Man vs Machine Breaks Record: 999 Simultaneous Players

[tman0013]

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

 

[freggo]

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

 

[Erredent]

[citation][nom]_Cosmin_[/nom]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...[/citation]

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.

 

[dextermat]

MP:SA = can theoretically have 500 person on a server: but will lag a lot

 

[datawrecker]

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.

 

[datawrecker]

Hmmmm, I would like to see a real-time version of Scorched Earth with this technology.

 

[quovatis]

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.

 

[mrkdilkington]

[citation][nom]AznCracker[/nom]what happened to the 1000th player?[/citation]They started counting at 0.

 

[someguynamedmatt]

[citation][nom]quovatis[/nom]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.[/citation]

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

 

[quovatis]

[citation][nom]someguynamedmatt[/nom]Not on a single server, it didn't. Read before you post.[/citation]

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.

 

[iamtheking123]

[citation][nom]quovatis[/nom]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.[/citation]
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".

 

[A Bad Day]

[citation][nom]AznCracker[/nom]what happened to the 1000th player?[/citation]

Connection error due to server overload...

 

[quovatis]

[citation][nom]iamtheking123[/nom]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".[/citation]

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.

 

[cybneo]

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...