can you explain why we cant put 10,000 players in one server?

[JamesLuck01 1,531]

42 minutes ago, dimin69 said:

why do you guys put down a limit ? 10k would be possible, they need to do something on instances (10k players in one spot is not gonna work any time soon ) but server wise it would be possible.

Instancing is bad for this type of game but with exceptions for some things. 

 

However the devs need to make sure that the player base is fun and a best capacity for Role play, map size and taking in how fun it will be with that amount of players. If they have too many it will make things boring / it won't be balanced out and the map being over crowded.

 

@PrivacyVr I have also seen that info about the map being up scaled a bit for increase of player capacity.

[Woritmor 93]

3 hours ago, dimin69 said:

why do you guys put down a limit ? 10k would be possible, they need to do something on instances (10k players in one spot is not gonna work any time soon ) but server wise it would be possible.

Such "instances" or "phases" requires a lot of server power and (i think) additional sofware for the developers. These things costs much money and the game is in early development right now. In Addition there are much more "problems". How do they look that there are enough cops and other fractions in the instance? What do i do when i login but i  can't see my friends because there are in another "instance"?  such phasing oder instances have a hughe impact on a player driven game like identity will be. So it's easier to limit the ammount of player on a server and create a map big enough to handle these ammouns so that does it feel crowded but not too much and not to empty. 

[MrClark 37]

15 hours ago, PrivacyVr said:

This doesn't mean a new map that is to much work for what they have come to. The map atm is big enough for more than 1k people anyways.

Okay I heard that though so there is no need to be rude!

[dimin69 36]

19 hours ago, JamesLuck01 said:

Instancing is bad for this type of game but with exceptions for some things. 

 

However the devs need to make sure that the player base is fun and a best capacity for Role play, map size and taking in how fun it will be with that amount of players. If they have too many it will make things boring / it won't be balanced out and the map being over crowded.

 

@PrivacyVr I have also seen that info about the map being up scaled a bit for increase of player capacity.

 

16 hours ago, Woritmor said:

Such "instances" or "phases" requires a lot of server power and (i think) additional sofware for the developers. These things costs much money and the game is in early development right now. In Addition there are much more "problems". How do they look that there are enough cops and other fractions in the instance? What do i do when i login but i  can't see my friends because there are in another "instance"?  such phasing oder instances have a hughe impact on a player driven game like identity will be. So it's easier to limit the ammount of player on a server and create a map big enough to handle these ammouns so that does it feel crowded but not too much and not to empty. 

instances is realy bad for this tipe of game and i agree. but the point i was trying to make there is no server sided limit.

its the client that probaly cant handle 10k players on his screen

[JamesLuck01 1,531]

1 hour ago, dimin69 said:

 

instances is realy bad for this tipe of game and i agree. but the point i was trying to make there is no server sided limit.

its the client that probaly cant handle 10k players on his screen

I didn't say anything on my last post which said anything about it being server sided stuff but more of why the devs would not have 10k players. I just said instancing is bad for this and you agreed.

Edited April 7, 2017 by JamesLuck01

[SpeedisHere 6]

Can people not get this through their thick ass skulls ? 10,000 players on a MMORPG like Identity would be Hiroshima in the server room. Do you people not look at how much work is put into the damn game ? All the features would lag that 'female dog' 24/7. I don't want to hear bs about 'Ohhhhhhh WoW is running 1 billion people servers' do the developers look like they care about WoW servers ? It is two completely different games. 300 is enough I believe but that's my personal belief. 

[Plumixtee 11]

I don't find this post resourceful anymore... Nevertheless it is interesting to watch how discussions can end up with insults and the fact that an information can be repeated tens of times and still be not acquired by most people participating in this debate.

We are all looking forward the release of the first module!

