Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

1000-Player FPS World Record Attempt This Month

Tags:
Last response: in News comments
Share
January 19, 2012 3:40:00 AM

"Be the first to comment on this news!" I am.
January 19, 2012 3:45:32 AM

This news is just in time for me to feel pathetic about my own attempts to create game within any sort of game engine.

Kudos to them. I have absolutely no clue how them came about doing this.
January 19, 2012 3:51:09 AM

dayummm talk about multikill...

hohohohhoooooly shiiittttt..
January 19, 2012 3:53:58 AM

Interesting and brings hope that someday that the average game someday will be on such a massive level. Team based first person shooters should feel like a actual war-zone and even modern games like Battlefield 3 while they try they fall short mainly due to player limits.

I also thought of a way to revise the method and make it easier to beat MuchDifferent's goal. A FPS simply just needs to be just that a first person shooter. It would be much less stress if this was also combined with a turn base element but restricting the player to the first person view. If movement and combat were turn based the stress on the severs and engine would be much less as only half the action is taking place.
January 19, 2012 4:03:30 AM

MMMMMonster Killll...

DOMINATING.
January 19, 2012 4:12:22 AM

One battlefield, thousands of grenades. Game over.
January 19, 2012 4:14:17 AM

PlanetSide on steroids, I love it!

But if you have a sub-par system, you will be left in the dust. Strait from their website:

"What are the system requirements for the game?

The exact minimum requirements will be made available soon. If you have a good enough machine to run Crysis 2 or any other modern FPS game you don’t need to worry."

I do wonder what the games objectives will be though. I can't seem to find any information. Doesn't seem like it has RPG elements, so it might actually be just a huge battlefield with no objectives, only carnage.

Can't wait to see some in-game footage once this day in gaming history is made. It will be interesting.
January 19, 2012 4:17:27 AM

so how meny ppl can simultanius be in wow at a single spot ? well ofc its a mmorpg da! and dont take the kind of pressision needed, a fps has to update lokation and pointing axes alot more often. but it be cool to c how meny ppl you can scram in a place before wow servers go balistick and cant be played smothly eny more.
January 19, 2012 4:28:43 AM

All it took was 1 noob skill-less wannabe hacker to screw the whole thing over.
January 19, 2012 4:28:52 AM

What about World War 2 Online / Battlegrounds Europe?

It's not exactly the most popular game in the world, but I'm sure they did that 1000 players on the same map many years ago.
January 19, 2012 4:44:17 AM

molo9000What about World War 2 Online / Battlegrounds Europe?It's not exactly the most popular game in the world, but I'm sure they did that 1000 players on the same map many years ago.

You would be right. But with WWII Online the battlefield is split up in to different zones/areas.

The point of Man vs Machine is to have 1000 players in the same zone/area at once. As in, theoretically, you could have 500 vs 500 battle on your screen. Not little battles split up on the battlefield.
January 19, 2012 5:12:53 AM

rabidfaceYou would be right. But with WWII Online the battlefield is split up in to different zones/areas.The point of Man vs Machine is to have 1000 players in the same zone/area at once. As in, theoretically, you could have 500 vs 500 battle on your screen. Not little battles split up on the battlefield.


I think WW2OL limits the maximum number of players a client can receive/display (probably something like the 256 nearest players), but apart from that everyone plays on the same map that covers a large chunk of western Europe.

This all depends on how u define "1000 player FPS".
January 19, 2012 5:27:00 AM

I would love to try to do this with a game like Halo on the map Infinity. I've heard of hacks out there that have allowed for more than a 16 player server.
January 19, 2012 5:58:28 AM

X-WING vs. TIE FIGHTER
January 19, 2012 6:00:16 AM

NuclearShadowInteresting and brings hope that someday that the average game someday will be on such a massive level. Team based first person shooters should feel like a actual war-zone and even modern games like Battlefield 3 while they try they fall short mainly due to player limits. I also thought of a way to revise the method and make it easier to beat MuchDifferent's goal. A FPS simply just needs to be just that a first person shooter. It would be much less stress if this was also combined with a turn base element but restricting the player to the first person view. If movement and combat were turn based the stress on the severs and engine would be much less as only half the action is taking place.


like valkeria chronicles...
sounds fun, but could it work multiplayer?
January 19, 2012 6:41:30 AM

Pre-Time Dilation EVE Online could support over 1000 people in fleet fights. With Time Dilation... I have no idea. No, it's not FPS, but the calculations on the server end may be more intensive. The server not only has to calculate movement for each ship, but a combination of up to 24 weapons/tank/utility modules as well as fleet bonuses, drones and area effects per ship. Just the calculations for a hit (tracking/transversal velocity/signature radius/explosion velocity/explosion radius/range/etc) are pretty daunting and that's per gun/missile/drone with thousands active.

