MAG

By Oli Welsh Published 29 April, 2009

The future of the multiplayer shooter?

When Sony revealed MAG - no-one's referring to it as Massive Action Game any more, it seems - at E3 last year, its promise of 256-player online modern warfare raised a few eyebrows. Not that we didn't believe it; we did, however, wonder how it could possibly hang together. Even in MMOs, you rarely get that many people in a single conflict, and when it does happen (in EVE Online, say) precious few understand what's going on, or can perceive it through the juddering lag. Surely a multiplayer FPS on that scale could only go one of two ways: complex, tactical and dry, or sheer bloody chaos.

Zipper Interactive knows better. After 12 games in 13 years, most of them in Sony's quietly huge SOCOM series (racking up 10 million sales to date), it should. And just because it has a history in military training software doesn't mean it doesn't understand the meaning of fun.

MAG is fun. In fact, it's massive fun. It's fast and loose, free-flowing, improvisational, spectacular, structured without being too rigid; it accommodates lone wolves, team players and power-trippers alike, and makes it easy for players themselves to direct the action. You'd expect it to be intimidating, but it actually feels like the FPS for everybody. Even after just one 20-minute, 128-player match, it's hard to shake the feeling that, one day, all multiplayer shooters will be made in its image.

In a way, the concept is very simple. Zipper takes that scary number of players, breaks it down into something friendly and familiar - squads of eight facing off in 16-player struggles for an objective or two - and then builds it up again. 16-player skirmishes segue smoothly into 32-player firefights as squads converge. Then 32 players become 64 as attackers and defenders move on from subsidiary to primary objectives. Then you look over a hill, or a building, and see the mirror image of the battle you're fighting on the other side of the map. Then it happens again.

'MAG' Screenshot 1

A vacation in a foreign land. Uncle Sam does the best he can.

"If you're talking sheer chaos, in terms of, if you drop 256 players into a village square like an arena, that's going to be unmitigated," says creative director Ed Byrne. "So what we wanted to do is build that intensity and use that flow to direct players from small encounters to larger, and to basically make sure that squads link up actually more like a realistic military operation."

Orchestrating battles on this scale involves a light touch, he explains. You need to direct the fight through careful level design, but also leave players freedom to spread out. "It's through level design and through the flow from beginning to end of the map as you go through the objectives that we mitigate the chaos. The other [method] is simply allowing players to have some freedom on where to go, so if a player is basically overwhelmed by the amount of combat that he's seeing, he can not only retreat backwards but he can go laterally and join the areas that are happening on either side of him."

There'll be a benefit to sticking with your squad, however. 64- or 128-man armies are divided into eight-man squads and 32-strong platoons, and each of these is assigned a leader, with the OIC (Officer In Charge) sitting at the top. Squad and platoon leaders have special skills, ranging from team buffs to tactical support (artillery strikes, A10 strafing runs - big bangs, basically) to powerful strategic manoeuvres like satellite sweeps or blockades.

'MAG' Screenshot 2

Now you remember what the draftman said: nothing to do all day but stay in bed.

Perhaps more importantly, they can set FRAGO (fragmentary orders) objectives. These clearly direct players to primary and secondary objectives on the map: disable this anti-air gun so we can call in airstrikes, take over this bunker so the enemy can't use it as a spawn point, steal this experimental vehicle to win the game. You get double the experience points for focusing on FRAGO objectives, and big bonuses for actually completing them, so your character ranks up faster. Ranking up unlocks weapons, develops your skills in the three class disciplines - medic, engineer and assault - and, eventually, grants access to those command roles. It's a virtuous circle that doesn't force organised play, but rewards it at every level.

"Part of the fantasy of scale on one end of the spectrum is being a soldier, being an operative in that large battle," says Byrne. "But for many players the fantasy on the other end of the spectrum is being in charge. And we wanted to make sure that when we dealt with scale, we weren't simply, again, just dropping people into an arena and having them fight each other. We wanted the fantasy fulfilment to be on the leadership side as well, for the admittedly, probably smaller number of players who want to be OICs - to give them the opportunity to participate on a more strategic level."

