Arma 3 with 1,000 players online .. possible?

[CaptainBravo 0]

Interesting article I have read about a test game in a few days with 1,000 players online (on one map!) to test network load balancing.

I wonder if Arma x will ever reach that number.

More on that article: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/MuchDifferent-Tanks-Robots-FPS-Guinness,14514.html

[cuel 25]

More info

http://muchdifferent.com/?page=game-pikkotekk-pikkoserver

[NoRailgunner 0]

The purpose of this game ("Man vs Machine") is to demo the capabilities of the PikkoServer load balancing product.

Are BIS primarily network engineers or game developers? I wonder if 1000 players online will do better teamwork than 100 or 10.... ;)

[james2464 177]

I would think you need optic fiber between everyone's exchange. most people around the world have noisy copper still...

[CaptainBravo 0]

With Arma 3 size maps, it is begging for 1,000 players size missions!! As for team play, perhaps you do have a point :)

Fiber might not be needed as article mentioned you only need less than half MB/sec. It is still in early stages but I see games in near future moving to bigger is better.

[tacticalnuggets 24]

heh, People already calling for 1000 players online before we can even run 100 smoothly. Net code needs a lot of work most likely, but I cant know for sure.

[NoRailgunner 0]

CaptainBravo you are begging and forecasting without knowing... dream a little dream. :)

[frostwyrm333 1]

maybe its not that apparent but MMOs are really simplified games with simple actions and basically turn based combat, also you would require really good server, so basically not very likely. In arma, position of head, arms, and legs is synced. It wouldn't be a problem if players would be in small groups and far apart, but once the players would get close it would be unmanageable. Maybe it would work for a large LAN party, but online, nope.

[CaptainBravo 0]

The 1,000 players test is for FPS game. They are trying to show off their network code and that it can handle heavy workload which Arma will need for 1,0000 players game. The results will be interesting. BUt I think there are a couple of FPS games coming out with 1,000 player maps.

IN Arma most will be happy with 100 players lag free game! :)

[DancZer 65]

I think in arma is quiet impossible to handle 1000 players because of the complexity.

IN Arma most will be happy with 100 players lag free game!

+1 :)

Edited January 24, 2012 by danczer

[metalcraze 290]

ArmA is lag-free with ~100 players after 1.60

Unless it's your own lag.

I think in arma is quiet impossible to handle 1000 players because of the complexity.

No. There's simply no point.

The test is stupid because nobody will ever play a MP FPS with so many.

Now if one did a more realistic test like 64 players on an average-distance server and checked whether the game is comfortably played with ~100ms ping - comparison results would be actually interesting.

Edited January 24, 2012 by metalcraze

[xeno 234]

The limit of the RV engine is 255 or 256 players (or somewhere around those numbers).

Anyways, this is what is possible:

(left side player numbers, the group uses many addons incl. ACE, they already played with those player numbers before 1.60 was released)

Xeno

Edited January 24, 2012 by Xeno

[DancZer 65]

The limit of the RV engine is 255 or 256 players (or somewhere around those numbers).

Anyways, this is what is possible:

(left side player numbers, the group uses many addons incl. ACE, they already played with those player numbers before 1.60 was released)

Xeno

Impressive! THX

[-Puma- 2]

maybe its not that apparent but MMOs are really simplified games with simple actions and basically turn based combat, also you would require really good server, so basically not very likely. In arma, position of head, arms, and legs is synced. It wouldn't be a problem if players would be in small groups and far apart, but once the players would get close it would be unmanageable. Maybe it would work for a large LAN party, but online, nope.

well if you read the article, they say that the technology supports 10 animations and 1 fire animation per second. When this is ready they say it would be easy for a developer to add the techonology in they´re own game.

I would like to see this very much on arma, but we´ll just have to wait and see:)

[Pulverizer 1]

ArmA is lag-free with ~100 players after 1.60

Unless it's your own lag.

More accurately, 1.60 has improved lag compensation, so lag isn't as easily noticiable as before.

Laws of physics dictate there is no such thing as lag-free on the Internet. That would require faster-than-light communication.

