Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Man vs Machine Breaks Record: 999 Simultaneous Players

Last response: in News comments
Share
January 30, 2012 11:13:36 PM

who cares if its a world record that game looked super boring
Score
-18
January 30, 2012 11:17:03 PM

I was slightly excited for this *not enough to take part in it* but now I feel like it was really lame. At several points he ethier comments that he can't see his shots or it seems like hes fireing point blank and nothing happens. I get this was a test but If hit detection and projectile tracking is bad whats the point. 399 players in a working planet side game seems allot more interesting and incredible then 999 people basically running around. I am going to reserve my final opinion till I hear more but with all that is going on it seems possible that you could throw in some flashing lights some random deaths and tell people there fighting.
Score
-6
January 30, 2012 11:25:05 PM

cheeseborgerwho cares if its a world record that game looked super boring


You missed the point entirely. This is not even a game, it's a test! It was never meant to be a COD or Halo, it was just created to test the network and server technology, and set a world record in the process. It's like saying "3DMark06 is really boring, I can't even move or anything."
Score
26
January 30, 2012 11:28:27 PM

I think Never that my point still stands the thing is that in order to SHOW the technology works for a FPS you need to at least to some degree prove the hits and shots are actually being registered right other wise you prove nothing. In my opinion this video is bunk regardless of weather its really record breaking or not because we see nothing that says to us THIS is done right. Hell for all we know 15% of the hits are not being detected making this basically a cute interactive video of 999 people. To me this would be like throwing a soccer ball in to a crowed stadium and saying that every one there played and its a new record guns in a game doesn't make it a working fps.
Score
-5
January 30, 2012 11:30:58 PM

Awesome, if you ask me!

They're showing it's possible and IMO that's great. Stop hating!
Score
7
January 30, 2012 11:32:41 PM

illfinduI think Never that my point still stands the thing is that in order to SHOW the technology works for a FPS you need to at least to some degree prove the hits and shots are actually being registered right other wise you prove nothing. In my opinion this video is bunk regardless of weather its really record breaking or not because we see nothing that says to us THIS is done right. Hell for all we know 15% of the hits are not being detected making this basically a cute interactive video of 999 people. To me this would be like throwing a soccer ball in to a crowed stadium and saying that every one there played and its a new record guns in a game doesn't make it a working fps.

illfinduI think Never that my point still stands the thing is that in order to SHOW the technology works for a FPS you need to at least to some degree prove the hits and shots are actually being registered right other wise you prove nothing. In my opinion this video is bunk regardless of weather its really record breaking or not because we see nothing that says to us THIS is done right. Hell for all we know 15% of the hits are not being detected making this basically a cute interactive video of 999 people. To me this would be like throwing a soccer ball in to a crowed stadium and saying that every one there played and its a new record guns in a game doesn't make it a working fps.


I agree with you in that regard, however how do we know if the shots and kills were being registered? My response was more towards the sentiment that "the game looks boring" because it's a simple straightforward map with crappy graphics, which to me is perfectly fine for a test. But I do agree that the basic functionality of a FPS should be there, which I honestly don't know if it was or not.
Score
4
January 30, 2012 11:33:32 PM

They are not showing its possible at all there maybe showing it LOOKS possible technically any larger company wanting to show that they broke this record could shove 1500 players in a zone script in some explosions report some mike killed jims and say WOW look at our fps. If I say that my CPU runs at 10 GHZ and then show u a picture of my computer and a screen that says 10GHZ! is that gonna prove any thing to any one?
Score
-6
January 30, 2012 11:37:10 PM

Never you defiantly make a good point and that's what I'm saying , I am not even sure my point is that it WAS fake just that more there was no solid prof of almost any kind that things where really going as they promised , I thought I saw at least one person just running in place how do we know that's not server lag and if it is then it was pointless. I agree it does look boring which is fine for a test but since I see no results then the "test" seems boring as well.
Score
-5
January 30, 2012 11:41:37 PM

So the problem isn't connecting 1000 players, it's KEEPING them connected =P
Score
3
January 30, 2012 11:58:50 PM

Haters gonna Hate, but it looks promising and is certainly a step in the right direction.
Score
9
January 31, 2012 12:17:01 AM

what happened to the 1000th player?
Score
5
January 31, 2012 12:42:05 AM

AznCrackerwhat happened to the 1000th player?


