The Hard Problem: The New Concurrency

[DancePuppets]

Playing on Warhammer Online, I think the most people I've seen in a zone taking part in the same thing was a keep assault with something like 100 Order players defending versus 200 Destruction players assaulting. It made for a lot of fun, but unfortunately, of course, it caused lag and lots of it.

 

[ioxles]

The ideology behind mmo's will have to change soon enough as new technology and ideas are implemented to change the very definition of an mmo.

We are witness to the birth of the genre and make no mistake, it is still on it's hands and knees crawling towards the sunlight.

I know I come of all preachy but, soon the New Computer Architecture will be implemented changing the way data is processed and executed (no idea WHAT it is thought) and mmo's as we know them will cease to exist.

 

[Fenixius]

I would love to see an FPS with 100 on 100 battles in a nice open map (think battlefield vietnam) but such a thing would probably never sell since it would probably require relatively poor graphics by today's standards thus putting off all the "I get 10 billion FPS with my quad SLI tower that uses 3 1,500W power supplies" tards.

The solution to managing that many players is quite simple, battlefield did it, eve does it and the real army does it. Chain of command. Someone in command who orders platoons/wings around and then someone in each wing/platoon that orders squads around and someone in each squad who orders players around.

I suppose that would work, but I don't think many players would get into it, unfortunately. I recommend you check out MAG for PS3, releasing soon. It advertises 256 player battles, so maybe that's your thing?

Not all players' fun lies in feeling like the most important cog in the wheel, you know. I personally think the best game designs are the ones in which the player is rather made to feel like a smaller, but well-working part of a larger whole.

Oh, I agree. But I don't think any player really would enjoy feeling largely unimportant unless there was the option for personal fun as well. As such, I think it's a matter of scale. You ratchet that "larger whole" up past about 50, and I think you'll find that people will stop caring. Unless, of course, you push the margin for error to very small terms; in which case one guy makes the raid wipe, but it takes everyone to succeed. And in those cases, I think you'll find that it's impossible to coordinate and manage that many people meaningfully.

I remember a mod for the original HL way back when called something like Firearms (?), which was basically class-based team combat à la TF, except there was a system of "lives" included - whenever one of one's own got offed, a "life" was removed from the team counter, until they were all gone (and your team lost). There were other objectives too, capture and hold, capture the flag bla bla, but the lives were always there - no lives, no win.

It sounds like Battlefield crossed with Team Fortress. That sort of system punishes less effective players by penalising the whole team. By incorporating team-oriented classed with less direct impact on enemies, and more impact on your team as a whole, there's a chance to mitigate this. Which leads to interesting decisions for players. Much like the ones I face every time I jump onto a TF2 server. That's not especially relevant to the conversation about concurrency, but it's interesting nonetheless, I think. Game design is why we're all here, right?

I play medic. People like to be support. Most games have Engineers/Medics/etc. I personally get a lot more enjoyment from supporting my immediate ally, group, army, nation, whatever than I get from leading or feeling like a hero in said group.

Okay, to be clear, first up, I play a LOT of Team Fortress 2. And my top three classes are, in order by max playtime, Engineer, Heavy and Medic. So I totally know where you're coming from - direct combat isn't always the most fun part. But I find that I make that decision based more on playstyle, rather than focussing on how I can be important. Of course, I play both assault, defensive and support classes when I play, so it's not a focus, which is something that appeals to me. But as you increase the proximal concurrency; that is to say, as you add more players, I just get frustrated because whatever I do feels more meaningless.

If you extrapolated TF2 onto a 64p map, it'd be ridiculous. The game wouldn't hold up. I've never seen any game designed with the intention of having such a high proximal concurrency, and I don't really see one working at all. Either it spreads out too thin, and other players have less immediate impact, or we go the other way, and everyone affects everyone, and noone plays because it doesn't make a difference.

That's what I'm getting at - it's not viable in a conventional videogame. Something like 1 vs 100 might work, but I think that's a special case outside the norm for established videogames.

 

[Fenixius]

The ideology behind mmo's will have to change soon enough as new technology and ideas are implemented to change the very definition of an mmo.

