![]() ![]() That said, obviously every new thing you add to the game (another hearthling, another set of jobs, another tree to keep track of. So, the issue isn't "20 workers", it's all the outside factors that make the game so much more difficult to run over a long (or even short!) distance than just running it locally. although a couple of players did build up a bit of everything and play lone wolf towns.) Really, that's the ideal situation any "real-world" multiplayer scenario is going to be less optimal. some players focus on food, some players focus on crafting, some make armies everyone trades and works together. on a local area network, everyone using high-end dev machines, with a dedicated server on a similarly powerful box, and with most players trying to work together so they don't have everyone making duplicates of everything (i.e. The devs showed video of the game running very smoothly with like 4-6 players. ![]() In an ideal world, you'd run a headerless dedicated server that's geographically positioned in the centre of all players' locations (obviously this is tricky to do unless you can rent a server somewhere or you're really lucky about where your players are located and the person in the middle can run a dedicated host machine), since that cuts down the travel time for game data by as much as possible. Also ignore multi-core power, the only thing that matters is the threadwidth/power of an individual core since Stonehearth runs one "main" thread (it does shift as much as possible into other threads, but the way it's built simply works better with a "main" thread for all the simulation to happen in) it's better to have a few really powerful cores than to have lots of less powerful ones. ![]() *ignore graphics power for this, it's all about the actual CPU processor. I've seen a few people complaining of lag where it turns out that the person with the better-suited PC for running Stonehearth only experiences lag because their host is running a less suitable PC, and where switching the host makes a dramatic improvement. It's also important to ensure that the more powerful* computer is the host, otherwise you can get into a situation where the clients have finished all their current tasks and are waiting on new info from the server to move on to the next tick/frame. Even with the fastest internet in the world though, if your players are spread far apart (e.g opposite sides of the US, or one player in Europe and one player in Australia) you're still going to see some lag. Now I know your bar is purple which would point at a different issue in your case but this really work wonders for us, might be worth it giving a try.The biggest/most important one is always going to be the physical distance between the players, since longer distance for data to travel = higher latency = processing delays (the server being "stuck waiting for info" before it can update the next tick/frame.) The second biggest factor is internet speed, since that's basically the same problem. Nowadays with good anti-lag agreements between us we can easily have two separate villages with 30 hearthlings each on the same map prospering with no lag spikes." We sell overstock for cash all the time as money doesn't lag the game, we never keep too much of anything, in our first two games my wife would chop a huge forest and fill two max size stockpiles with logs right on day one, the game then would start lagging already by the end of the first week. "From my experience (and all my hours in the game are in multiplayer with my wife) the biggest issue is number of itens in the world, never stock too much stuff, keep your stacks low, no more than 20 of anything (stone, wooden logs, ore, stew, etc) unless you are building a large project or many small ones at the same time at that moment, but then you better spend it quickly. ![]() Here's my opinion quoted from a post of mine on steam: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |