Population... underestimation?

[Envenom]

Originally Posted by kaffis

As you suggest, I don't think Xyntech's number speculations are an unreasonable snapshot of player distribution.

However, take a look at that, and consider... the three-way at the center is 332 players in that one 5-hex region...

E3 was 100 players in a 7-hex region.

So Xyntech's guess at how 2000 would distribute on the continent already has quadrupled the player density of the most ambitious real-world test we're privvy to.

I'd say that given that, it's a bit hasty to declare that the 2000/continent estimate is already too conservative... Performance was good at what we can sort of assume might be a quarter of the load, and even that is assuming that the server and engine do a good job of partitioning space, so all we have to worry about is local density, and not increasing overhead for distant load.


To work off the border and grid distribution in Xyntech's map, we can see that regions adjacent to faction borders comprise 134 hexes' worth of area. We know that the E3 setup was a little more than 7 hexes' worth of space, with, reportedly, around a hundred players. So E3 density is ~15 players per hex, meaning that if the entire frontline supports a similar average density, you're talking about 2010 players.

Gosh, that number looks familiar, doesn't it? Could it possibly be that the E3 population was tuned around their performance goals? And that those performance goals are what yield a good experience, hopefully with a little slack built in to account for less even spreads?

But no, making assumptions like that would imply the developers know what they're doing, or have done some testing...

I like the way you roll. I have full faith that SOE will pull this off. They wouldn't be advertising this if they couldn't.

Tech has come SOO far since PS1, and I think we will all be pleasantly surprised.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by kaffis

As you suggest, I don't think Xyntech's number speculations are an unreasonable snapshot of player distribution.

However, take a look at that, and consider... the three-way at the center is 332 players in that one 5-hex region...

E3 was 100 players in a 7-hex region.

Thanks for the retrospective analysis kaffis. I actually made that mock up back before E3 even happened, so it was really just a vague guestimate, but it seems more and more clear that it's close to what they are actually shooting for.

Only beta will tell if they meet their goals, and if they don't, how they will go about fixing it. They would either need to lower the population numbers which would probably also require that they redesigned the maps slightly, or they would have to fix and improve their systems for keeping players distributed.

I believe I've already made a strong case for Indar being approximately twice as large as Cyssor, but regardless, even if it's the same size as Cyssor, it clearly has more contestable territory (70+ capture points that affect continent control on Indar versus Cyssors 17). Clearly four or five hundred players is going to be spread too thin, and even 1000 may not be enough. Based on the number of territory control points, it really seems like 2000 players is an appropriate number to keep up with Planetside 1's scale, except that instead of being spread over 4 continents, the 2000 players will be on a single continent.

So while I have doubts that they would be able to get more than 2000 players on a single continent, I suspect that less than 2000 would be equally problematic. It all comes down to their solutions for keeping players distributed, hopefully in a natural way where we don't feel too much like we're being guided by the hand to where they want us to fight.

But 2000 players, if they succeed in getting that many to work, should be enough. I think it would give us just as many smaller and larger scale battles as the first game, with a few supersized PS2 exclusive scale battles on top of it for good measure. The first Planetside never saw a 600 player battle ever, so if they can find a way to achieve that then they will have gone above and beyond in my book.

[Eyeklops]

Could a modern computer architecture handle 2000 players? Let's do some research.

1. CPU: Reference
2003 Pentium 4 Extreme Edition = 9,726 MIPS
2011 Intel Core i7 875K = 92,100 MIPS.
9 times more MIPS

2. RAM: Reference
2003 PC-3200 (DDR-400) 3.2 GB/s
2011 PC3-12800 (DDR3-1600) 12.8 GB/s
4 times more bandwidth

It is typical for servers (not supercomputers i.e. cray), to use an architecture similar to their desktop counterparts, so performance vs date should have the same slope.

If Planetside 1 could hold 400 players per continent, a modern CPU should be capable of 3600 players, assuming a linear scale. However, when looking at RAM bandwidth, 1600 players is the basic theoretical max.

Answer: Inconclusive. We'll see in beta.

P.S. I would still be happy with 1200 players per server (300 per empire).

[Goldeh]

There isn't going to be 2000 players per cont...MAYBE in the beginning there will be ONE full and half of another and a quarter of another iunno, pulling out of my ass. but like all new game releases the population explosion will die down after the first month of release.

The way I see it the 2000 players per cont is a hype generator, I doubt that every cont is going to have the maximum 2000 players on it. Because also remember they're planning on adding new conts down the road. So those new cont's are gonna spread the player base around.

