'Mavericks' Promises 1,000 Player Battle Royale

[Peskanova]

Well with good level desing its not imposible to have 1000 players on a map, just it cant be like pubg where you can look from 1 side to half the map. Sane people uses mountains or any visual blockage to release resources , I remember on udk you can make a special wall that all that is behind its not rendered, things like that are often used, dont think that pubg is the norm, there are a ton of games that has netcode to hold more than 100 players.

googleing 30 seconds : 

Quote

Planetside 2 has gotten the furthest with having 3000-6000 players on a server

 

[Ryujin2003]

7 hours ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

They're gonna need quite some stuff to run this, that's for sure.

If you have 120k+ (as an example) global users at a time, what's the difference in sever support for 120 instances VS 1200 instances? Fewer larger servers vs many smaller ones? But I'm not sure what kind of server would be used it required to host 100 people, not to mention 1000.

[JoeCoke]

I don't care what anyone promises any more, we've had so many broken ones. I don't give two shits till the game actually exists.

[Doobeedoo]

Ow I've heard about it before. The pace and length of games as well as performance and netcode is what I want to see. 

[goodtofufriday]

While 1000 players may seem outlandish, i feel like if they have less servers available, but more people in them, then it will account for the server strain. 

 

Id be more concerned with how long the matches would take

[EarthWormJM2]

8 hours ago, Rainbow Dash said:

How are they even going to be able to run the servers at 60Hz with that many players? It probably would be like 5-10Hz and that would be unplayable.

 

4 hours ago, ScratchCat said:

Minimum Spec: 100Mbps Connection

Recommended Spec: 1Gbps Connection

Playable Spec: Dedicated 100Gbps Fiber Backbone to server. Requires resettling to server location.

Guys, All the heavy rendering and processing is done on the client side, not server side. The servers just need a very small amount of data from each user (like location,health, etc). And for the levels, the servers don't need to render the map, just send the information about where all the map assets will be to you (during the loading screen) then your computer renders it all out for you to see. Not saying they won't need more powerful servers then say Fortnite to handle 1000 players, But the client itself only needs to transfer a small amount of data back and forth to the server. Also, if their engine is optimized well, it might not even need really powerful servers. On the flip side, if the servers can't handle it, you will just experience connection lag, not a loss in frame rate, and a faster internet connection will not fix that.

[The Benjamins]

2 minutes ago, EarthWormJM2 said:

 

Guys, All the heavy rendering and processing is done on the client side, not server side. The servers just need a very small amount of data from each user (like location,health, etc). And for the levels, the servers don't need to render the map, just send the information about where all the map assets will be to you (during the loading screen) then your computer renders it all out for you to see. Not saying they won't need more powerful servers then say Fortnite to handle 1000 players, But the client itself only needs to transfer a small amount of data back and forth to the server. Also, if their engine is optimized well, it might not even need really powerful servers. On the flip side, if the servers can't handle it, you will just experience connection lag, not a loss in frame rate, and a faster internet connection will not fix that.

no one is talking about FPS, Hz can be used for the amount of updates the sever can give to a client. 

 

For example PUBG is about 20-30Hz so the player gets 30 position updates each second.

[Drak3]

10 hours ago, Spotty said:

Are they planning on hiring out all of Amazon's servers to run this?

No, they're just going to use more resources on fewer virtual servers.

[mynameisjuan]

7 minutes ago, EarthWormJM2 said:

 

Guys, All the heavy rendering and processing is done on the client side, not server side. The servers just need a very small amount of data from each user (like location,health, etc). And for the levels, the servers don't need to render the map, just send the information about where all the map assets will be to you (during the loading screen) then your computer renders it all out for you to see. Not saying they won't need more powerful servers then say Fortnite to handle 1000 players, But the client itself only needs to transfer a small amount of data back and forth to the server. Also, if their engine is optimized well, it might not even need really powerful servers. On the flip side, if the servers can't handle it, you will just experience connection lag, not a loss in frame rate, and a faster internet connection will not fix that.

Yeah games use kbps of traffic. Hell the main server would only need a 50mbps.

[EarthWormJM2]

5 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

no one is talking about FPS, Hz can be used for the amount of updates the sever can give to a client. 

 

For example PUBG is about 20-30Hz so the player gets 30 position updates each second.

Ah, I didn't know the term "Hz" is also used to explain the updates per second a server could handle. Thanks for the info!

[Spotty]

12 minutes ago, EarthWormJM2 said:

Ah, I didn't know the term "Hz" is also used to explain the updates per second a server could handle. Thanks for the info!

It's what is known as the "Tick rate" of the server. It's measured in Hz (cycles per second).

[Brooksie359]

13 hours ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

That was mostly server-end. I'm pretty sure Automaton will have better servers to handle this kind of mayhem.

Didn't realize these guys made deceit. Its a really interesting and fun game. I am actually looking forward to see what they can do. 