[dimin69 36]

8 hours ago, SpeedisHere said:

Can people not get this through their thick ass skulls ? 10,000 players on a MMORPG like Identity would be Hiroshima in the server room. Do you people not look at how much work is put into the damn game ? All the features would lag that 'female dog' 24/7. I don't want to hear bs about 'Ohhhhhhh WoW is running 1 billion people servers' do the developers look like they care about WoW servers ? It is two completely different games. 300 is enough I believe but that's my personal belief. 

the server room can handle it fine, becouse they are able to put multiple dedicated servers for one game server. 

your pc , yeah that would be a different story.

[SpeedisHere 6]

2 hours ago, dimin69 said:

the server room can handle it fine, becouse they are able to put multiple dedicated servers for one game server. 

your pc , yeah that would be a different story.

Do you understand how much 10,000 is ? How many people it is ? Do you ? Do you really ? The map size would have to be the size of the entire East Coast to hold that many people. Besides, there is too many features in the game for it to run smoothly with 10,000 people without it being Lag Feast Central. Your argument is invalid to the conversation.   

[Woritmor 93]

2 hours ago, Plumixtee said:

I don't find this post resourceful anymore...

Agree...There is no need for discussion about this topic anymore. 

[dimin69 36]

3 hours ago, SpeedisHere said:

Do you understand how much 10,000 is ? How many people it is ? Do you ? Do you really ? The map size would have to be the size of the entire East Coast to hold that many people. Besides, there is too many features in the game for it to run smoothly with 10,000 people without it being Lag Feast Central. Your argument is invalid to the conversation.   

yes it possible. its not just one pc that has to handle 10k players. :), but it wont happen becouse of other issues like client side lagg. stuff like dysnc wont happen if its done properly

 

[Turaxis 51]

Well think of the map size, and if people want unique homes, (witch none for the games below have) it will get some kind of limitations. And I cant think of any game that have 10.000 players on same server.

Here is an example:
Starwars have 40 player battles on the large servers.
Battlefield 1 support 64 players
GTA can handle up to 30 players on same session.

 

Identity will start with 300, and have been aiming for 1000, and with the cooperation with SpartialOS it might open up for more players on same server witch are quite unique for any game.

So keep up the good work guys.

[NightRaven 2]

I personally think 300 is what the game should have, the game will be able to run smoothly and quickly, with 1,000s I feel it will be too crowded, take a look at games such as GTA 5 were it hosts a maximum of 30 players per server on a huge map, and you're constantly getting shot every where you go. And that's just 30 players, I feel identity shouldn't go beyond 500 players but if they chose 1000 lets see how that goes.

[lamarr 0]

On 2017-04-05 at 10:32 PM, Woritmor said:

Well what many people forget is that huge player size can also make the game miserable. First it depends on how big the map is. 10.000 player on a small map kann be very crowded. But only 100 players on a big map can make it look too big and you will not meet other people. One of the main things in this game is interacting between people. So the map size is one factor which player amounts will be calculated with. The other one is that too many players also can make the game very hectic. crime here, crime there, a bank robbery there (if you know what i mean)

By the way the WoW comaprison is not good. There are thousands of players on one server that is right, but they use a system called pashing. These are virtuals copys of parts of the map so there may be thousands online but you just can't see them. Not good for a game like Identity.

I know, but they said the MAP was going to be big so i'll admire more slots

[yungmandy 3]

It'll get too crowded. The island is about 200km^2, we can space it out a bit

[Orbiit 66]

10,000 is pretty high. I'm grateful we might have 1,000 players on a server.

[Turaxis 51]

Regarding In World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King, all 25-player raids  - No where near 1000 players on same server. just to stop that nonsens about wow, its right that alot can play wow but they dont end up on same server once they first join.

I think it very easy can be too crowded, if too many joins, and another risk are lag, special for those that dont have a super fast computer or internet connection. (for me personal I will have both, but not all are lucky to have that). And that are also an issue on other games, like GTA Online or other simular games.  Actually I prefer less people, a bit more empty versus too crowded and too laggy, I just really hope they will think about it.

