WotC WotC blacklist. Discussion

Fanaelialae

Legend
Yes, Roll20 runs in a browser. And many users complain about performance problems. Foundry and FGU also have users that complain about performance problems. I suspect every existing VTT has a point at which performance becomes a problem. Are you saying otherwise?

Because it really sounds like you are saying that software performance is not an issue with modern hardware. Yet somehow I have meetings almost every week with my developers where performance and how to increase it is at least tangentially discussed. Modern hardware DOES NOT negate the need for good architecture decisions. Nor does good hardware and good architecture mean that performance will never be a problem for any user. There will always be users who try to exceed practical limits and experience performance related issues. Always.

Sure, maybe using actual distances rather than grid simplification might not be a detrimental architecture decision, but it will impact performance at SOME level, and hence consideration of such simplification might be a good architectural decision.
Sure, writing performant code is important.

Similarly important, however, is recognizing when something will make no meaningful difference whatsoever. For example, recursive functions are typically less performant. There are nonetheless many instances where it's the best solution, because the performance hit will be practically nonexistent (nanoseconds) and it's the cleanest and simplest implementation.

Using actual distances vs a grid would not meaningfully impact performance.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
1998's Battlezone for the PC seems to have used radii and distances from things a lot (and even having hit points and resource management).

Typical 1998 PC had 32-128 MB SDRAM?
(Googling typical 1998 computer ram to get a site that doesn't want to load but shows at the top)

A GB of ram doesn't seem uncommon for 2008?
 



Dausuul

Legend
Determining whether a point is inside a circle is two subtractions, three multiplications, an addition, and a compare. ENIAC would not be overtaxed by that.
Exactly. All this comparing of hardware stats is totally beside the point where "grid versus non-grid" is concerned.

Say you've got a big fight with, I don't know, fifty combatants, auras, zones, and other "entities." Say your system requires you, every single turn, to calculate the distance between every distinct pair of entities. This means you need to do the following:

1. Compute x1-x2, y1-y2, z1-z2 (I'm being extra demanding and requiring that our system can handle flying entities).
2. Take the square of each of those numbers.
3. Sum them and take the square root.
4. Do this 1,225 times*.

That's a total of 11,025 flops (floating-point operations, for those unfamiliar with the term). This is nothing. By 1980, we already had chips capable of doing a megaflop per second. There are plenty of things you can do to a modern computer that will strain its hardware, but this ain't one of them.

As I said before, the potential benefits of using a grid would be to make things easier for the developers, not the machines. And even there, the benefit isn't dramatic. A few tasks are easier, the UI is a bit simpler. But the great value of the grid to 4E was that it simplified old-fashioned, face-to-face battlemat play. The VTT would have followed that model, not because there was any compelling technical reason to do so, but to maintain compatibility with the tabletop game.

*50 entities; for each entity, there are 49 other entities it could be paired with; 50 x 49 = 2,450; divide by two because otherwise you're counting each pairing twice, once from each end.
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
I mean, we already had vet’s in 2008 that could handle 4e without problem - Maptool suffered no performance issues, even on my old dinosaur of a computer I used at the time.

Performance issues are typically graphics stuff. The calculations? Yeah that’s not going to make the difference.

The vtt was one element but in 2008, it was a very tiny part of the hobby. I doubt even 10% of gamers had even used one by that point in time.

The hope was that it would be there and it was an avenue of growth but hardly the main focus of development and likely barely registered on the development of 4e.
 

seebs

Adventurer
Note also that you usually don't need to take square roots, because if you're comparing distances for magnitude, you can also just compare the squares of the distances, which were easier to calculate.
 


HomegrownHydra

Adventurer
I'm glad to know that performance is no longer an issue with computer games </sarcasm> Steam Support :: Troubleshooting Game Performance Issues - Hardware.

Yep. And human nature is to throw more and more at a computer to allow them to do the grunt work and then complain when they get overloaded by poor architecture. Scalability is a thing.
Any table top game that humans are capable of playing on their own without a computer is trivially easy for a computer from the last 30+ years to handle. If a particular mechanic or measurement system is slow on a computer from 2008 then it would be impossible for humans to use. Since 4e was intended to be manageable by people the rules wouldn't have imposed any meaningful performance costs on a computer. The only way the rules would have mattered in this regard is if AI was implemented, but that wasn't the case.
 

UngainlyTitan

Legend
Supporter
Yes, Roll20 runs in a browser. And many users complain about performance problems. Foundry and FGU also have users that complain about performance problems. I suspect every existing VTT has a point at which performance becomes a problem. Are you saying otherwise?

Because it really sounds like you are saying that software performance is not an issue with modern hardware. Yet somehow I have meetings almost every week with my developers where performance and how to increase it is at least tangentially discussed. Modern hardware DOES NOT negate the need for good architecture decisions. Nor does good hardware and good architecture mean that performance will never be a problem for any user. There will always be users who try to exceed practical limits and experience performance related issues. Always.

Sure, maybe using actual distances rather than grid simplification might not be a detrimental architecture decision, but it will impact performance at SOME level, and hence consideration of such simplification might be a good architectural decision.
I strongly suspect performance issues with Roll20 is more due to server overload than code performance.
 

Remove ads

Top