First, I said it (what you stated) was nonsense. Read what I wrote again.
Second, I know precisely what he's talking about and what they've been talking about for years.
Third, I've done all of this before...all the way back to before anyone though AI would be prominent in games. In fact, any version of my Battlecruiser or Universal Combat games does everything they're trying to do - and more. Try playing it or asking someone who has. A dynamic economy driven by AI isn't rocket science...if you know what you're doing.
First, perhaps you missed the start of the conversation. I was originally replying to this post:
"We can have up 4,000 or 40,000 players max on one world at one time". 40,000 players, with a ratio of NPCs of 9 to 1. That equals 360,000 NPCs in one instance/session/server or whatever and 40,000 players too. Not mention these NPC's behaviour describes by Chris will be close to the behavior of real players, have daily routines, fly ships and have physics attributed to them. All with the help of Amazon and server meshing.
*thumps head against the desk* No. No. No. No. No. How much is Amazon gonna charge CiG to use their servers that will be needed to render and communicate all this data with the help of cloud compute?
And just describing the fact that Amazon won't be charging for cloud services for hundreds of thousands of NPCs. I described it as best as my 'under layman' understanding of a couple of videos from years ago could. After watching most of Tony's presentation, I can now see that I was completely correct in the, very rough, interpretation. I can now use terms like, 'players entering a probability volume in space, have a chance of encountering an NPC, and only if you get a positive dice roll, will an entity need to be rendered on the cloud', instead.
So it wasn't nonsense. Not even slightly. Poorly described, perhaps, but not nonsense.
Second, if that is true, surely you can understand my basic attempt at correcting the glaring, error of understanding, of my fellow forumite?
Third, if you've done it before, (what, twenty plus years ago?), maybe others can do it now, maybe even slightly better.
Third, part two, this is completely irrelevant to the original conversation.
Third, part three, I haven't played either of the games you mention, but I have read quite a lot about them, from many and varied sources, and it's generally said, that they are among the most buggy and broken games ever made. This is, of course, still completely irrelevant to my attempted explanation that you were, incorrectly, calling nonsense.