[Airetto 8]

Use brain pls, its like 10 k players on gta 5 online server...

[Turaxis 51]

20 minutes ago, Airetto said:

Use brain pls, its like 10 k players on gta 5 online server...

Rubbish... There are 10.000 players or more playing GTA Online, but they are not on the same server, there are at max 30 players on same server/session. And the appartments and officices are not unique, as they will be in Identity.

[Fractal 7]

You'd need like a dedicated server that has i7-100000000k 40.0ghz 1 TB DDR8 Ram to support 10,000 players, also all the players would need a PC that runs Arma 3 500 FPS on Ultra AND the map would have to be huge.

[REDLiNE 8]

On 4/11/2017 at 0:29 PM, Fractal said:

You'd need like a dedicated server that has i7-100000000k 40.0ghz 1 TB DDR8 Ram to support 10,000 players, also all the players would need a PC that runs Arma 3 500 FPS on Ultra AND the map would have to be huge.

Uhm no.. First off that's not at all how you would host such a thing.. You would use a redundant server setup with many servers in a hosting location where the outgoing connection is insanely high.. Also you would never start a game like this with that many players.. It would just be chaos.. And I'm not even going to get into why running Arma 3 with ultra settings @ 500FPS is completely irrelevant..

[Fractal 7]

30 minutes ago, REDLiNE said:

Uhm no.. First off that's not at all how you would host such a thing.. You would use a redundant server setup with many servers in a hosting location where the outgoing connection is insanely high.. Also you would never start a game like this with that many players.. It would just be chaos.. And I'm not even going to get into why running Arma 3 with ultra settings @ 500FPS is completely irrelevant..

If it was multiple servers, it would be more of a hub. Also that is not irrelevant at all because 10,000 people on a 200 square km map is 50 people per square km which means in cities, it would be crazy. Your PC would have to be amazing to handle thousands of people around you. It is how you would host something like that, you are right about an amazing outgoing connection but what would that do if the server was like an i5? It would crash immediately.

[REDLiNE 8]

2 hours ago, Fractal said:

If it was multiple servers, it would be more of a hub. Also that is not irrelevant at all because 10,000 people on a 200 square km map is 50 people per square km which means in cities, it would be crazy. Your PC would have to be amazing to handle thousands of people around you. It is how you would host something like that, you are right about an amazing outgoing connection but what would that do if the server was like an i5? It would crash immediately.

Uhm, thats why it would be a group of servers working together to handle the load exactly as I said.. Similar to how an HDD RAID(1) works but for a different reason/concept.. Therefore server wouldn't crash.. How do you think WoW and the other games do it? It's not one server it's many that come together to make 'one' server.. Also all your game needs to do is render the Models and textures that's it, the server would handle the other tasks.. Literally still the biggest performance draw is models and textures, not anything else, the next big performance hit is PhysX which is a totally different thing that doesn't at least at this moment apply here.. Your PC would need Memory to handle the people around you and all it needs is the coordinates.. So that's all you have to worry about fitting in the memory.. The rest of it as I said comes back to models and textures and you only need to handle the models and textures currently on the screen at that time, which is why in some games you get a super FPS boost when you look at the sky, even in full lobbies of people..

Edited April 12, 2017 by REDLiNE

[dimin69 36]

2 hours ago, Fractal said:

If it was multiple servers, it would be more of a hub. Also that is not irrelevant at all because 10,000 people on a 200 square km map is 50 people per square km which means in cities, it would be crazy. Your PC would have to be amazing to handle thousands of people around you. It is how you would host something like that, you are right about an amazing outgoing connection but what would that do if the server was like an i5? It would crash immediately.

there using a program that makes it possible to use multiple servers for one (game)server if one server is having a lot of tasks (eg player movement and all those things)

a other server can help out with those tasks.

[Fractal 7]

No point in arguing about it, the point is it would be cancer to have 10k players on 200km, no one can run it, and no one can afford to keep that up when it's not pay to win.