Multiplayer gaming not evolving?

Gimpymoo

Gimpymoo

Gimpymoo

Soldato
Joined
31 May 2005
Posts
15,640
Location
Nottingham
Seeing the Battlefield "One" announcement of "64 players", it got me thinking..

"64 players, STILL?"

Battlefield 2 (2005) - Maximum players = 64
Battlefield 1 (2016) - Maximum players = 64

An eleven year gap and stuck at the same number, why? Too frequently over the past 11 years, the "smoke and mirrors" approach of instances has been used

I am not singling out Battlefield and I am aware that Planetside 2 has much much bigger player numbers. Arma 3, sure you can get more than 64 players but mileage may vary regarding server performance.

Not much has progressed in this area.

Is it because having "too many" players does not make for a good game mechanic?

Is it because server hardware from a server perspective is not adequate?

Is it because nobody wants higher player numbers?

Is it because the console generation is holding everything back :D

Is it because AAA publishers just do not care and because a lot of console players do not know what was available before, they just keep reinventing the wheel at little cost and just keep doing their thing?

Am I simply expecting too much?
 
Last edited:
The best multiplayer experiences I have ever had have been 5v5, 6v6 etc

Battlefield type games usually descend to cluster ***** on public
 
Joint Operations had up to 128 players back in 2004. That was at a time when most players had 0.5 MB broadband. So I don't think it's a server limitation issue. More information is tracked in today's MP games but bandwidth has grown to cope.

Consoles have held back player numbers somewhat. When COD4 came to Xbox 360 the player count went down to 12-16 players. Maps became smaller too to accommodate reduced player count and probably hardware restrictions. Local hosting probably hasn't help to increase player numbers over the years either.

Large maps with a large player count aren't conducive to attracting players who want instant gratification. Which is probably a symptom of age of players getting younger. They don't call them console kids for nothing.

At the end of the day publishers and developers make games that sell and so we get what the majority want to pay for. Which isn't ten minutes of yomping before you find someone to shoot.
 
I think multiplayer gaming is evolving, just not in the direction that some of us old school gamers expected or wanted.

More and more, features which built communities like server browsers, dedicated servers and mod support are getting removed while the gameplay is being made "more accessible" for new players.

It's the indie devs who made the mods back in the day who saved us then and are pretty much our only hope going forward. I hope games like squad and battalion realise their goals and enjoy huge success, because without them you have games with battlefront which are all bling and no meat. The AAA devs are just trying to follow the money as they see it which is mediocrity for the masses. Most young console users don't know what they are missing and what we used to enjoy. But they got more bling and more easy kills.
 
I imagine it takes a pretty beefy server to run 2016 Battlefield games with the map sizes, physics etc.

I'm also not convinced more = better, some of the best battlefield games I have had have been 16 vs 16 infantry only games in BF2.
 
Even with large BF4 maps 64 players can seem too many, if you keep expanding the battle area to add more players and keeping the same overall player density then what does it add except for problems with hosting and client updates?
 
It is kind of funny how so many game engines separately maxed out at 64 players and even when they support more often 64 is the highest they really support with full stability.

As Hazard said developers just haven't evolved gaming like some of us older FPS gamers wanted to see - less and less are they pushing the boundaries and making a game they dreamed of making and more and more playing it safe commercially :S

I'm not really surprised with Battlefield though the game struggles with 64 players as it is and would need a complete and utter re-write to support more players without falling apart.
 
Ah good old Joint Operations - I think the server limit was seven raised to 150, on top of that, it auto downloaded custom maps as you entered the game with no need to do it yourself. Wish they would make a new game.
 
Pretty sure there was a PS3 title called "MAG" (Massive Action Game... :p) that touted support for up to 256 players.

That's not really the point though, just thought I'd mention it. Anyway, I'm pretty sure it's all just trends and publishers trying to cash in on them. BF3 kinda swooped back at the right time with the whole "bigger = better!" mentality to boot.

But right now MOBA's and other more condensed, competitive, but still "accessible" (I'm guessing people will read this as "casual", but oh well :D) experiences are dominating the online play space and we're seeing a lot of games trying to adapt, or becoming "moba-likes".

They're evolving, just maybe not the way you'd think, technology wise. They're being more tightly designed to retain audience attention, and take into account other external factors, like the dominance of live streaming services such as Twitch, to the eSports scenes, etc.

Just another fad? Who knows. Looking back over the years and you'll definitely see trends come and go. The presence of arena shooters, MMO's, cod-clones, etc. all rose and then eventually (but unsurprisingly?) faded away again. Everyone is just trying to cash in on the next big thing, and you can't really blame them given how successful some have been off the back of them (see the mobile market and micro-transactions, and how they've worked their way into full priced titles like GTAV, but made millions off the back of them.)

Anyway maybe starting to get off topic :D Personally from a design point of view I'm sure that it's more manageable to design around a lower player count, but that doesn't necessarily stop someone from create...
 
Last edited:
I think the player count on dedicated servers (and associated tick rate) is partially governed by the server providers, and how many instances they want to be able to run on a single physical server while not feeling the need to charge a fortune for them.

