1000-Player FPS World Record Attempt This Month

[cybneo]

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.

 

[830hobbes]

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!

 

[nforce4max]

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.

 

[sliem]

Send in the banelings and infestors.

 

[righteous fury]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[rpgplayer]

I first read the title as frames per second... I thought to myself maybe they were benchmarking Wolfenstein 3d or something.

 

[iamtheking123]

First person to bring a nuke to the party is going to change the definition of epic win.

 

[NuclearShadow]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]like valkeria chronicles...sounds fun, but could it work multiplayer?[/citation]

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.

 

[wikiwikiwhat]

we're going to need to call in an orbital strike

 

[IM0001]

[citation][nom]Jea3cd[/nom]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.[/citation]

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.

 

[freggo]

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

 

[Borisblade7]

Planetside 1 had the old record. Planetside 2 will beat this one. But always cool to see new big things being tried.

 

[nicodemus_mm]

[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]Contrast this to server-backed FPS games, where it has to handle complex physics calculations....[/citation]

Reading comprehension fail. Try again.

 

[azgard]

[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]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.[/citation]

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.

 

[KT_WASP]

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*

 

[A Bad Day]

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

Holy crap lag

[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]Battlefield 1918 ? anyone ?Trench rush at it;s best[/citation]

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