Since I suspected that the new Alpha 12 was causing major problems, I didn't set up a server. I am also not ready to provide a Nasa computer for a game so that I can support 30 players. I also miss instructions on how to add new playing fields to a running game. When you see what HWS has to do to host the game, I get really dizzy. https://forum.empyrion-homeworld.net/t/server-hardware-and-cost/4357 Eleon should set specifications that are required for hosting Empyrion. According to my guess, about 2GB of ram is required per Payfield used. If I only want to support 25 players on separate Playfields, I need at least 50GB Ram for the Playfields and that is without the additional RAM that I need. Maybe other server owners can describe their experience with RAM usage. And sorry if the text sounds a bit rough, English is not my mother tongue.
@ravien_ff Ok, I don't know what that means. I literally am speaking for a group of people who have made their opinions clear. I am not claiming to speak for everyone, but dude, I've been on at least ten servers that have had to restart multiple times trying to get a formula that is stable. That includes the Eleon official servers!!! What is hard to understand here?! Play on a 10+ player multiplayer server for two weeks, you should see serious problems after ~6-7 days. Play on a 50 player server and you should see serious problems immediately.
hi there - 25 years in software development here, and this is nonsense. bad code is bad code. there is no reason why they can't optimize in alpha. presumably they don't have unlimited resources, so they need to balance between rolling out new features and optimizing old ones, but that's what many probably most shops would do. it's also nonsense to expect a customer to understand the self-imposed constraints of your supply chain. but hey some folks love to patronize others in forums.
The OP had "optimization" as main request for action. In this type of game and development state that seems too early to me. It is still Early Access and many things to fix and balance and add. Improving the code is another matter, along finding bugs and issues. Reason is that as soon as you change some functionality, you often have to do optimization again, where any previous optimizations then becomes waste of work. Last squeeze of efficient code is the goal for optimization. No change of functions or balancing, unless the process reveal the need of changes. Maybe find ways to simplify workings. Perhaps write some sections of the code in machine language and towards drivers/hardware. Sometimes calculations need to be less complex. Do "compression" of some code and data transfer. An optimization process can have even more to it, can be difficult. If to help the devs with issues or suggestions, then they mostly need detailed info about the situation. "Slow server when many on." is very vague feedback. Hardware, network, game setup, modifications, versions, how many on and what where they doing, maybe tell about vessels and bases if large, logs, and so on. Maybe see/use the "bugs" section of the forum.
This has been addressed and debunked a few times on this thread alone. Why repeating it again ? If they do fix bugs and balance stuff now, I think they can also fix performance issues when they stumble upon them. Of course they can wait for Beta stage to address all problems, but they will have to search and test. I know they are also "learning" along development, so they may very well change some of their coding practices over time. Should they wait when the pile of code is in the stratosphere to start reviewing some elements ? If they put their nose in many features on a daily basis, I really doubt they would leave an obvious problem unattended. By the way, I have to say that the game starts smoother than in previous versions, so they did optimize things a bit, even if we're still in Alpha. Like I wrote previously, this "Alpha" phase excuse has been addressed a few times now, and I did it again here.
I bought this game for many years. And because is still consider in alpha I may consider also this sound like a scam for me. I remember when the game was stable and fun. I don't know what happen to become this piece of sadistic type of game. BTW, and I am almost 30 years experience in software field.
You know you can still play V6 and all following versions, right ? When I bought the game, the store page stated that : "We intend to remain in development for (+/-) 1 year"... So I waited more than one year, and followed progress from there. Then I thought "they have spent the year, and have added many things, so I could as well buy it now while the price is reasonable and maybe I will see the game being finished soon". They changed that some time ago (they added a few years to go). I felt that was a bit cheaty, but then we have to relativize things a bit : we can still play "stable" old versions, with the same rig we had when we bought it, if it becomes unplayable at some point in the last version. Add to this : the game can already be modded to our likings, we can adjust almost everything now. I think that if we stick to semantics, "Alpha" means that they can add core functions, but surely not that they are tied to that and can't do "Beta" phase adjustments. And they do that so the game remains playable for most players, again I don't see a "scam" here. They aim for Steam sales to push out New Versions, and it's their choice. Players can still play at that point, and they have no idea how much the game offers in the present state, even with all complaints taken into account.
I've been playing for a long time, and I have to say, I haven't really had much in the line of stability issues. Sure, I've seen and reported my share of bugs - from things that are just outright broken, to vehicles that bounce off the surface of planets, or planets you can leave, but then get hung in a loading screen forever trying to return to, and then some. You're going to have this sort of thing in an Early Access game, especially one that is still in Alpha. I knew that before I bought this, and I'll continue to know it for every Early Access title I get involved with going forward. I never expect Early Access games to be polished and perfected, or they wouldn't be Early Access - they'd be releases.