I don't think there's much money in it at the moment, the margins are low, so they will be fighting back against a combination of large player counts and high tickrates unless the game producer is prepared to pay for them.

Official servers are an ongoing cost for the publisher which stretches at least a couple of years beyond the game release, so keeping the cost down will be a priority for them.
 
Since when does increasing player count = evolution ????

Frostbite is complex and having great hit detection, less lag and latency, good network simulation and physics synchronization is more important to me. The increased tick rate from the CTE was a massive stride compared to what previous Battlefield games had before.

I'd want them to perfect the "netcode" and have reduced server costs for admins for 64 players before even wanting a higher player count.
 
The average gamer is unlikely going to want to pay for what's required to maintain a massive multiplayer environment. Usually, you need to subscribe, like RPGs.

Battlefields levelution was a game changer IMO, need more of that! Other than that, spending time and effort on the maps, interaction and modes i would take over general size. I also love RPG elements in games, so would always welcome some influence at least.
 
Last edited:
Eve Online, ancient I know but one big persistent universe with some massively lag driven slug fests.. Although performance nowadays is far better than what used to be.

Has been a few fights with 1500+ players in the mix.
 
Twirlywoos said:
Since when does increasing player count = evolution ????

Frostbite is complex and having great hit detection, less lag and latency, good network simulation and physics synchronization is more important to me. The increased tick rate from the CTE was a massive stride compared to what previous Battlefield games had before.

I'd want them to perfect the "netcode" for 64 players before even wanting a higher player count.
Click to expand...

Problem is the network code in Frostbite engine from the beginning was designed around a really nasty system of trying to backwards reconcile events over a large time period (there is a reason why all other game engines don't try to use this technique for anything over about 150ms) and all the changes since are just band aids to try and mask the underlying issue - no amount of brute forcing it to run at a higher tickrate can entirely fix it.

Even on the console where that higher level of tolerance in tying events together is more acceptable/better idea its bad never mind in PC space.

Qjumper said:
Eve Online, ancient I know but one big persistent universe with some massively lag driven slug fests.. Although performance nowadays is far better than what used to be.

Has been a few fights with 1500+ players in the mix.
Click to expand...

Yeah I've been involved in some pretty big fights in eve - eve online's servers tick over at 1Hz and in massive fights tidi can effectively slow that down to 0.1Hz or something - not something you can use for FPS games heh.

Have to say though no game has that oh **** moment when the overview goes ballistic as a big fleet jumps in would love an FPS that could simulate that kind of moment.
 
Last edited:
Eve Online? Give it a rest, that's not even in the same ballpark as FPS games for the amount of data being transferred per client.

The closest I can think of was back in the glory days of Dark Age of Camelot where the 3 factions would regularly meet in the frontier, upwards of 400 a side regularly crashing servers or grinding it to a halt but it TRIED to keep it going and 300+ fights were fairly common.

Problem is getting all that data moved around, having some sort of verification of it to prevent hacking (or reduce it) and of course getting it to work when one guy has a 100meg connection and the next is on dial up.
 
Halfmad said:
Problem is getting all that data moved around, having some sort of verification of it to prevent hacking (or reduce it) and of course getting it to work when one guy has a 100meg connection and the next is on dial up.
Click to expand...

That is where the Frostbite engine does it wrong - it has a lot of problems with low latency versus high latency connections - most other engines make the server more authoritative which has a marginally worse effect on people with poor connections buy significantly improves the experience for those with reasonable connections - end of the day it simply isn't worth making the experience a tiny bit better for those with a bad experience anyhow at the expense of making it a lot worse for everyone.
 
Rroff said:
That is where the Frostbite engine does it wrong - it has a lot of problems with low latency versus high latency connections - most other engines make the server more authoritative which has a marginally worse effect on people with poor connections buy significantly improves the experience for those with reasonable connections - end of the day it simply isn't worth making the experience a tiny bit better for those with a bad experience anyhow at the expense of making it a lot worse for everyone.
Click to expand...

Again, I think this comes down to the economics of providing world wide server coverage. For some regions there are no servers within a 150ms ping, so they have to play on a server against people with a low ping while their ping might be 200ms+

I remember back in the day when I got my first 128K cable modem, playing elite force voyager and return to castle wolfenstein on the barry's world servers. The rage and constant "lpb ******" because I was getting 20ms to everyone elses 90ms was real ;)
 
I think it's a fine balance of having the correct amount of people/size of map I'm sure they could fit 200 people on any battlefield map but it would be a terrible experience as you will die every 5 seconds, put the same 200 people on for instance Altis from arma 3 and it can seem like a deserted island.
 
I don't see why 128+ players would make the experience better.

You would just have to spread the battles out even more, so you don't end up with 20 people camping a capture point.

You can always play Planetside 2 if you want more players.
 
In BF, too many players or too many tickets ruins some maps. If you've ever seen the state of Zavod on a 3000 ticket 64 player server after every destructible item has been destroyed, every tree felled, and every part of the battlefield covered in shell craters, it's a complete mess and practically unplayable due to the lack of cover and inability to move a vehicle other than a heli.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom