Population Density: Guestimations - Page 2

Aurmanite · 2012-03-12, 07:44 PM

Think they will ever find the Higgs?

Tapman · 2012-03-12, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

Think they will ever find the Higgs?

I'd be more excited for the Graviton.

StumpyTheOzzie · 2012-03-12, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

And they say this generation can't focus on any one thing for more than a minute...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

I thought it was clear, concise, precise and well thought out. Top marks.

Unfortunately, not everybody will be standing "on the edge"

There will be tank columns rolling out of bases and Gals/sundies full or people running about but I understand the spirit of what you're saying and appreciate that it will be more of a front line war than a zerg blobby war.

ThGlump · 2012-03-12, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by DeeTwoEh

Did they really say 666v666v666 per server? I was under the impression that that that was a continent based population cap and the servers themselves could grow way larger.

Very probably each continent will have own server. What we call "servers" are more like worlds, realms call it as you want. So if game will start with 3 continents "server/world" will hold 3x(666v666v666), so you can still count with 2000 per continent.

But pcgamer said up to 666v666v666. Expect to be theoretical max that can server handle now. Can be higher, but expect to be lower. Final pop somewhere like 1500-1800 not 2000.

Skitrel · 2012-03-12, 09:40 PM

Also interested in clarification on whether 666v666v666 was an estimated server cap or a continent cap.

God I hope that's their continent cap goal...

BorisBlade · 2012-03-12, 11:00 PM

Seriously, he seemed very concise for the info he was presenting. Its simplistic and easy to understand, if you wont read that then go take your ritalin and come back later, thats really sad you cant keep focus for such a short time with somethin so simple and easy to read that really isnt that long at all.

Having said that, the math is interesting to read but in the end fairly meaningless sadly. The many many many other variables end up making the conclusions fairly useless and prob way off from actual gameplay. I dont think we will have a good idea til we get full pop locked conts and a few months play to get standard gameflow goin before we know how it will really look.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-13, 12:19 AM

I think it's safe to round to 50 players / KM given that the VS and NC edges were a bit skewed due to the pocket of NC blue.

However, there are some holes to poke, if I may...

1) Not all players will be on the front line. I think you have to make some reasonable assumption that anywhere from 20-30% of the population will be in a base, respawning, or in-transit to a combat area.

2) Battle will converge on the outposts, as that is where reinforcements will originate, and battle lines will generally follow roads since they provide the fastest land-travel route (as they usually did in PS1). That will increase density.

3) There are geographical choke-points on the map that would funnel people so they wouldn't be evenly distributed across the front line. For example, there are two roads along the NC/VS border, one long one to the north of the NC tech plant that runs through the center of the continent, and a coastal road to the west. Several outposts are along these roads.

So I would adjust the density estimate to about 40 / KM, due to not everyone being at the front (20% reduction), but then we have to weight that density based on various natural choke points.

Along the north NC/VS front, for example, you have a 22 edges, or about 4.7 km of front, with which we can expect roughly 188 players on each side if they were all stretched along there, but they wont' be. There's roughly 4 outposts/capture points along that front on each side. So if we assume even distribution there's actually ~47 players assaulting each of those locations (on each side), so that's a battle involving nearly 100 players between each of those 4 outposts. Some of those outposts are close together, so it's reasonable to conclude that with an uneven distribution we could see as many as 2-3x that number at any given objective. That's up to roughly 300 people (~150 on each side) contesting an outpost. Of course it could be higher than that, but, I think 100-300 is a fair estimate on each front.

Which sort of makes sense if you consider 667v667v667, that's 2 fronts per empire, or 330 or so per front from each side, sans the folks not actually at the front.

So numbers seem fairly close to me, but you have to consider it will not be an even distribution due to terrain and objectives funneling people towards locations.

Still 200-300 people at a battle is like cramming an entire PS1 continent of all three empires into one area, so I expect we'll see battles about 50% larger than most PS1 battles, on average.

StumpyTheOzzie · 2012-03-13, 03:46 AM

well, that depends what time you play.

I was leading a squad of VS the other night (my time) and we got beat, so 4 of my dudes logged off while I was changing my certs in sanc.

4 dudes logged off and we went from 9% total world pop to 4% total world pop.

4 dudes = 5% world pop

80 players on server.

hardly MMOFPS is it?

Warborn · 2012-03-13, 05:30 AM

This is assuming that people are evenly spread out, which they obviously won't be, that back-hacking isn't happening, which it will, and that players won't have a serious presence in the air, which they also will. And even if the numbers were correct, so what? What is the implication of this? Is there actually any? Are you and Figment doing this to try and get a beta invite or something? Is that what the trend of overly complicated posts which say nothing over the course of 2000 words is about?

Qwan · 2012-03-13, 05:53 AM

I failed math

so what does it all mean, will i be able to kill NC and TR thats all i need to know.

