DICE: Battlefield 3 could support 256-player online matches
http://www.connectedconsoles.com/ps3/di … ches/3187/
http://www.connectedconsoles.com/ps3/di … ches/3187/
Pages: 1 … 73 74 75 76 77 … 683
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 3 »
- Battlefield 3 - Main Thread
Cool that they could if they wanted to. That means the engineering behind the scenes is good! I think for larger maps that have distributed hotspots and jets and the like, 64 is great. You just have to scale the maps up I guess to accommodate more people...Roc18 wrote:
DICE: Battlefield 3 could support 256-player online matches
http://www.connectedconsoles.com/ps3/di … ches/3187/
256 players... think of the lag! Get a handful of morons with dialup connections and the server is fucked.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I sure that ranked servers will force a maximum of 64.
Or at least I hope that they do.
Or at least I hope that they do.
Lots of BF2 servers are set to autokick high-pingers. I don't see why you'd worry about dialup on BF3.JohnG@lt wrote:
256 players... think of the lag! Get a handful of morons with dialup connections and the server is fucked.
Because there were still tards playing BC2 with dialup. (or playing from Australia or Europe on American servers)unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Lots of BF2 servers are set to autokick high-pingers. I don't see why you'd worry about dialup on BF3.JohnG@lt wrote:
256 players... think of the lag! Get a handful of morons with dialup connections and the server is fucked.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2011-03-09 09:34:28)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
If they have a lick of sense, dedicated servers will be able to filter pings.
problem can be solved with decent netcode and ping limits tbhJohnG@lt wrote:
256 players... think of the lag! Get a handful of morons with dialup connections and the server is fucked.
they're also going to probably release a benchmark, wouldn't kill them to include internet speed in that benchmark as well.
Last edited by Trotskygrad (2011-03-09 10:25:48)
No it can't, 256 people is just a massive strain on any server. No matter how prefect the net-code is, high player counts will lead to lag. Also as DICE said that the official player limit is 64, I doubt that they will bother attempting to limit lag at anything higher than that.Trotskygrad wrote:
problem can be solved with decent netcode and ping limits tbhJohnG@lt wrote:
256 players... think of the lag! Get a handful of morons with dialup connections and the server is fucked.
they're also going to probably release a benchmark, wouldn't kill them to include internet speed in that benchmark as well.
how do MMOs do it? obviously we're missing something here... or this guy is an idiot...Doctor Strangelove wrote:
No it can't, 256 people is just a massive strain on any server. No matter how prefect the net-code is, high player counts will lead to lag. Also as DICE said that the official player limit is 64, I doubt that they will bother attempting to limit lag at anything higher than that.Trotskygrad wrote:
problem can be solved with decent netcode and ping limits tbhJohnG@lt wrote:
256 players... think of the lag! Get a handful of morons with dialup connections and the server is fucked.
they're also going to probably release a benchmark, wouldn't kill them to include internet speed in that benchmark as well.
http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/96284 … ge__st__15
I myself have not done much research into this topic... so I'm not one to judge
quite a lot more to it than that. Getting a fast paced fps game playable for 256 players online is quite a feat. That's some great engineering going on to get that. Games like WoW can't be compared because there is little requirement to display the correct location of players on each players screen, they can be loose/lazy about it. Not so with an fps like this.Trotskygrad wrote:
problem can be solved with decent netcode.
MMOs do it by keeping the vast majority of the code used in the game on the server. Players don't have any interaction with another person ping. It's all Player <--> Server instead of Player <--> server <--> player <--> player <-- server --> etc.Trotskygrad wrote:
how do MMOs do it? obviously we're missing something here... or this guy is an idiot...Doctor Strangelove wrote:
No it can't, 256 people is just a massive strain on any server. No matter how prefect the net-code is, high player counts will lead to lag. Also as DICE said that the official player limit is 64, I doubt that they will bother attempting to limit lag at anything higher than that.Trotskygrad wrote:
problem can be solved with decent netcode and ping limits tbh
they're also going to probably release a benchmark, wouldn't kill them to include internet speed in that benchmark as well.
http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/96284 … ge__st__15
I myself have not done much research into this topic... so I'm not one to judge
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
And this, yes.Buckiller wrote:
quite a lot more to it than that. Getting a fast paced fps game playable for 256 players online is quite a feat. That's some great engineering going on to get that. Games like WoW can't be compared because there is little requirement to display the correct location of players on each players screen, they can be loose/lazy about it. Not so with an fps like this.Trotskygrad wrote:
problem can be solved with decent netcode.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
well yeah one argument in that thread was that MMOs had auto aim, comparatively FPS has a tiny window of opportunity (the hitbox)...Buckiller wrote:
quite a lot more to it than that. Getting a fast paced fps game playable for 256 players online is quite a feat. That's some great engineering going on to get that. Games like WoW can't be compared because there is little requirement to display the correct location of players on each players screen, they can be loose/lazy about it. Not so with an fps like this.Trotskygrad wrote:
problem can be solved with decent netcode.
I mean, I just would like to know how technology has advanced so far yet player counts seems to shrink or remain the same...
