Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
By that I mean, can you work in out with trial and error as you go along or are there tried and tested methods for doing this.
I mean you have a central server that deals with all requests and passes them on accordingly. Is this going to be a lot more difficult than I think it is.
Can you give me an idea/links or what kind of problems you are going to run into.
In other words how much different will this be than say a standard multiplayer game.
This depends completely on skill, scope, and time.
The best way to develop an MMO in today's market (as an indie) would be target 100~ or so concurrent users, and scale up if your needs actually reuire more than that (Which they won't, honestly).
The best way to develop an MMO in today's market (as an indie) would be target 100~ or so concurrent users, and scale up if your needs actually reuire more than that (Which they won't, honestly).
The best way to develop an MMO in today's market (as an indie) would be target 100~ or so concurrent users, and scale up if your needs actually reuire more than that (Which they won't, honestly).
This is rather non-advice.
"Scale up" is a nice term but you display an alarming lack of appreciation for what it actually means. There isn't some knob or switch you twiddle to "scale up" a network architecture. It isn't as if there's a constant NUM_MAX_CONNECTIONS in the code that you just crank up to 1 million.
An architecture that can scale to 100 players is going to look radically different from an architecture that can reach 1000, or 10000, or 100000. There's even a name for this phenomenon: a popular threshold is "C10K" (referring to 10,000 concurrent users).
My point is that if you build a game to handle 100 players and then suddenly become wildly successful and need to handle 1000, you're probably rewriting most of the game at that point. Literally.
This I know is a good reply, I questioned the 'scale up' myself in the same way as you did. No offense meant to conq however. I am still in early stages of learning about this.
The best way to develop an MMO in today's market (as an indie) would be target 100~ or so concurrent users, and scale up if your needs actually reuire more than that (Which they won't, honestly).
This is rather non-advice.
"Scale up" is a nice term but you display an alarming lack of appreciation for what it actually means. There isn't some knob or switch you twiddle to "scale up" a network architecture. It isn't as if there's a constant NUM_MAX_CONNECTIONS in the code that you just crank up to 1 million.
An architecture that can scale to 100 players is going to look radically different from an architecture that can reach 1000, or 10000, or 100000. There's even a name for this phenomenon: a popular threshold is "C10K" (referring to 10,000 concurrent users).
My point is that if you build a game to handle 100 players and then suddenly become wildly successful and need to handle 1000, you're probably rewriting most of the game at that point. Literally.
The proper wording should have been "re-write for" in my post.
My point was that trying to hack together an MMO wouldn't be worth the time, as "MMO's" which have more than 100~ concurrent users are pretty rare in the indie scene.
I'd still contend it's a much better choice to simply not expect/worry about dealing with massive numbers of players until it seems like you might actually reach that point.
these will cost you users
