cRPG
Off Topic => General Off Topic => Topic started by: Nessaj on February 01, 2012, 06:09:30 pm
-
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
(http://www.muchdifferent.com/1000playerfpspostapocalypse/)
Check the videos on the site (clicky)
-
Lol I've been playing that for 10 minutes then the servers was full all the time.
-
Lol @ scores.
How could they think doing a dev vs gamer match would be a good idea :mrgreen:
Very impressive though :D
-
Amazing.
1000 guys on a battlefield. 8-)
Imagine a medieval game with such numbers. /gasm
-
1000 guys on a battlefield. 8-)
Imagine a medieval game with such numbers. /gasm
I recon at least 700 of 'em would shoot/throw something so it would be same shit as this, maybe even worse.
-
I recon at least 700 of 'em would shoot/throw something so it would be same shit as this, maybe even worse.
Sounds realistic. :)
-
1000 man melee only.
God.
Imagine the possibilities....You could have actual ranks with real commanders and such...Pretty much historical accurate even...mhhmhmm
-
Yup.
The server did crash at the event though but they did some tweaking and had it up again shortly after.
Gotta remember Minh Le is the creator of Counter-Strike, a game that pioneered FPS gaming for countless years and some would argue it still does, it is great to see such a visionary programmer trying to achieve something unique again, trying to set the mark for how many players is actively playing together at the same 'spot' and at the same time is definitely a wet dream for many gamers.
-
"The secret behind being able to handle a much larger amount of players in one First Person Shooter (FPS) battlefield lays in having several (in this case 8) single-threaded servers working together as one."
I know this is a demonstration game.. But is it feasible to increase warband player count with better machines? Is there a "hard cap" or hard soft cap to the amount of players that warband can deal with?
Would be interesting if one could organize and test a super-server to see if something like this is possible..
What you say cmpx?
-
Nothing is impossible, but someone would need to shell out the (or $$$) for the servers, wouldn't be cheap to test.
Anyone with a server park laying around? :wink:
Doesn't all the current official C-RPG servers run on two machines in EU and just one in NA (or something like that), would need at least 4 really good servers linked at one location IMO and that's 4 servers alone to host 1 actual gaming server.
Expensive.
-
Also, battle mode would suck with 1000 players.
Imagine getting lanced at the start of the round and then have to wait 15 minutes for a new round :D:D
Although with a regular respawn, this would be the most fun I could imagine.
-
Lovely, looking forward to what will be made with this. MMOFPS yay!
How smooth was it?
-
Lovely, looking forward to what will be made with this. MMOFPS yay!
How smooth was it?
Super smooth I had no lag at all.
-
I am always pretty impressed by how the crpg battle server handles 120 players. If a small developer like Taleworlds can manage that, why can't the big names? 150 players on Mount & Musket last night without lag, although the server sorta crashed after a while.
-
What blows my mind is how Taleworlds can be so retarded and NOT host a few quality Warband servers here and there for their own game. It would cost them pennies.. Or even finance cRPG's servers.
cRPG is keeping their game alive, and god knows how many copies is sold because of it. (4 of my friends bought it after I recommended it)
-
I expect 1000 player cap in M&B2, nothing less. Oh the arrow volleys..
-
I expect 1000 player cap in M&B2, nothing less. Oh the arrow volleys..
Incoming MW Huscarl Shields
-
"The secret behind being able to handle a much larger amount of players in one First Person Shooter (FPS) battlefield lays in having several (in this case 8) single-threaded servers working together as one."
I know this is a demonstration game.. But is it feasible to increase warband player count with better machines? Is there a "hard cap" or hard soft cap to the amount of players that warband can deal with?
Would be interesting if one could organize and test a super-server to see if something like this is possible..
What you say cmpx?
Afaik, that kind of distributed computing requires that the software being run is very specific and designed explicitly for that. In other words, doing it would require changing the exe of the game, and probably some massive amount of core engine code.
-
You could have 10,000 players in a game but if it's a shit game it's not going to be anything more than a gimmick. Really this is just for some people to say they broke a record, which no one really gives a shit about, people more care about playing decent games with such a large number of players lol.
-
You could have 10,000 players in a game but if it's a shit game it's not going to be anything more than a gimmick. Really this is just for some people to say they broke a record, which no one really gives a shit about, people more care about playing decent games with such a large number of players lol.
I would tend to agree. The interest of warband public servers is already not very clear to me when there are 120 people playing. Massive MP action games only work out well when people are organised and working as teams, because teamwork becomes more effective than skill when you increase the numbers. Large scale pub battles are quite unsatisfying.
-
Tactical sims are the most fun with alot of players. Games like Arma, where your only gunna do well if you coordinate properly and each person fulfills the role they are supposed to.
100+ players on that is damn fun, way more than something like CoD of BF ever could be.
-
Oh god, 1000 organized players on ARMA II. I need to jack off now
-
"The secret behind being able to handle a much larger amount of players in one First Person Shooter (FPS) battlefield lays in having several (in this case 8) single-threaded servers working together as one."
The secret behind being able to handle a much larger amount of players in one First Person Shooter (FPS) is doing it in a very simple game without demanding stuff like collision detection and complex game logic.
Completely meaningless "record", we can talk about it when they decide to do it with a real game.
You could have 10,000 players in a game but if it's a shit game it's not going to be anything more than a gimmick. Really this is just for some people to say they broke a record, which no one really gives a shit about, people more care about playing decent games with such a large number of players lol.
My thoughts exactly.