Even OICs are warriors on the ground, however. There's a neat 3D tactical map that every player can view, but only commanders can interact with, setting objectives and deploying assets. But there's no separate, high-level RTS-style view of the action. "We didn't want them basically to get stuck in there like they're playing a map," says Byrne. "So OICs and platoon leaders and squad leaders are all able to, and encouraged to, basically be in the field fighting, and then juggle their duties behind the gun and behind the interface in terms of their play-style."

And with play-style Zipper's watchword, again, is freedom. The three classes aren't strictly defined, so you can build a hybrid character if you want; and you've always got the opportunity to switch between three loadouts when respawning. These are your standard assault trooper with good healing abilities (you heal yourself and others by firing a cloud of health from a sort of first-aid gun, the most science-fiction element in this otherwise sensible near-future scenario); a sniper-scout with a self-heal; and a heavy assault loadout with machinegun, rocket launcher and "repair gun" for equipment and installations, but no player healing.

Spawn points are pushed backwards and forwards with the frontlines of battle, and are wonderfully dynamic. Some are just bunkers, but others might be an APC or helicopter for insertion behind enemy lines (and use as defensive firing platforms). Or there's what will surely be MAG's visual signature, the paratrooper drop; waves of dozens of respawning players, guiding themselves down from the sky into the thick of battle, and if they're really unlucky, being picked off by snipers before they get boots on the ground. Die, and there's a "bleedout" grace period before you respawn, during which a friendly player can bring you back to life, although you can always opt out of this if you feel like switching roles.

Unlike other large-scale multiplayer shooters - the Battlefield series and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars spring to mind - MAG surprisingly eschews player-controlled vehicles beyond those APCs. "Vehicles, especially fast vehicles with long ranges, require a lot of space. What we wanted to do was make sure our maps were densely populated, were massive, but weren't of a scale where players were running a lot to get into combat, or shooting from a very large distance."

It's a very smart decision. MAG's scale is all about people, not space. It's about seeing dozens of players by your side, dozens more in the distance, and hearing the widespread rattle of gunfire and the distant (or not-so-distant) screen-shaking thunder of airstrikes. Above all, it's about knowing that not one piece of this staggering spectacle, on a par with the grandest Call of Duty set-piece, is scripted or AI-directed. Every bullet, every explosion, every scrambling figure is the action of a real live player.

'MAG' Screenshot 3

Smiling faces as you wait to land, but once you get there no-one gives a damn.

The maps, then, are large but not too open, throwing players together as much as possible; they're a logical extension of the map design for a standard shooter ("We realised what makes a good multiplayer map makes a good MAG map," Byrne says). They're mostly military complexes. MAG's scenario is a three-way conflict between three private military corporations (PMCs) as they seek to gain advantages over each other in the struggle for government contracts. This will play out in a persistent metagame that players can track from the MAG website.

The three factions differ in style more than anything. Raven, whose futuristic bunkers are found in humid South American hills, are a sleek, high-tech, special-ops operation, all black carbon fibre armour and meticulous hygiene. Valor are grizzled, manly war veterans with a traditional military look, toughing it out in Alaska. S.V.E.R. (pronounced "sever") are edgy, aggressive guerrilla fighters with hoodies, hockey masks and improvised, ramshackle equipment, daubing graffiti all over the abandoned Russian installations they call home.

These environments are drawn in remarkable detail, considering the immense technical demands of running a 256-player battler at a solid 30 frames per second. MAG isn't quite Call of Duty 4 or Killzone 2 in the beauty-pageant stakes, and it has an understated look. But it's sharp, the level of detail is convincing, and abundant use of light-scattering fog and smoke engenders an impressively gritty, war-zone feel. Zipper's coding achievement is quietly immense.

'MAG' Screenshot 4

You'll be the hero of the neighbourhood, nobody knows that you left for good.