We are witness to the birth of the genre and make no mistake, it is still on it's hands and knees crawling towards the sunlight.

I know I come of all preachy but, soon the New Computer Architecture will be implemented changing the way data is processed and executed (no idea WHAT it is thought) and mmo's as we know them will cease to exist.

So you're saying that... things will change? I thought that was kinda obvious. Maybe you can tell me how you think it's going to change, or what it'll change into, or why current conventions and mechanics will be dropped, and we can talk about it?

 

[ioxles]

The ideology behind mmo's will have to change soon enough as new technology and ideas are implemented to change the very definition of an mmo.

We are witness to the birth of the genre and make no mistake, it is still on it's hands and knees crawling towards the sunlight.

I know I come of all preachy but, soon the New Computer Architecture will be implemented changing the way data is processed and executed (no idea WHAT it is thought) and mmo's as we know them will cease to exist.

So you're saying that... things will change? I thought that was kinda obvious. Maybe you can tell me how you think it's going to change, or what it'll change into, or why current conventions and mechanics will be dropped, and we can talk about it?

Sure, I'd love to discuss it.

One of the things I think will change or rather evolve, is the way data is handled.

Nano transistors are one of the ways this change will come about; what this means is that not only will technology get smaller electronically, but the sheer size of data able to be handled will increase exponentially without an increased strain on power or bandwidth requirements.

This will come about after the wall is hit as per what current silicon transistor technology is based on.

This advancement alone would introduce massive changes to the world of computing and computer gaming, needless to say mmo's. The amount of information transferred between server and clients would be massive and rapid allowing, for all it's implications, millions of people to concurrently exist on one server.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor

http://physics.about.com/b/2007/02/28/nano-transistor.htm

http://www.nanoscienceworks.org/articles/quiet-2013-nanotransistors-at-work

If you want any more just say so.

 

[Wolfrug]

If you extrapolated TF2 onto a 64p map, it'd be ridiculous. The game wouldn't hold up. I've never seen any game designed with the intention of having such a high proximal concurrency, and I don't really see one working at all. Either it spreads out too thin, and other players have less immediate impact, or we go the other way, and everyone affects everyone, and noone plays because it doesn't make a difference.

That's what I'm getting at - it's not viable in a conventional videogame. Something like 1 vs 100 might work, but I think that's a special case outside the norm for established videogames.

You might be right, for the average player. Having participated in IC-ArmA, for ye olde Armed Assault, the 100+ player battles WERE terribly laggy, crashed often, and were (due to the game, hardware and ping issues) often frustrating. But we continued anyway, because the experience was just so awesome. I remember one of my first games. My assignment was sitting inside (alone, I might add) a Stryker IFV, at night, watching a town making sure no enemies were going to hit it or pass through it. Gameplay-wise, I was the equivalent of a canary, since I wasn't actually expected to fight back any enemies, just get killed and thus warn the rest that there were enemies around.

I didn't shoot a single bullet or die a single time, yet I had a goddamned blast just listening to the comms, watching the flares, the explosions, the odd helicopter flying by. Oh, and staring into the greenish, NV-goggled forest looking for anything that might suggest an enemy sapper.

Later on I got to experience all the joys of being a tanker, including sitting by myself on top of a hill fighting back hordes of enemies, letting our infantry advance just a bit up the flank - or taking out the whole enemy tank division in one quick action, opening up a window for a push. And sometimes, I'd just sit somewhere staring at nothing and BOOM I'd be dead and waiting for my damn tin-can of death to respawn for ages and ages, or a helicopter would come from nowhere and blow me to hell, or I'd be out-sniped by that other tank, or I'd be stuck in the middle of nowhere with my legs busted and no help in sight. Sometimes a whole game could be like that. And sometimes, sometimes a game would be pure gold.

The only reason, really, why these battles were sometimes less than phenomenal, was the lack of players! A higher concurrency in this game (or, rather, a netcode that would allow for it) would be absolutely perfect. So there's a game designed for it, if there ever was one.

But I guess that I'm speaking here as an OFP/ArmA/Arma 2 player, which, as the Internet generally agrees, is a species of gamer all of their own Because you are of course entirely correct in that TF2, public-server, 64 player games would NOT ever work reliably.

