'Mavericks' Promises 1,000-Player Battle-Royale Mayhem

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by DooKey, Jun 28, 2018.

  1. DooKey

    DooKey [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,930
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Newcomer Automaton is promising a new battle-royale game that features the ability to battle with 1,000 players at a time. The game is pretty ambitious and plans to take on Fortnite and PUBG. At first they will release the capability to have 200-400 player battles and then will upgrade capability to include 5-member teams in 1,000 player matches. The battles are going to be conducted on 10x10 km maps and will even have destructible buildings. Sounds like a big deal to me and I hope they can deliver. Check out their teaser trailer.

    Watch the video here.

    Mavericks' battle-royale mode will sit inside a vaguely-defined MMORPG experience. The game will have a town called The Capital, which acts as a lobby for the last-man-standing matches. Here, the company says, you'll be able to customize your character and upgrade your weapons before heading into the fray. There will also be banks, shops, auction houses and a range of quest-giving NPCs. The Capital will be part of a "persistent open world" that launches in 2019.
     
  2. katanaD

    katanaD [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,987
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    sounds like a slide show waiting to happen


    i remember how on MMO's our guild would gather and crash the server.. fun times.
     
  3. andrewaggb

    andrewaggb Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    424
    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    I suppose if they design the maps, drop zones, etc so that you can't have 1000 players anywhere near each other at one time it could run ok. People tend to want to spread out anyways. Whether a 1000 player battle royale is a better experience than a 100 player one is I guess something we'll have to find out. It's certainly got some bragging rights behind it.

    Graphics and gameplay look good from what they've shown but it was a pretty cheesy video that I don't think is very representative of how people actually play.
     
  4. whatevs

    whatevs Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    199
    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2017
    Best case, they have some sneaky mechanic that limits number of players in any region or this isnt a typical FPS/MMO so the number of packets per second is limited somehow.
    Worst case, all bullshit.

    Typical case, all bullshit.
     
  5. bizzmeister

    bizzmeister [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,486
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Too much going on here, don’t think it’ll do well at all.
     
  6. AlphaAtlas

    AlphaAtlas [H]ard|Gawd Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,713
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Neat, but it's still free-for-all battle royale, so it's not going to feel like a 1000 player battle. The skirmishes will be the same as any other game, thanks to the giant map size.

    I just want more games like PlanetSide 2, where you can participate in a single battle with 200+ people you can (more or less) see/shoot all at once. Then drive to the next base. The chaos of it all is just brilliant.
     
    spaceman and AceGoober like this.
  7. Lakados

    Lakados [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,479
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2014
    Queue times for 40 people were a nightmare, I am sure queue times for 400 will be a wet dream.
     
  8. AlphaAtlas

    AlphaAtlas [H]ard|Gawd Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,713
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    It would have to have some kind of drop-in spawn mechanic, or something similar given their talk of a "persistent open world".
     
  9. gamerk2

    gamerk2 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,559
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    The problem with that is from a sever perspective, it doesn't work the way you are thinking. The server has to process EVERYTHING, regardless of how far apart people are. Unless each region of the map becomes its own stand alone server (which has problems; how would sniping between zones work?), you're stuck with everyone in the same server at a time, which is a massive performance hog.

    It's doable; EVE Online does it. Barely.

    To me, the old axiom holds: If it sounds to good to be true...
     
    N4CR likes this.
  10. Gweenz

    Gweenz [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,216
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    I guess writing netcode is easy!
     
  11. fuzzylogik

    fuzzylogik Gawd

    Messages:
    627
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    It'll have to be good to have 1000 players playing at the same time - so... until they get there we'll have to see! huge battles are great fun. PlanetSide2 is evidence of that and I'm not sure what the largest single battle is (I'm sure some that i've been in have been with a couple hundred people in the same area?)
     
  12. AlphaAtlas

    AlphaAtlas [H]ard|Gawd Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,713
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Again, PlanetSide 2 handled 1000+ people on a single map years ago. And unlike EVE, it's an FPS.