that's the host. for recording and other stuff.
Score
-6
January 31, 2012 12:43:47 AM

the best part is that you have 999 people commenting.
this is hilarious, the best comment I managed to read is....
"What is love, baby don't hurt me"

AHAHAHA, i fell down laughing.
Score
12
January 31, 2012 1:12:22 AM

illfinduNever you defiantly make a good point and that's what I'm saying , I am not even sure my point is that it WAS fake just that more there was no solid prof of almost any kind that things where really going as they promised , I thought I saw at least one person just running in place how do we know that's not server lag and if it is then it was pointless. I agree it does look boring which is fine for a test but since I see no results then the "test" seems boring as well.


Your proof is that it was overseen by Guinness World Records. If it was fake in any way it would not make it. They haven't admitted it yet but odds are in its favor. Also, the idea wasn't to make a 1000 player shooter, it was to make a game that can have 1000 players in it simultaneously. They were one shy but the technology is there and proven. Planetscape may be a better 'game' per se, but the technology is now proven to work. It would take -a lot- of work and money to make a fully functional shooter. Thanks to this record, we may see it in time.
Score
6
January 31, 2012 1:55:18 AM

Not that impressed by this really, EVE Online quite often breaks the 1,000 mark on a single node without much lag. I know of battles that have included well over 3,000 people in the same system, all on one server, all interacting and fighting each other. Admittedly, lag can be quite horrible, but that's over 3 times as many people.
Score
-8
January 31, 2012 2:29:19 AM

BATTLEFIELD 3 Imagine 1000 players.....
Score
11
January 31, 2012 3:12:04 AM

Stupid players can never take direction...lol. Great test though and plenty of particles to make it an actual real scenario.
Score
3
January 31, 2012 4:10:07 AM

Headless your are not getting my point if you read there site Guiness just proved they where all there online, not that the game was actually a fully functioning FPS. The POINT of this test was to show they could have 1000 players PLAYING a fps on there server and what Im seeing doesn't show if there is hit detection weather players are getting disconnected. This was a demonstration of what there hardware can do having 1000 people run round is not nearly the same has running a full functioning game of 1000 people on a server. If this was a test to show there performance where are the results.
Score
-4
Anonymous
January 31, 2012 4:46:24 AM

bunch of noobs not knowing anything from programming.

its called logs and source, they can prove who shot when where. they have recording of people getting shot. but thats part of the GAME not the network technology. the network technology is just supposed to grab that data produced by the game engine and send it to the server... along with 998 other people.

in the end its to check how heavy the server runs under pressure, how much lag people have, what caused lag. etc.... how the game works has NOTHING to do with the technology.

and the pings were great, i would highly reccomend it as a network base for future gaming. also remember the only thing that can make it slower is additional signals that need to be send. so games like crysis will eat more compared to CS/quake which can just jump and shoot.

the data is sent to big companies to assess and possibly invest in the technology.
Score
9
January 31, 2012 5:31:28 AM

blakphoenixNot that impressed by this really, EVE Online quite often breaks the 1,000 mark on a single node without much lag. I know of battles that have included well over 3,000 people in the same system, all on one server, all interacting and fighting each other. Admittedly, lag can be quite horrible, but that's over 3 times as many people.


How do you know that EVE has only one server? As far as you know could be a server farm... that is usual!
The point was to have ONLY ONE SERVER and also it is not about having the players in the game, but having them in same game location simultaneously and interacting with each other! In Eve they are scattered trough the game world. At any single point in time in a single location in game you have only a few people...
Score
1
January 31, 2012 7:32:32 AM

hahaha looked like tons of fun.. Now imagine that on a very big BF3 map.. I wouldn't stop laughing on how crazy that would be. Great video, loved it. =D
Score
-1
January 31, 2012 11:05:21 AM

I think all they did was use the same principle behind bittorrent.
Score
-2
January 31, 2012 11:17:49 AM

This looks awesome, the only time I have ever seen this many interactive characters on a map at once was in the higher levels of Invasion Mode for UT04, on a really small map it gets VERY crowded
Score
0
January 31, 2012 11:32:43 AM

AznCrackerwhat happened to the 1000th player?