Tapman · 2012-03-13, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by ThGlump

Very probably each continent will have own server. What we call "servers" are more like worlds, realms call it as you want. So if game will start with 3 continents "server/world" will hold 3x(666v666v666), so you can still count with 2000 per continent.

But pcgamer said up to 666v666v666. Expect to be theoretical max that can server handle now. Can be higher, but expect to be lower. Final pop somewhere like 1500-1800 not 2000.

I'm not so sure. I think that with the technological cost vs. power these days combined with a kick-ass engine, they could compartmentalize the continents themselves to some extent. All of the information at once is what can lag a server so if they can code a way to collect data from the specific hexes/areas instead of the entire continent at once then based on my numbers it wouldn't be that far of a possibillity.

Population Density in that scale is players/square kilometer and assuming population = zero in hexes that are the third row from the front or farther from the front line, makes the total number of at-risk hexes to be 129 (VS: 46, TR: 37, NC: 46) and assuming 0.213km^2/hex and 2001 players (667 per side) you end up with an average population density of 72.8 total players per hex. Again, this will vary depending on whether you are at the edge of a continent versus the middle but still not unreasonable numbers.

Originally Posted by Warborn

And even if the numbers were correct, so what? What is the implication of this? Is there actually any? Are you and Figment doing this to try and get a beta invite or something? Is that what the trend of overly complicated posts which say nothing over the course of 2000 words is about?

I did all of this because I was bored and I had a few hours to kill before I went to work the other day so I spent 10-15 minutes and hand wrote the math so that I could write up a post when I had time. I didn't post this to fish for a Beta invite, I'm hoping being an 8-year veteran of Planetside, buying a PC Gamer to get a priority access key, and participating in the social media dialogue in all forms (FB/Twitter/Reddit/PSU) and in as many topics as I have opinions on indicates my interest in contributing towards Beta. As I said in the first post, one of the main inspirations for this analyzation was because of the continued rabble about the "Zerg" and the outcry by some after the Following leadership system was announced and confirmed. I've also been curious for some time now how the population densities between the first and second game will compare, baseline numbers are a good place to start. If there were sections that were too complicated for you, please let me know so that I can try to simplify it for you.

Qwan, it means that if you are near a front line then you will have plenty of everyone to kill.

Hamma · 2012-03-13, 09:08 AM

Seriously guys if a thread is to complicated or you don't want to read it just don't reply, don't post responses that the OP is to complicated or not worth your time to read. The thread will fall off the front page.. it isn't that hard to understand.

Coreldan · 2012-03-13, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by Hamma

Seriously guys if a thread is to complicated or you don't want to read it just don't reply, don't post responses that the OP is to complicated or not worth your time to read. The thread will fall off the front page.. it isn't that hard to understand.

Same goes for the "tldr" people, get some ADD medicines or stop fucking posting. Nobody cares that you didnt read it.

SuperMorto · 2012-03-13, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Coreldan

Same goes for the "tldr" people, get some ADD medicines or stop fucking posting. Nobody cares that you didnt read it.

Or how they wont be taking part? Morons.

I like this thread and the info is easy to understand.

roguy · 2012-03-13, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Tapman

I did all of this because I was bored and I had a few hours to kill before I went to work the other day so I spent 10-15 minutes and hand wrote the math so that I could write up a post when I had time.
(...)
As I said in the first post, one of the main inspirations for this analyzation was because of the continued rabble about the "Zerg" and the outcry by some after the Following leadership system was announced and confirmed. I've also been curious for some time now how the population densities between the first and second game will compare, baseline numbers are a good place to start. If there were sections that were too complicated for you, please let me know so that I can try to simplify it for you.

Qwan, it means that if you are near a front line then you will have plenty of everyone to kill.

As far as i understand this, you just guesstimated (with very loose numbers) a potential population density (based on word of mouth) of a fixed moment of an alpha build of a game presented at a game show.

But like Warborn I still don't understand what the point of all this is?

What I take away from this is that the "Zerg" will most likely become an obsolete and easily countered strategy. It became the standard in Planetside because there were preset pathways to enter continents and often times there were few bases that could be targeted even after you managed to get a foothold on a new continent.

That conclusion is wrong and completely irrelevant to your results. All modern strategies (from Napoleon to Guderian) are based on the concept of applying a maximum amount of strength in the smallest possible area. Wich also apply in video games.
If I were to apply your calculation to say, the german army in WW2, i'd get everything wrong without considering blitzkrieg strategies or strategic points of interest.

Example: What if one of those TR bases is the only tech lab on the continent? Everyone would zerg it in order to get MBTs, and the given pop density of that hex would go sky-high.

So in that case, knowing the "average distance between friendlies along that front line", means absolutely zilch, nada and nothing.