Edit: So in conclusion, the OFP/ArmA/Arma 2 series of games IS designed for a very large player concurrency, even though the engine and netcode are NOT optimized enough for this to be technically feasible. The dream-come-true of this game would be a combined-arms assault where infantry, supported by artillery, IFVs, tanks and aircraft would make a push against a fortified position with all the same assets as the attacker - and every cog (numbering any amount, really) in this wheel would be controlled by a player. It works, because it's based on real-life military logic, which is of course one of the larger and more visible places in which "players working on the same overall team, in the same location, pursuing the same or at least related goals" can be seen.

I am aware this is a pipedream, and therefore not really 'worth' pursuing, but it's a matter of technical drawbacks, not game design or some kind of idea of "impossibility", that makes it so.

 

[Dirty Apple]

The solution to managing that many players is quite simple, battlefield did it, eve does it and the real army does it. Chain of command. Someone in command who orders platoons/wings around and then someone in each wing/platoon that orders squads around and someone in each squad who orders players around.

I've always thought that this model would be fun, but in my imagination the leaders are competent and level headed; while the grunts are loyal and respect the chain of command. Reality then steps in, those in command will end up being ego driven and dismissive. The grunts wouldn't show much better, being a collection of self-centered mass deserters.

 

[Ed.]

The solution to managing that many players is quite simple, battlefield did it, eve does it and the real army does it. Chain of command. Someone in command who orders platoons/wings around and then someone in each wing/platoon that orders squads around and someone in each squad who orders players around.

I've always thought that this model would be fun, but in my imagination the leaders are competent and level headed; while the grunts are loyal and respect the chain of command. Reality then steps in, those in command will end up being ego driven and dismissive. The grunts wouldn't show much better, being a collection of self-centered mass deserters.

There is a much better solution but it requires imagination and good design and the example is TF2 bear with me

In TF2 you have different people with specific roles all relevant all important and teamwork happens engineers build stuff medics heal allies heavies suppress enemy so team mates can move spys sneak round ect

The reason everyone plays their part is not because the player base is mature and organised its actually a typical base the reason is playing your part is fun and going against it results in death and it is staggering how many devs don't understand this and its consequences

The key isn't to make a game where team work is effective its to make one where team work is fun if its fun to take the tank screw the ambush and charge in a guy will do it and ruin the game this is another point many miss making one guy more importaint is a terrible idea its why im yet to see tanks implimented well and why flying capital ship in space games isnt a good gameplay choice it requires competant level headed incividuals

Comanders have to in practice be advisors anyone who ever played empires mod will understand how this works each team has a comander but his job is to build the base and do reaserch enginiers get the stuff he places online this in turn lets player build tanks playes move up and secure positions which allows the com to build refineries which in turn alows large stuf like tanks to be built in the buildings engineer brought online ect. this isn't the whole solution empires suffers from slippery slope and also there is no sensible way as of yet to balance infantry vs tanks properly but i think they have the right general idea each person is a cog in a 64 man battle and his role is a fun one the engineer build stuff and suddenly turrets come on-line and blast stuff infantry cap a point latter tanks come and help them.

 

[Je-Tze]

Jeeeze... no mention of either Planetside or World War II Online:Battleground Europe? Both of these games give your definition of proximal concurrency, and importance you ascribe to it a challenge. And both of these games are relatively unsung pioneers in the MMO genre. Let's ignore, for this discussion, whether or not the current player populations are too low to experience the games properly--very debatable even if we could easily pin down the numbers. Both games have had their periods with literally thousands of players at a time playing, and affecting each others play.

Planetside has servers with capacities in the thousands, and while the actual battlegrounds (called "continents") have a hard limit of 499 players (133 per side), the strategic/command structure creates a sort of meta-game along with the interconnections between the continents/territorial control mean that what's going on in the entire server population effects the individual battles. This is nowhere near the 1000's of "proximal concurrency" you're attempting to cite in some of your examples, but it's also a more complex relationship that doesn't easily fit your model. Even so, 500 players in three opposing forces is an astonishing experience in an FPS from 2003--or even now--and the tactical/strategic meta-layer adds other aspects of complexity and engagement that render most discussions of things like proximal concurrency fairly useless. Yes those 500 players in one FPS space can create lag/performance issues, but it was still ultimately very playable, and the multiple layers of engagement in the game were enough to get 1000's of players to ignore the problem and pay $12+ per month for much larger chunks of time than most games, MMO or not, can hope to keep players coming back for. Probably hundreds of thousands over the life of the game.