"I think that you might have seen people achieve simply the scale but without the graphical fidelity, or you might have seen people achieve the fidelity but with horrific lag," says Byrne, explaining why we haven't seen the likes of MAG before. "It's daunting, not only in surmounting the obstacle of how do we possibly get that many players and have it run at 30 frames a second, but even once you accomplish that, the inevitable is how do we make it look good, and how on earth do we make it fun?

"I think the trifecta of those obstacles has been something that not many developers have been in a position to overcome. At Zipper we're in a lucky position in that PlayStation 3's actually an amazing piece of kit - we've leveraged the technology to the fullest that we can right now, everything's running on SPUs, the Blu-ray actually allows us to put a lot of content on levels, so we can have a lot of fidelity in graphical environments just from technology alone."

It's nice of Byrne to defer credit to his publishing, platform-holding paymasters. But there's plenty in MAG Sony can't take credit for. The superb tuning and tactile punch of the weapons; the expert finesse of the map design; the relentless pace of the battles; the perfectly-balanced tightrope-walk between order and chaos, between tactical primacy and player freedom. With alpha coming to a close, news of a public beta expected soon and release towards the end of the year, MAG looks fighting-fit already, and PS3 could soon have a multiplayer shooter that will be the envy of all.

MAG is due out exclusively for PS3 in autumn 2009.

Picture of Oli.

About Oli Welsh

Oli is Eurogamer's acting deputy editor and reviews editor and likes to take things one word at a time. He is among the best dressed people in South London.

Read more articles from Oli by visiting the Oli Welsh archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (98) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • flapps #1 3 years ago

    I don't know what I was expecting from MAG, but after this hands-on I've got to say I'm very excited for it!! Sounds frickin' awesome!!

  • DFawkes #2 3 years ago

    I love the sound of this. I'll be watching hopefully.

  • jim1975 #3 3 years ago

    MAG.

  • Chufty #4 3 years ago

    Sounds like they've taken a few leaves from the Planetside book while ensuring it stays infantry-based rather than vehicle-based. This is a very promising revelation!

    It sounds immense! Hopefully it will inspire some proper large-scale PC shooters.

  • Ninja_Tino #5 3 years ago

    I can never really be too bothered with online shooters nowadays but this looks fun stuff. Not being a cock, but...shame it's on the ps3. Means I gotta buy a headset.

  • AphoticCosmos #6 3 years ago

    The only PS3 game I wish was on a console I owned.

  • richardiox #7 3 years ago

    Sounds really good. Squad system very similar to Battlefield 2 which is by no means a bad thing. Wish more online FPSs would implement a chain of command system. Not being a PS3 owner I can only lament the fact that despite being first to the online table, MS haven't got anything of this scale up and runing...i'm hoping they announce something similar at E3.

  • rhinoxious #8 3 years ago

    Sounds like everything that Killzone 2 and Resistance 2 should have been (though both have their merits).

  • PearOfAnguish #9 3 years ago

    Sounds just like Battlefield 2 with a clever map design and minus the vehicles.

  • stepneg #10 3 years ago

    Sounds great it's a shame it will be let down by PSN being so bad.
    Edited by 1 at 29/04/09 @ 17:17

  • Gurgeh #11 3 years ago

    Doesn't really address the problem of what happens if 256 people all turn up in the same spot. The design of the game can discourage this by giving people different objectives to keep them apart, but the laws of Internet "physics" cannot be broken. There are limits to latency and bandwidth that's out of the control of the game designer.

    BTW there were Quakeworld servers running 64 player deathmatches 10 years ago (or more).

  • PearOfAnguish #12 3 years ago

    I'd also question what happens when you get an arsehole for a commander. You see them in BF2 dropping supply crates on top of snipers and giving stupid orders.

  • miiiguel #13 3 years ago

    The problem with random ppl is that usually, randoms are not friendly, not even fun to play with. Sounds a must if you have 255 virtual buddies though.

  • theiceman #14 3 years ago

    MAG=Mighty Awesome Game!!