[ScratchCat]

4 hours ago, EarthWormJM2 said:

 

Guys, All the heavy rendering and processing is done on the client side, not server side. The servers just need a very small amount of data from each user (like location,health, etc). And for the levels, the servers don't need to render the map, just send the information about where all the map assets will be to you (during the loading screen) then your computer renders it all out for you to see. Not saying they won't need more powerful servers then say Fortnite to handle 1000 players, But the client itself only needs to transfer a small amount of data back and forth to the server. Also, if their engine is optimized well, it might not even need really powerful servers. On the flip side, if the servers can't handle it, you will just experience connection lag, not a loss in frame rate, and a faster internet connection will not fix that.

 

4 hours ago, EarthWormJM2 said:

Ah, I didn't know the term "Hz" is also used to explain the updates per second a server could handle. Thanks for the info!

You may have inadvertently have found the make or break point of this game - rendering optimization.

 

The defining features of this game are high player count and alterations to the world i.e footprints or expended rounds. These two features mean that the engine will have to cull horrific quantities of items which are not on screen as the view distance increases.
 

Let us assume that on average a player will walk 1Km or ~1000 steps, shoot 60 rounds and loose 50 drops of blood. This would result in more than 1.1 million items to cull which, without clever tricks i.e. periodic scanning of components which are in range, would not be feasible to run on a CPU. If using batch calling with DX12 this may work, otherwise I think it will have to delete objects after a short time.

 

Note: I do not produce AAA gamesand hence my knowledge is limited.

[bcredeur97]

this is stupid really

[jiyeon]

I don't know what's worse:
- Another damn Battle Royale

- Another damn Battle Royale but with 10x more players

[The Benjamins]

4 hours ago, ScratchCat said:

 

You may have inadvertently have found the make or break point of this game - rendering optimization.

 

The defining features of this game are high player count and alterations to the world i.e footprints or expended rounds. These two features mean that the engine will have to cull horrific quantities of items which are not on screen as the view distance increases.
 

Let us assume that on average a player will walk 1Km or ~1000 steps, shoot 60 rounds and loose 50 drops of blood. This would result in more than 1.1 million items to cull which, without clever tricks i.e. periodic scanning of components which are in range, would not be feasible to run on a CPU. If using batch calling with DX12 this may work, otherwise I think it will have to delete objects after a short time.

 

Note: I do not produce AAA gamesand hence my knowledge is limited.

That is 1 billion updates to clients every tick, so with 30hz server is 30 billion object positions sent a second. lets say some of those can be bundled per packet (1000) that is 30 million packets per second for 1 game instant. the fastest 1Gb router from ubiquity can do 3.5 million packets per second. the 10Gb router can do 18 million packets per second.

 

not sure how accurate that is to real world networking for a game server but this is a LOT of stuff to track and update networking wise. the issue is not speed of the servers but the networking.

[Jtalk4456]

i wonder how much it will cost

[PCGuy_5960]

The game's probably going to be a lagfest. If they pull this off, I'm going to be impressed tho.

[ScratchCat]

13 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

That is 1 billion updates to clients every tick, so with 30hz server is 30 billion object positions sent a second. lets say some of those can be bundled per packet (1000) that is 30 million packets per second for 1 game instant. the fastest 1Gb router from ubiquity can do 3.5 million packets per second. the 10Gb router can do 18 million packets per second.

 

not sure how accurate that is to real world networking for a game server but this is a LOT of stuff to track and update networking wise. the issue is not speed of the servers but the networking.

It wouldn't actually be that bad as the high count items are all static e.g footprints or spent ammo and hence only need to be transferred once.

[xAcid9]

23 hours ago, EarthWormJM2 said:

Guys, All the heavy rendering and processing is done on the client side, not server side. The servers just need a very small amount of data from each user (like location,health, etc).

That is a good recipe for client side hacking if things like health, ammo or even location is on client side you can definitely use cheat like infinite ammo, god mode and fly thru. 

[The Benjamins]

6 hours ago, ScratchCat said:

It wouldn't actually be that bad as the high count items are all static e.g footprints or spent ammo and hence only need to be transferred once.

fair point, but this game will have a lot more then most other big player games like PUBG, BF, ect

[ItsMitch]

let me know if their servers can handle the first 2 days of launch. 

[Crunchy Dragon]

10 minutes ago, Jonnyswboy said:

Planetside 2.

How many players does that get, 200?

 

I honestly forget.

[ScratchCat]

On 6/29/2018 at 11:45 AM, Peskanova said:

Well with good level desing its not imposible to have 1000 players on a map, just it cant be like pubg where you can look from 1 side to half the map. Sane people uses mountains or any visual blockage to release resources , I remember on udk you can make a special wall that all that is behind its not rendered, things like that are often used, dont think that pubg is the norm, there are a ton of games that has netcode to hold more than 100 players.

googleing 30 seconds : 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

How many players does that get, 200?

 

I honestly forget.

 

[xAcid9]

6 hours ago, Jonnyswboy said:

Planetside 2.

I play PS2 before, performance definitely drop below 60 and even 30 on massive battles.