[enforcer4100 10]

I wonder if 1000 players online will do better teamwork than 100 or 10.... ;)

I don't see any reason why teamwork would decrease. I play 70-player missions at my community and it works very well.

decreasing amounts of teamwork isn't the fault of the amount of players, it is the fault of the people who are commanding them. of course coordination between the groups would be more difficult because the chain of command becomes longer ( for realistic missions at least) but that is just a minor problem.

but personnaly I would be hapy to have 250 player coop-missions that run smoothly :)

[metalcraze 290]

Of course. What I've meant are those improvements. Note that I've pointed out the end-user lag.

Still it's quite impressive how ArmA2 is still playable even with 150 ms ping while BF3 is next to unplayable with 70. And BF3 is just as "slow" as ArmA now.

Yet BF3 uses hitscan while ArmA2 uses real ballistics which should've meant the opposite results with those pings.

I don't see any reason why teamwork would decrease.

It will. In no way you can control that many perfectly.

I play 70-player missions at my community and it works very well.

70 are not 700.

[maddogx 13]

More accurately, 1.60 has improved lag compensation, so lag isn't as easily noticiable as before.

Some other aspects were improved aswell, such as lag caused by JIP. I believe the only major problem remaining is people with connection problems causing desync for everyone else. (I could be wrong.)

Laws of physics dictate there is no such thing as lag-free on the Internet. That would require faster-than-light communication.

Go go go, quantum entanglement research! :D

[ratszo 17]

Played 97 pvp this week. Very smooth, didn't even notice the load.

Well done BIS.

Good luck with arma3!

[james2464 177]

Played 97 pvp this week. Very smooth, didn't even notice the load.

Well done BIS.

Good luck with arma3!

Yeah I was there too, great performance, extremely intense firefights with real players. the way it should be.

[cuel 25]

Did you guys even read the information

Pikko Server works by distributing a virtual world over several cell servers, giving each a dynamic part of the world to handle. At the same time, it ensures that players will be given a single, coherent world view that may span over many cell servers. This is accomplished by Pikko Server acting as a load-balancer for the network traffic in the game. After clients and cell servers have connected to Pikko Server, all traffic between them will go through Pikko Server, which will intelligently decide how to route the traffic in order to divide the load between cell servers in the best possible way.

There's still desync problems in 50+ players games, not always but something is causing it, and you need a very good machine to handle all the load. Add a few numbers of AI and it'll be even worse. With Pikkoserver you can set up a few computers (they don't even have to be 'very good') to become a server cluster and Pikkoserver will assign each server a different region/executions to handle, BIS can also assign what information that is 'vital' and what is not, e,g. you getting shot is more important than group channel messages. You'd only receive a lot of information about players near your surrounding (vital), and perhaps only position updates about players that's further away (non-vital). It's a great concept and I can't wait to see it in action

I think in arma is quiet impossible to handle 1000 players because of the complexity.

What makes ARMA more complex than a MMO?

Edited January 24, 2012 by cuel

[CaptainBravo 0]

Server cluster for demanding application has been on for a while now. So it makes sense to use same technology for games. I have seen some Arma missions with 70 players run smooth but see otherd with 30 players lag like there is no tomorrow. So the network code could use a boost and I hope that will be the case with Arma3

[Dwarden 1125]

well it's being rumored PlanetSide 2 will support up to 2000 players per map

(another realistic estimate is 200 per faction, so 600 / map)

Planetside 1 supported around 133 to 166 (depending on map size) per team so it was sub 500

discuss PS2 here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=127777&highlight=planetside

anyway improving the engine and encode is ofcourse our aim and it will be very good to even reach 255 smooth and stable

[DancZer 65]

What makes ARMA more complex than a MMO?

MMO games has separated world parts. They have desync and lagg too, when lot of player are in tha same world part(city, war).

[CaptainBravo 0]

well it's being rumored PlanetSide 2 will support up to 2000 players per map

(another realistic estimate is 200 per faction, so 600 / map)

Planetside 1 supported around 133 to 166 (depending on map size) per team so it was sub 500

discuss PS2 here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=127777&highlight=planetside

anyway improving the engine and encode is ofcourse our aim and it will be very good to even reach 255 smooth and stable

2000 player per 10km maps is what it supposed to have! Which is great if your aim is as good as a blind bat, this way you will not miss getting some hits!!

256 would be ideal and realistic. Looking forward to Arma3!

Edited January 24, 2012 by CaptainBravo