    It is hard, but not quite as bad as you think. The server may have to handle a bunch of people at once, but the clients don't have to render all 1000 people at the same time, which means the server only has to send info about a dozen other players to each client, or maybe a few dozen in rare instances.


    In other words, you just apply classic LoD/occlusion culling techniques to the players themself.

    I've seen 400+ people in 1 or 2 hexes for sure, maybe more. But in those cases infantry render distance starts to get pretty short.

    There isn't enough pop for those kinds of battles anymore though.
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2018
  13. jardows

    jardows [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,564
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2015
    Hey, with AMD Epyc, we now have the cores to do it! ;)
     
    lostinseganet likes this.
  14. BaGGy

    BaGGy Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    156
    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    They are achieving this by using multiple servers per "lobby," similar to how SpatialOS works. Which in their closed testing works well obviously, but scaling will be the bigger issue.
     
    AlphaAtlas likes this.
  15. greenman

    greenman Gawd

    Messages:
    594
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    I love how a battle royale trailer shows the player kick ass. On average, the player dies without knowing where it came from. Or kills one and dies by another. heh
     
    AlphaAtlas likes this.
  16. fuzzylogik

    fuzzylogik Gawd

    Messages:
    627
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    Yeah, not anymore - realized it's been over a year since I've launched it last I think. I wanted to say "few hundred" but I can't remember... but I do remember them being...epic.
     
  17. Shmee

    Shmee [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,148
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2014
    If they can pull it off that would be sweet, but 99v1 is already hectic enough, but 995v5 would just turn in to a sniper's paradise. Much like Tic-Tac-Toe, the only way to win is not to play...
     
    AlphaAtlas likes this.
  18. oldmanbal

    oldmanbal [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    2,039
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Upon closer inspection the game looks circa half life 2, so the netcode could probably handle that many people at this point. Modern games start to vomit over 40 people.
     
    Jon855 likes this.
  19. F.E.A.R.

    F.E.A.R. [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,443
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Well assuming they could do it can it really be fun with that many players? I'm not so sure.
     
  20. Chupachup

    Chupachup Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    435
    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2014
    So, has PUBG announced anything regarding sicking their lawyers on them for appropriation, theft or some other nonsense, yet?
     
  21. DedEmbryonicCe11

    DedEmbryonicCe11 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,571
    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    The Unchained engine can handle this many characters in the viewport at the same time and it was designed as a FPS engine at its core. I'm also really hoping the new engine for Mount & Blade 2 can handle more than the ~230 their old engine can handle. Modern warfare is a lot easier to simulate with lower player counts on a server than any sort of medieval through the US Civil War era is.
     
    Jon855 likes this.
  22. velusip

    velusip [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,578
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    Doesn't it say they are using SpatialOS?

    I suspect that it won't really matter how many people are playing simultaneously. BR type gameplay naturally distributess relevant events over space and time, so the event workers will never have to aggregate more than a known, set number of actions, which can be directly controlled by the progress of a match. e.g. If not enough people have died in group A to make a safe/lagless merge, reduce the active play zone for just that group of players before directing them toward group B with another zone reduction.

    Of course, SpatialOS is releatively unproven, so time will tell.
     
  23. tangoseal

    tangoseal [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,299
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    At least it's not some dumbshit cartoon rediculousness like Fortnite.
     
    Jon855 likes this.
  24. TheOne&OnlyZeke

    TheOne&OnlyZeke 100% Irish

    Messages:
    10,219
    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2000
    If it works, hey I'd have a go
    I won't hold my breath though....as I can only do that for maybe 2 minutes anyway...and I'd pass ut
     
  25. Shadowed

    Shadowed Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    496
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2018
    I'd prefer 500v500.
     
  26. ScuNioN

    ScuNioN [H]Lite

    Messages:
    107
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2016
    Just because you can have a 1000, or 500 does it make it a better game?

    Give me combined arms and vehicles then you have something that truly feels dynamic and epic. Oh, we already have that with Planetside 2!

    Teamplay > Battle-Royale
     
    ng4ever likes this.
  27. Schtask

    Schtask Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    436
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Playing an fps that's rolling time dilation ala Eve online is going to be....stupid. lol