the game is not going to be able to handle 1000 plus players on the battlefield
We've never said that it would. In addition to which, a distributed OS like SpatialOS doesn't solve that problem. Whether we used SpatialOS or our own spatial partitioning system it's important to understand the differences between horizontal and vertical scale-out.
Horizontal scale-out is the ability to support a bigger world. With a bigger world you can also support more players. So long as they're spread out. As soon as players start to cluster in one location you're talking about vertical scale-out, which is a bigger problem to solve as you're fighting physics.
As players gather in the world, the load on the individual servers as well as your clients at home increases. We can procedurally sub-divide the server around that location in order to lessen the load, but at some point, there's so many processes running on individual servers that the network traffic and latency actually starts causing the simulation to perform more poorly. That's why it's easier to get 100,000 players in a single world than 1,000 players in a single neighborhood.
And - even if we could subdivide the servers enough to solve the back-end problem - could your PC process the client-side load of updating and rendering 1,000 players on-screen?
In the end, there's a lot of work to do to optimize CoE, but the hardest optimization problems aren't solved through horizontal scale-out or even sub-dividing the world into smaller and smaller chunks. It's solved through understanding of the game mechanics and experience optimizing client engine code like UE4 - something we have experience with.
they should have stayed with improbable because of the redundancy system they had with their server Network would have been useful to them but no they rather build that from scratch which means less money going into the game and more money going to hardware.
We don't pay for hardware. Like most online games, we lease our hardware from server farms. They also have guaranteed up-times with Service Level Agreements (SLAs). They also have redundancy in their hardware to ensure we don't lose data, etc.
improbable also has a deal with Amazon and Google with their cloud services you don't have to pay for them till you start making money on the game itself so you would have unlimited time to test
I could be wrong, but I believe improbable only has a deal with Google, not Amazon. As well, I recommend you read the details of the program more carefully. It could be that you missed a few things.
now you have to pay for the maintenance and replacement of parts for your own Hardware
We don't, actually.
i expect to be disliked off this planet
I'm not going to dislike your post. But I do wonder what benefit there is to coming to a game's website and posting your negative feedback about a decision that's already been made. While people may commiserate their concern, all that really does is stir up concern again for an issue that's already been laid to bed.
You're clearly not going to change our minds with your post, so I don't entirely understand what the purpose of the post was. And if you suspect to be down-voted going in? Why waste the time on the post in the first place? A downvote means people feel you're not contributing to the community.
In any case, I'm closing this thread. Your questions/concerns have been addressed, and there's no reason for people to further come to our defense. We made a decision we're happy with, and continue to feel it was the best long-term decision for us and for the players.