WWIIOnline does a very similar thing, and has been since 2001. It has and even more complexly detailed and structured and involved tactical/strategic/command meta-game, and even less restrictions on how many players can engage each other in one FPS space, all on a seamless scale map of western Europe, on a seemless single "server" architecture. Yes this 10+ year old game DOES suffer lag and performance issues in certain situations, but it is largely avoidable, and again there is MUCH MORE going on here to keep players engaged than "proximal concurrency" can easily explain.

Also both games are PvP only, with effectively zero PvE content of substance. Two outliers in the MMO landscape, certainly. But two games that will become increasingly studied by MMO devs as the industry evolves. Also two games that, while definitely past their glorious heydays, remain active and engaging, though no longer full of life 24/7.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_online
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetside

 

[Dhatz]

from the self-description line: would you like to be Legion from ME2?

 

[Dirty Apple]

snip

Ed, there's definitely an intelligent idea in there, but for the sake of any readers and myself, please use some punctuation. No matter how insightful and informed your ideas may be, unless the rest of us can understand you, the message is lost.

In reply to your post, if I can use your TF2 example, the only time you see team play in online shooters is when there's some kind of clan structure guiding it. How many games have you played when there are mostly spies and snipers on the team with only a token sprinkling of support players. Or everytime there's a new update where people swarm the new features just to try them out.

Online players are inherently selfish, it's built into the system. This is simply an extrapolation of the annonymous nature of the game. Why should we care about any of our teamates? We don't owe them anything. All it requires to destroy your idealistic view is one griefer or hack. Then we're back to square one.

 

[Phishfood]

I suppose that would work, but I don't think many players would get into it, unfortunately. I recommend you check out MAG for PS3, releasing soon. It advertises 256 player battles, so maybe that's your thing?

Lack of ps3 and lack of cash to buy one hamper it, does sound fun though.

I've always thought that this model would be fun, but in my imagination the leaders are competent and level headed; while the grunts are loyal and respect the chain of command. Reality then steps in, those in command will end up being ego driven and dismissive. The grunts wouldn't show much better, being a collection of self-centered mass deserters.

Last time I played battlefield it offered more points for following orders than not, however since points were permanent it didn't really matter. You could combine positive reinforcement with negative though, for example add points for following orders and subtract points for tasks that are clearly not related to orders. Ok, thats a little problematic.

If you are ordered to defend a point, agressively taking a different point is clearly against orders. But what if you park up as a sniper nearby, not directly defending the ordered point but generally griefing the enemy? But the idea is that if you are mostly not following orders you get crapper and crapper guns or longer respawn times etc wheras if you are following orders you get the airstrikes.

The real problem is that people play games to have fun, only doing what some pimply teenager with no idea of tactics tells you to do is no fun.

 

[Ed.]

snip

Ed, there's definitely an intelligent idea in there, but for the sake of any readers and myself, please use some punctuation. No matter how insightful and informed your ideas may be, unless the rest of us can understand you, the message is lost.

In reply to your post, if I can use your TF2 example, the only time you see team play in online shooters is when there's some kind of clan structure guiding it. How many games have you played when there are mostly spies and snipers on the team with only a token sprinkling of support players. Or everytime there's a new update where people swarm the new features just to try them out.

Online players are inherently selfish, it's built into the system. This is simply an extrapolation of the annonymous nature of the game. Why should we care about any of our teamates? We don't owe them anything. All it requires to destroy your idealistic view is one griefer or hack. Then we're back to square one.

Thats the point people are selfish you design the game around that in TF2 its generaly more fun to help your team than not to so the selfishness serves the team, nothing you can do about greifers except penalise them and have decent server admins really.