he was too fat to fit in
Score
5
January 31, 2012 12:14:19 PM

All you people hating on this are crazy lol. This reminds me on 007 for N64 crossed with space invader. And this wasn't even a real game. If you can't see what's possible with this technology and if you think it looks boring because of how slow they shoot, think about 1 shot per second times 1000 people. All while every person is moving in a possible 10 directions at any point in time. I think it looked really cool and I can't wait for a game like this to be made for action rpg. I would love to charge in battle (swords to shields) with 499 fellow soldiers attacking 500 enemy players and be the last man standing on the field of battle. XD
Score
3
January 31, 2012 1:14:39 PM

In the words of Maxwell Smart : "Missed it by THAT much"

:-)
Score
0
January 31, 2012 1:18:15 PM

_Cosmin_How do you know that EVE has only one server? As far as you know could be a server farm... that is usual!The point was to have ONLY ONE SERVER and also it is not about having the players in the game, but having them in same game location simultaneously and interacting with each other! In Eve they are scattered trough the game world. At any single point in time in a single location in game you have only a few people...


Because the specifications of their server farm get posted in their developer blogs and he plays the game? Their biggest technical limitation is not being to use more than one processor core for a single solar system. Single systems can host battles of over a thousand players, because of the limitation that system can't be running on more than one core. It isn't an FPS though, which I think was the point of the record.
Score
0
January 31, 2012 1:50:09 PM

MP:SA = can theoretically have 500 person on a server: but will lag a lot :p 
Score
0
January 31, 2012 2:06:21 PM

The technology has obviously been proven to work when it comes to hosting mass volumes of players on one shard in what appears to be a playable condition. Yes, the game looked boring. Yes, the game had low level graphics. The game is not even for sale and was only designed for this test.

The next test will be retrofitting this technology to other FPS games. This would never work with Call of Duty. The game is too linear and the player base does not think in open combat tactics, its like counter-strike with pretty graphics. Place this technology on sprawling map based games like Unreal, the Battlefield series, the Starseige Tribes series. Games that had meaningful open world combat where snipers can really be snipers and vehicular combat might actually involve vehicles taking on other vehicles.
Score
1
January 31, 2012 2:17:46 PM

Hmmmm, I would like to see a real-time version of Scorched Earth with this technology.
Score
0
January 31, 2012 2:50:35 PM

World War II online had well over 1000 players in 2002 playing at the same time. It was also on a single map. Don't know how they missed that. Thus, this was not a record at all.
Score
0
January 31, 2012 3:14:25 PM

AznCrackerwhat happened to the 1000th player?
They started counting at 0.
Score
0
January 31, 2012 6:22:25 PM

quovatisWorld War II online had well over 1000 players in 2002 playing at the same time. It was also on a single map. Don't know how they missed that. Thus, this was not a record at all.


Not on a single server, it didn't. Read before you post.
Score
0
January 31, 2012 6:38:01 PM

someguynamedmattNot on a single server, it didn't. Read before you post.


I did read, jerk. WWIIOL ran on a single server, single map, and had over 2000 players playing simultaneously. I still fail to see how that's not a record.
Score
0
January 31, 2012 7:34:02 PM

quovatisI did read, jerk. WWIIOL ran on a single server, single map, and had over 2000 players playing simultaneously. I still fail to see how that's not a record.

Highly doubt the hardware back then could support that many players on a single server. Back then websites would get choked up for a few minutes whenever a TV commercial featured a www address. And it's not a record unless it's officially "observed".
Score
0
January 31, 2012 7:59:49 PM

AznCrackerwhat happened to the 1000th player?


Connection error due to server overload...
Score
0
January 31, 2012 8:43:22 PM

iamtheking123Highly doubt the hardware back then could support that many players on a single server. Back then websites would get choked up for a few minutes whenever a TV commercial featured a www address. And it's not a record unless it's officially "observed".


You can doubt all you want, but it's a fact. I played the game and can verify well over 1000 players were playing at the same time. Toms should contact Cornered Rat Software and get the facts. I believe the developers reported something like 2300 simultaneous users at peak.
Score
0
February 1, 2012 12:43:26 PM

Even if other games reached 300+ playes per map/server this still leads the way to better performance for future games. Whatever hardware/software was used they will offter to other game developers...
Score
0
!