love).  I assume it's somewhere in between but I just can't seem to get a clear picture of where exactly in that gap it falls.

It's a bit different from Destiny and Fallout 4.  It's an open world littered with AI where you kill them for loot. The "Darkzone" is also in the world where you can enter seamlessly is also where the AI are also. The difference is the Dark Zone you can turn on other players to kill them to get their acquired "Dark Zone loot" which is only specific to the Dark Zone. However, you can also get these loot from the normal world by RNG. It is just the Dark Zone has a better drop chance of good loot. 

 

I can see where you are making the connections to Destiny.. yeah it's a RNG loot + tons of farming. It's not really survival per Fallout 4..but there are place which are continminated in the open world where you need filters for your mask to go in.. 

 

I'm not sure if I answered your question..hope it is clear. 

[+Asmodai MVC]

19 hours ago, Razorwing said:

It's a bit different from Destiny and Fallout 4.  It's an open world littered with AI where you kill them for loot. The "Darkzone" is also in the world where you can enter seamlessly is also where the AI are also. The difference is the Dark Zone you can turn on other players to kill them to get their acquired "Dark Zone loot" which is only specific to the Dark Zone. However, you can also get these loot from the normal world by RNG. It is just the Dark Zone has a better drop chance of good loot. 

 

I can see where you are making the connections to Destiny.. yeah it's a RNG loot + tons of farming. It's not really survival per Fallout 4..but there are place which are continminated in the open world where you need filters for your mask to go in.. 

 

I'm not sure if I answered your question..hope it is clear. 

I found this article:
The Division Can be Played as a Single Player Title, but “there won’t be any offline support”

It's from March 2014 so I don't know if things have changed or if that source is credible but no offline support is a dealbreaker for me personally.

From what I can tell reading articles about the game there really is no single player at all.  There is a server based world (i.e. not hosted on your box at all thus no offline mode) that you can just decide not to team with people on and thus play "single player".  Other players are still there and you may run into them though you're just playing "single player" because you're not teaming with them.  Also PvP is only in the "Dark Zones" but it's a seemless world so if you go through a door into the dark zone or jump a wall or something when you're not paying attention then you'll be in the PvP zone, there is no load screen or anything.  I'm sure it's going to be a great game for people who like always online games and the graphics look amazing but if all that's true and I didn't seriously misunderstand something it's not my type of game at all despite the wikipedia lead in seeming to indicate it was.

[Razorwing]

6 minutes ago, Asmodai said:

I found this article:
The Division Can be Played as a Single Player Title, but “there won’t be any offline support”

It's from March 2014 so I don't know if things have changed or if that source is credible but no offline support is a dealbreaker for me personally.

From what I can tell reading articles about the game there really is no single player at all.  There is a server based world (i.e. not hosted on your box at all thus no offline mode) that you can just decide not to team with people on and thus play "single player".  Other players are still there and you may run into them though you're just playing "single player" because you're not teaming with them.  Also PvP is only in the "Dark Zones" but it's a seemless world so if you go through a door into the dark zone or jump a wall or something when you're not paying attention then you'll be in the PvP zone, there is no load screen or anything.  I'm sure it's going to be a great game for people who like always online games and the graphics look amazing but if all that's true and I didn't seriously misunderstand something it's not my type of game at all despite the wikipedia lead in seeming to indicate it was.

That's absolutely fine. It was always going to be a always online game. I don't think they ever thought of it going offline. That's the thing.. it seems most games are heading into that general direction now. I'm not saying all games are.. I'm saying all the companies are pushing into that general direction. 

[+Asmodai MVC]

2 minutes ago, Razorwing said:

That's absolutely fine. It was always going to be a always online game. I don't think they ever thought of it going offline. That's the thing.. it seems most games are heading into that general direction now. I'm not saying all games are.. I'm saying all the companies are pushing into that general direction. 

I'm not sure what you mean by it's absolutely fine.  Did I imply it wasn't?  I was just asking if it could be played offline or not as it's marketing seemed unclear to me.  When a game says it supports single player it's unclear if it needs to be continuously connected to an online server or not.  I'd say most single player games DON'T need not stay online and I'm not sure I'd agree that most SINGLE PLAYER games are heading in that direction.  Of course multiplayer games require online.

 

I'm not sure calling a game "single player" is really accurate though if the game is server hosted and you can seemlessly run into other players just because you aren't teamed with them though.  I'd say that's more of a complaint about the marketing of the game though than the games design.  I don't think there is anything wrong with the way they designed the game, so sure "it's absolutely fine", it's just not the type of game I have any interest in and I was uncertain if that was the case or not because I found their marketing of it confusing.

[Razorwing]

I meant it was "Absolutely fine" you may not like this game because of the always online aspect. I think what the article meant was you can play the game solo.. so not exactly single player..but to a point it is Single player on a server. Most of the marketing don't market that you can play by yourself though. There's the option of it..but most of the time it pushes for teaming up with your friends to run through the game. 

 

 

[Razorwing]

Here's a interview with the Creative Director. 

 

 

 

[Razorwing]

If anyone has a beta code for either XB1/PS4/PC..it should be available to pre-load tomorrow.  Beta starts on Thursday for XB1, Friday for PS4/PC. It also ends on Sunday unless they extend it.