I'm not in the biz working on this stuff so i don't know either. I'm just guessing that a lot of this stuff is asynchronous by nature (synchronous would be way to slow and effect frame rates) and introducing more players increases the probability of faults, which result in poor gameplay/user perception.Trotskygrad wrote:
I mean, I just would like to know how technology has advanced so far yet player counts seems to shrink or remain the same...
yeah but we're also getting more and more bandwidth as well... every single aspect of technology is growing, not just say CPU speed and HDD space and RAMBuckiller wrote:
I'm not in the biz working on this stuff so i don't know either. I'm just guessing that a lot of this stuff is asynchronous by nature (synchronous would be way to slow and effect frame rates) and introducing more players increases the probability of faults, which result in poor gameplay/user perception.Trotskygrad wrote:
I mean, I just would like to know how technology has advanced so far yet player counts seems to shrink or remain the same...
Well, because buckiller nailed it on the head. FPSs by their very nature require accurate hitboxes so lag is more noticeable. MMOs have auto aim so an opponent could be jumping all over the screen due to lag and it wouldn't really matter (unless you're a melee class).Trotskygrad wrote:
well yeah one argument in that thread was that MMOs had auto aim, comparatively FPS has a tiny window of opportunity (the hitbox)...Buckiller wrote:
quite a lot more to it than that. Getting a fast paced fps game playable for 256 players online is quite a feat. That's some great engineering going on to get that. Games like WoW can't be compared because there is little requirement to display the correct location of players on each players screen, they can be loose/lazy about it. Not so with an fps like this.Trotskygrad wrote:
problem can be solved with decent netcode.
I mean, I just would like to know how technology has advanced so far yet player counts seems to shrink or remain the same...
And you're not just pinging your target, you're pinging everything else visible on the screen as well. The game is keeping just as accurate track of your teammates, vehicles, other opponents as it is the guy you're aiming at. Because you have so many people pinging each other, one guy with a shit ping will raise everyone elses server response time.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Not really. Most people are lucky if they have a cable connection. Some people have DSL which is nothing more than a higher speed dialup. Technology hasn't advanced all that much in terms of bandwidth in the past 10-15 years.Trotskygrad wrote:
yeah but we're also getting more and more bandwidth as well... every single aspect of technology is growing, not just say CPU speed and HDD space and RAMBuckiller wrote:
I'm not in the biz working on this stuff so i don't know either. I'm just guessing that a lot of this stuff is asynchronous by nature (synchronous would be way to slow and effect frame rates) and introducing more players increases the probability of faults, which result in poor gameplay/user perception.Trotskygrad wrote:
I mean, I just would like to know how technology has advanced so far yet player counts seems to shrink or remain the same...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I'm pretty sure latency is the bigger factor here, and latency speeds up much slower than bandwidth. The amount of information to tell the server or peers "where you are and what you are doing" is relatively low, just watch your packets while playing online games. The big factor is how often and how fast you can send (edit and recieve!) that info. Latency is the big factor.Trotskygrad wrote:
yeah but we're also getting more and more bandwidth as well... every single aspect of technology is growing, not just say CPU speed and HDD space and RAM
You can observe anecdotal evidence of this from playing online games. If you are closer to the server than everyone else, you have an edge. Always pick servers with the lowest ping :p In cases with console gaming, one console is host; whoever has host has a great advantage in FPS games.
Last edited by Buckiller (2011-03-09 11:24:41)
I agree with the guy completely.
I think 30-40 players was the optimal number for BF2. Anything more wasn't much fun due to spam, anything less felt a bit empty.
I think 30-40 players was the optimal number for BF2. Anything more wasn't much fun due to spam, anything less felt a bit empty.
Depended on the map imo. Most of the 64 man version of maps worked well with 64 people. Some exceptions, but I felt that for the most part it was great. Get the sense of the battle going on in other parts of the map that you don't intend to visit at all.Spidery_Yoda wrote:
I agree with the guy completely.
I think 30-40 players was the optimal number for BF2. Anything more wasn't much fun due to spam, anything less felt a bit empty.
PR has done it with bf2 and I belive it's great (yeah PR bla bla bla ) just make the maps big enough and it'll be thats my thought anyway
My only request for BF3 is that one of the rockets carried by the engineer class be replaced by a Stinger.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Last I checked engineers carry land mines, not rockets. Anti-tank class carried rockets.JohnG@lt wrote:
My only request for BF3 is that one of the rockets carried by the engineer class be replaced by a Stinger.
But really, who knows what game DICE is REALLY making this game from. They probably will take a lot from BC2.
Also, don't make one class capable of one shot kill on tanks or apcs, BF2 was very well balanced like this. You could only one shot kill a tank from a ground rocket/stinger on the treads.
The BF2 classes aren't coming back.Buckiller wrote:
Last I checked engineers carry land mines, not rockets. Anti-tank class carried rockets.JohnG@lt wrote:
My only request for BF3 is that one of the rockets carried by the engineer class be replaced by a Stinger.
But really, who knows what game DICE is REALLY making this game from. They probably will take a lot from BC2.
Also, don't make one class capable of one shot kill on tanks or apcs, BF2 was very well balanced like this. You could only one shot kill a tank from a ground rocket/stinger on the treads.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Pages: 1 … 73 74 75 76 77 … 683
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 3 »
- Battlefield 3 - Main Thread