4 ms·

I don't think anyone disagrees that linearly scaling of traffic scales linearly. What they're getting at, why would you still use that rather implementing somet

I don't think anyone disagrees that linearly scaling of traffic scales linearly. What they're getting at, why would you still use that rather implementing something more efficient? Like Battlefield games (bf4?) did, using different update rates for nearby and distant players. Would also argue that RTS inputs are different from fps as in general you give commands to units, like go here in move/attack mode, and they do it for you. In fps your inputs control a character directly. So they can use different methods of conveying progress of state. And an fps game can use both methods, like doing deterministic physics for objects. Also don't need to wait for inputs just because its deterministic simulation?

gafferongames 4mo ago
> I don't think anyone disagrees that linearly scaling of traffic scales linearly. What they're getting at, why would you still use that rather implementing something more efficient? Like Battlefield games (bf4?) did, using different update rates for nearby and distant players. I guess my confusion/frustration comes from this sort of default, "wow, that's a lot of bandwidth, umm I guess somewhere he must be doing something really inefficient" train of thought that I see so many commenters are going through in this thread. What if it wasn't inefficient. What if what I'm describing is actually using the 10-20mbps and packing in an appropriate amount of game that justifies that amount of bandwidth on top of already doing all the smart compression techniques? Think of it like this, what if you did all the compression and bandwidth optimization techniques available, and instead of targeting 1-2mbps, you just used the additional bandwidth to fit in more game? More players. Greater object density. A bigger world. More networked objects. Higher tick rate. There are any number of dimensions you can expand along. Nobody is suggesting "LOL, bandwidth is free now, make the same game, but be lazy and have it take up 10-20mbps! hahah". The industry doesn't take kindly to the same things over and over, players want novelty. So give it to them!
- Hikikomori 4mo ago
  Then its fine, but its not what was described, and I guess that is what people had issues with as just scaling player numbers without optimization wouldn't work great right? Good luck with your game though, great if it works, but seems like many large player count games cut corners to simplify things.
  - gafferongames 4mo ago
    > Then its fine, but its not what was described, and I guess that is what people had issues with as just scaling player numbers without optimization wouldn't work great right? I never said anything about scaling numbers without optimization. If a game is already optimized, and you scale up numbers, the game doesn't suddenly become unoptimized just because n or m increases. You just have more stuff.

gafferongames 4mo ago

> I don't think anyone disagrees that linearly scaling of traffic scales linearly. What they're getting at, why would you still use that rather implementing something more efficient? Like Battlefield games (bf4?) did, using different update rates for nearby and distant players. I guess my confusion/frustration comes from this sort of default, "wow, that's a lot of bandwidth, umm I guess somewhere he must be doing something really inefficient" train of thought that I see so many commenters are going through in this thread. What if it wasn't inefficient. What if what I'm describing is actually using the 10-20mbps and packing in an appropriate amount of game that justifies that amount of bandwidth on top of already doing all the smart compression techniques? Think of it like this, what if you did all the compression and bandwidth optimization techniques available, and instead of targeting 1-2mbps, you just used the additional bandwidth to fit in more game? More players. Greater object density. A bigger world. More networked objects. Higher tick rate. There are any number of dimensions you can expand along. Nobody is suggesting "LOL, bandwidth is free now, make the same game, but be lazy and have it take up 10-20mbps! hahah". The industry doesn't take kindly to the same things over and over, players want novelty. So give it to them!

Hikikomori 4mo ago
Then its fine, but its not what was described, and I guess that is what people had issues with as just scaling player numbers without optimization wouldn't work great right? Good luck with your game though, great if it works, but seems like many large player count games cut corners to simplify things.
- gafferongames 4mo ago
  > Then its fine, but its not what was described, and I guess that is what people had issues with as just scaling player numbers without optimization wouldn't work great right? I never said anything about scaling numbers without optimization. If a game is already optimized, and you scale up numbers, the game doesn't suddenly become unoptimized just because n or m increases. You just have more stuff.