The back end for the Guinness record shouldn't be that bad... it's the client dealing with the info and rendering 999 other humanoid players in detail. Something not necessary in EVE as you can zoom out to the point each ship is just a few pixels.
January 19, 2012 7:23:12 AM

I can just imagine battlefield on ^2 scale:Epic.
January 19, 2012 7:42:05 AM

This. This is the future of professional gaming. And possibly warfare. And maybe gaming as we know it.

/hyperbole

I have to say though if they get this working it will be pretty darn cool.
January 19, 2012 7:51:02 AM

I think Planetside pushed around 1,200 people live at SOE Fan Faire 2007 to introduce Black Ops to the game. Everyone logged on as TR and NC for the event, the devs could hardly keep the black ops testers alive as they were being chased down by an insane amount of people. They had to end the event when one of the devs used a meteor shower and it finally did the servers in.

Planetside 2 should be going to BETA soon and from what I understand it will be 1,500 players per continent (server). All I know is I can't wait for PS2, once you have played big no other FPS is the same.
January 19, 2012 8:43:22 AM

Hmmm, guess it would be hard to miss with any shot. :lol: 

"What do you mean you missed!? there over 500 guys just in front of you!"
January 19, 2012 9:10:01 AM

I'm a little wary here; is the "10 movements and 1 firing command" per SECOND seems rather sparse for an FPS. The former could POTENTIALLY cut it, but it would invariably be laggy regardless of whatever smoothing algorithms are applied, and only 1 firing command per second would be horrendous. Assuming that the "420kbps downstream data" would apply to a fully-loaded 1k-player server, that means a measly 420 bits per second of data per player; in other words, it almost sounds like the game's solution to this issue with tons of players at once is to cut precision and fidelity to 1990s-era levels.

The end result is that this may likely wind up looking more akin to a typical "rubber-band-y" MMO than a smooth-running action-packed FPS. If smooth action was desired, I'd have to think that at least 20-30 movement frames would have to be transmitted for each player per second, with, similarly, more status frames for firing and other actions than just one every second.
nicodemus_mmNo, it's not FPS, but the calculations on the server end may be more intensive.

Actually, at least on a player-by-player comparison, EVE Online's serverload isn't as intensive as it is for a modern FPS. While all the "spreadsheets" for those Internet Spaceships may seem daunting to look at, remember that this is ALL of the information the server has to deal with; it's a non-action strategy/RPG. Contrast this to server-backed FPS games, where it has to handle complex physics calculations, and more rapid movement.
January 19, 2012 10:14:13 AM

CCCCCC COMBO BREAKER!!!!
January 19, 2012 11:24:59 AM

I was interested in helping them out but then I saw the 23 euro price tag for just participating and that ended up killing all interest.
January 19, 2012 12:09:29 PM

briteballX-WING vs. TIE FIGHTER

I thought that too and also the Freespace series taking on capital ships with hoards or fighters/bombers... this NEEDS to happen!

January 19, 2012 12:43:19 PM

Yea i miss PlanetSide. The massive amount of players really adds a level of enjoyment. Lets see if Sony can use a better graphics engine. The game play was just fine... Even flying was awesome and quite easy without a joystick.
January 19, 2012 1:00:03 PM

If they get this tech out to real games, the first thing I'd want to do is fight in the battle for Minas Tirith!
January 19, 2012 1:07:57 PM

Hmm I can't wait for vids of this to be posted after the event. Lag grenades here we come!
1k players on a single map hmm I wish that there were pvp events in wow with that many ppl.
January 19, 2012 1:20:51 PM

Send in the banelings and infestors.
January 19, 2012 2:08:21 PM

I would love to help them out, but you don't ask someone to help you and then tell them they aren't allowed unless they pay you first... your buddies would never help you move to your new apartment if you demanded $30 for their having the pleasure of lifting all you heavy sh!t... how absolutely insulting.
Anonymous
January 19, 2012 2:08:49 PM

WWIIOL or Battlefield Europe already has done this. The Map is like 1/4 scale. So you could jump into a plane in England, and fly all across Europe, land in Brussels, get into dog fight over Liege, or get into a tank in Namur and drive to Ramet.

You could line up thousands of people on the road, and drive a Betty down the road and salute to all the troops as you drive by.

Great game.
January 19, 2012 3:16:43 PM

I first read the title as frames per second... I thought to myself maybe they were benchmarking Wolfenstein 3d or something.
January 19, 2012 4:46:47 PM

First person to bring a nuke to the party is going to change the definition of epic win.
January 19, 2012 4:59:07 PM

alidanlike valkeria chronicles...sounds fun, but could it work multiplayer?