[Nemises]

Originally Posted by Eyeklops

Could a modern computer architecture handle 2000 players? Let's do some research.

1. CPU: Reference
2003 Pentium 4 Extreme Edition = 9,726 MIPS
2011 Intel Core i7 875K = 92,100 MIPS.
9 times more MIPS

2. RAM: Reference
2003 PC-3200 (DDR-400) 3.2 GB/s
2011 PC3-12800 (DDR3-1600) 12.8 GB/s
4 times more bandwidth

It is typical for servers (not supercomputers i.e. cray), to use an architecture similar to their desktop counterparts, so performance vs date should have the same slope.

If Planetside 1 could hold 300 players per continent, a modern CPU should be capable of 2700 players, assuming a linear scale. However, when looking at RAM bandwidth, 1200 players is the basic theoretical max.

Answer: Inconclusive. We'll see in beta.

P.S. I would still be happy with 1200 players per server (300 per empire).

hmm..folks,
When they say "server", they invariably mean server cluster...
...or some virtualised modern equivalent...
Back in the "old days" they would have had 20 or 30 servers, aggregated via an entry point, and handing off responsibility of certain areas to certain servers (aka WoW) ...assuming a similar paradigm exists, or some other clever highly parallel processing plant exists, you are not talking about "a" server, but a number of, all sharing the load (processing and network IO ).

From a client perspective, it's allmost the opposite...
Your client is never going to have to be responcible for handling what 2000 other clients are doing (that's the servers job!)..
The Server(s) will determine, based on your in game location what other clients are possibly visible, and what their updates are...and so, your client is only really:
- Drawing the game
- sending information on your actions
- receiving update packets from the server as to "possibly visible" clients and /or world events..

Your client will (perhaps arbitrarily) be handed off to a particular cluster node for updates...

So really, your client doesn't necessarily have to be any more powerful than for any other normal FPS (forgelight notwithstanding) , and their "server" architecture will be highly parallel (or some other fancy abstracted method the kids use these days!).

It would be interesting to know about how the architecture is organised at the back end BTW SOE chaps...even just an over view (x front end, Y backend, z processing per cluster)

[Thoreaux]

Originally Posted by elfailo

2000 per continent isn't going to happen. Beta will show why not. I'm guessing they're going to halve it within 3 months.

I second (third? etc?) this. I wish I didn't, but I do.

I believe that they can build a system which can host that many (or more) players spread out reasonably. It seems technically possible on both the server and client side. But I am dubious that they can stop players from just making a beeline to the center of the map with the missions system. 80-90% of players are gonna want to be part of the "big fight", just like in PS1. When that happens, graphics cards will melt, unless they've got some kind of voodoo up their sleeves.

IF on the other hand, they can get players to spread out in a T or Y shape so that there are always 3 fronts and a fight where they meet; perhaps then. They might still have to resort to soft instancing, whereby some players are simply unable to spawn in areas the game deems "overcrowded", as a means of pushing them to start fights elsewhere.

[Rivenshield]

This has been a private worry of mine for months now. I've never bought that they're going to be able to carry off 2K per continent. It might be possible so long as they aren't within eyeshot of each other.... but what happens when, not if, all three empires go at it hammer and tongs over the same base? I just can't see that working, no matter how many clever tricks the devs employ and how expensive our video cards are.

The bases are twice as large. The continents are fecking HUEG. In order to get the same population density you had in PS1, you're gonna need 700-800 people. 333x3 would be even better. A thousand people all shooting at each other at once with only minimal stuttering/lag would be flat awesome.

[Eyeklops]

Originally Posted by Nemises

hmm..folks,
When they say "server", they invariably mean server cluster...
...or some virtualised modern equivalent...

I know this. My comparision was just simplified for the window lickers.

Originally Posted by Rivenshield

A thousand people all shooting at each other at once with only minimal stuttering/lag would be flat awesome.

This has already been done by another company. Actually it was 999 players.
1000PlayerFPS

[maradine]

Originally Posted by Eyeklops

Could a modern computer architecture handle 2000 players? Let's do some research.

1. CPU: Reference
2003 Pentium 4 Extreme Edition = 9,726 MIPS
2011 Intel Core i7 875K = 92,100 MIPS.
9 times more MIPS

2. RAM: Reference
2003 PC-3200 (DDR-400) 3.2 GB/s
2011 PC3-12800 (DDR3-1600) 12.8 GB/s
4 times more bandwidth

It is typical for servers (not supercomputers i.e. cray), to use an architecture similar to their desktop counterparts, so performance vs date should have the same slope.