Well, it could work each team turn would be restricted by a time limit and tactical minimap could always be in the corner to let you see what near by teammates are going to do. I'll be honest though the game would likely not be fun but I doubt the game in the article will be that either. The goal would be to simply beat the record. A turn based FPS would be much easier to break the record as less action would be going on which is less strain on both the client and servers.
January 19, 2012 5:07:27 PM

we're going to need to call in an orbital strike :) 
January 19, 2012 5:47:07 PM

Jea3cdWWIIOL or Battlefield Europe already has done this. The Map is like 1/4 scale. So you could jump into a plane in England, and fly all across Europe, land in Brussels, get into dog fight over Liege, or get into a tank in Namur and drive to Ramet. You could line up thousands of people on the road, and drive a Betty down the road and salute to all the troops as you drive by. Great game.


Like said above, WW2Online did have a single server with an FPS style with way over 1000 at any one time, but any one client could only see roughly 128 players at any one time. (Remember they built this game with 56K in mind when it started) so you were able to limit it down to 32 or even 16 I believe, but then you wondered why you were dead when you didn't see any PZ in the distance. :/ 

Overall they have a great system still and while it is old vs todays games, I still gravitate back every now and then because it really is so good.

WW2Online, and EVE are my 2 fave MMO's. TOR is a good little break from the complex style of those two, but nowhere near a replacement.

I can see the 1000 Player FPS feature becoming commonplace for many MMO's as long as the game map and setting can handle and really benefit from such a large number of player. I could see the future game Dust 514 being a big candidate for something like this.
January 19, 2012 7:49:17 PM

Seeing how our military is using more and more electronic gadgetry I can see an opportunity to change real warfare forever!
In the future we do not invade other countries, we have a one on one battle online. All soldiers od both sides get fitted out with a game controller and log into the war-server.
than 1 million marines can team up to fight 400,000 Afghan fighters while Iranian hackers (ahem, paramilitary units) try to influence the outcome by crashing (blowing up) the Aircraft carried Server thereby disabling the Flightsimulator playing US Airforce.

and instead of PTSD our soldiers will have carpal tunnel syndrome at the end of the cyber war game.


Don't laugh, it could happen :-)
January 19, 2012 9:22:54 PM

Planetside 1 had the old record. Planetside 2 will beat this one. But always cool to see new big things being tried.
January 20, 2012 2:08:40 AM

notthekingContrast this to server-backed FPS games, where it has to handle complex physics calculations....


Reading comprehension fail. Try again.
January 20, 2012 9:24:04 PM

notthekingActually, at least on a player-by-player comparison, EVE Online's serverload isn't as intensive as it is for a modern FPS. While all the "spreadsheets" for those Internet Spaceships may seem daunting to look at, remember that this is ALL of the information the server has to deal with; it's a non-action strategy/RPG. Contrast this to server-backed FPS games, where it has to handle complex physics calculations, and more rapid movement.


Wow, I guess you were one of those people that couldn't handle the learning curve, and dismiss it as a 'spreadsheet starship' game that's ok my friend does too. But obviously your bias is now moving into the realm of ignorance, the entire game function's on the premise of ship's moving around in a fluid which mean's every object in the game has to go through those darn fangled complex fluid calculations(hey, did you know that's physics too! kinda like water....and smoke from grenade explosions!). Every object is constantly being checked on inertia and velocity, thing's like missles are heavily dependent on this and use velocity of 2 object's as well as explosion calculation's. I could go on, but your probably not going to read this anyway.
January 25, 2012 4:56:35 PM

I can't even imagine the chaos...

If you take Battlefield 3 for example... I think a game like this, with 1,000 players, would need to be set-up like Rush mode type game as apposed to a Conquest type game.

At least in a Rush type game, the players on each side have a central goal (defend or attack ) in one area. This kind of forces the players of each team to work together. Now, in a Conquest type game, you might have one small squad working together and the rest of the team is a bunch of "lone wolfs" seeking personal glory. Can you imagine the chaos of a 1,000 player Conquest type game? It would be fun, but really messy, that's for sure, lol.

"Hey, lets go get that flag!" * Hits the Go-Go-Go command and starts running*
"You guys with me? lets do it!... Guys? Um guys??......." *realizes that there is no one following*
100 defenders vs 1 attacker
"Friggen noobs!" * rage quit*
January 26, 2012 8:41:53 PM

ISP: "Let's throttle the servers' connection, they're using too much bandwidth..."

Holy crap lag

greghomeBattlefield 1918 ? anyone ?Trench rush at it;s best


All we need is a few thousand more players, and we can recreate a typical WWI battle. :) 
!