If Planetside 1 could hold 300 players per continent, a modern CPU should be capable of 2700 players, assuming a linear scale. However, when looking at RAM bandwidth, 1200 players is the basic theoretical max.

Answer: Inconclusive. We'll see in beta.

P.S. I would still be happy with 1200 players per server (300 per empire).

Were it only linear. Adding actors to a firefight probably has a linear relationship to memory footprint, but a geometric relationship to message queueing and bandwidth. Put simply, if there's two of us, we need to pass two messages when shooting our guns. If there's three of us, we need to pass six messages to shoot our guns. If there's 4, 12. 5, 20. 6, 30.

Obviously, this only applies in a localization where everyone needs everyone else's updates. There will be many clusters of these localizations that scale linearly. My money's on O(n log n).

Your answer, however, is spot on. We don't know what hackery they're doing on the back end. Let us observe this thing called beta.

[Broadside]

What I really want to know is if 2000 per continent is a hard cap. Does this mean that once we are on a continent we can't go to any others if there are already lots of people on it? What if your entire faction gets pushed off a continent? Can they all retreat to a neighboring continent that already has 2000 people or are they stuck there in their warp gate forever?

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Broadside

What I really want to know is if 2000 per continent is a hard cap. Does this mean that once we are on a continent we can't go to any others if there are already lots of people on it? What if your entire faction gets pushed off a continent? Can they all retreat to a neighboring continent that already has 2000 people or are they stuck there in their warp gate forever?

By all indications, there will be a hard cap. Whether that shakes out to 2000 is less sure, but likely the devs' goal.

You can't get pushed off a continent. The worst that can happen is you get pushed back to your uncaptureable foothold and mount a counter-assault from there. Your scenario is exactly why there are uncaptureable footholds in the first place.

[OutlawDr]

I already find 2000 to be suspect. Now we want 3000? It looked like the E3 demo had somewhere between 50-150 players at the base. Imagine multiplying that by 10. What happens when all 2000 players decide to hit a base at the same time? A very rare event to be sure, but lets just say a 1000 players ..hell 500 players all in one base. Are we expecting SOE to preform miracles and produce a feat no one else has even gotten close to pulling off? If PS2 can manage even 300 players all in one base no problem, I'll be damn impressed with their forgelight engine.

[maradine]

Originally Posted by OutlawDr

I already find 2000 to be suspect. Now we want 3000? The E3 demo had somewhere between 100-200 players at the base. Imagine multiplying that by 10. What happens when all 2000 players decide to hit a base at the same time? A very rare event to be sure, but lets just say a 1000 players ..hell 500 players all in one base. Are we expecting SOE to preform miracles and produce a feat no one else has even gotten close to pulling off?

In a word, yes. Whether you think it is miraculous or not is largely a matter of perspective. And if they don't, well, I don't see anyone else out there pushing the envelope, so I'm not going to be particularly hard on them if they shoot for the gold and wind up with a silver.

[OutlawDr]

Originally Posted by maradine

In a word, yes. Whether you think it is miraculous or not is largely a matter of perspective. And if they don't, well, I don't see anyone else out there pushing the envelope, so I'm not going to be particularly hard on them if they shoot for the gold and wind up with a silver.

I agree its good that they shoot for gold, but some are asking for platinum and diamond here.
The premise of the OP is that 2000 is almost a given and maybe even not enough.
We'll be lucky if we really do get 2000. anything over that is just greedy
But who knows, for all we know, the forgelight engine is a huge technological breakthrough for gaming

[Grognard]

Originally Posted by OutlawDr

I agree its good that they shoot for gold, but some are asking for platinum and diamond here.
The premise of the OP is that 2000 is almost a given and maybe even not enough.
We'll be lucky if we really do get 2000. anything over that is just greedy
But who knows, for all we know, the forgelight engine is a huge technological breakthrough for gaming

My premise is a suspicion that perhaps its possible that they might be claiming 2k so as not to get hopes up too high, but underlying that is a real possibility of higher numbers. Pure supposition on my part... but not without a little inspiration, and admittedly, limited knowledge. The Devs modus operendi has been to claim low and deliver high, as E3 can attest to. So, I speculated here, that 2k might be a similar claim.

Hence the discussion, and why not? I am not convinced one way or the other yet, given the opinions so far, which have all been in good order. The only way to ferret out the difinitive yes or no, is to get it out there. I consider it an excellent pre-beta topic, since some of their concern for how many get in, and how fast, might have roots in the population capacity equation.

Similarly, the technical aspects of a project like this, facinate me, just like a good Vanu soldier There is nothing wrong with a little platinum, or diamonds... its a AAA title after all.