  • ruttyboy #15 3 years ago

    Is there a way I can use a 360 controller on the PS3? Not trolling I honestly want to know, my PS3 is almost totally a media centre at the moment so never had need to consider it.

  • Moonprince #16 3 years ago

    You can use any USB controller with a ps3 as far as I know.

    oh, and Planetside was awesome! Hope this is similar!
    Edited by 2 at 29/04/09 @ 17:29

  • Ged42 #17 3 years ago

    As long as your team mates aren't complete idiots, it sounds like it'll be a fun game. It'll proably be close to unplayable to begin with team mates called things L33tSH0T497lol shooting you in the back every few minutes. But once they've gotten bored and fucked off, MAG will probably be good fun.

  • guernican #18 3 years ago

    "I'd also question what happens when you get an arsehole for a commander."

    I believe they're working on a patch for that already.

  • VandelayIndustries #19 3 years ago

    @ stepneg

    Really? I have more faith in Sony pulling this off than I would do if it were Microsoft, simply by virtue of all the large player count games Sony have already released so far.

    @ miiiguel

    It shouldn't be too tall an order to fill out an 8 player squad with friends.

  • Azazel #20 3 years ago

    we've leveraged the technology

    no No NO!

    Otherwise uh, nice article - sounds cool! PC version plz.

  • RedSparrows #21 3 years ago

    sounds sweet. I wonder if it'll work, sounds as though it will.

  • Kenshin001 #22 3 years ago

    Plenty of people thought this wasn't going to be possible judging from the MAG thread. Glad they were wrong. Can't wait.

  • patch #23 3 years ago

    @Gurgeh, I'm struggling to see your point with regards having 256 people connecting to a server at once. How will this cause problems? Or do you mean "same spot" as in the same point in the game, again I can't see how this would be anything to worry about?

  • collateral89 #24 3 years ago

    not sure yet ]^=

  • Ryuken #25 3 years ago

    I'd rather have another PlanetSide to be honest.

  • sneetch #26 3 years ago

    PC version please thankyouverymuch. This sounds great, I loved 64 player Tribes 2 servers, 4 times the players with decent command + mission structure would be great. Hopefully they'll discourage simply zerging and encourage smaller actions by requiring you to hold/take/destroy multiple objects in short order.

  • SFG_Clan #27 3 years ago

    I like the sound of aspects of this game, however there are many things I have problem with.
    It sounds like the maps are big but alot of the time you will be restricted to certain area really, this is by no means a bad thing BFBC uses a similar system in its gold rush mode, but it raises the question of freedom? what freedom to roam in your designated area driving very little or no vehicles

    Don't takes this as an insult ps3 owners but it is hugely ambitious and sounds like it is going to be a fail in one way or another, im hedging my bets on Operation Flashpoint 2

  • sneetch #28 3 years ago

    @patch
    @Gurgeh, I'm struggling to see your point with regards having 256 people connecting to a server at once. How will this cause problems? Or do you mean "same spot" as in the same point in the game, again I can't see how this would be anything to worry about?

    Well, I'm not sure how much information is being sent but if you can see 255 other people, the server needs to send you information on where they're moving, looking and shooting which is a lot of data for each person. The internet (i.e. people's connections) may not be able to take it (tests on LANs obviously won't tell you that).

    To put it another way, Valve had to redesign their net code for the zombie horde in L4D to reduce the amount of data being sent for each individual zombie because their zombie hordes were overloading client connections and lagging people out (their zombie hordes are considerably smaller than the max number of players this game will allow).

    That said, with good hosting centres (which I believe they have, they did with planetside a few years ago after all) and code designed from the start for these numbers it might not be that much of a problem.

  • ParanoidZombie #29 3 years ago

    I'm curious about the matchmaking system: how long will it take to gather 256 players? How many people do you need before you can start a game?

  • Miths #30 3 years ago

    It's scheduled for a 2009 release? I thought this game was far off in 2010 or even early '11.
    Well, it certainly looks promising - let's hope it manages to live up to those promises.

  • Burkey123 #31 3 years ago

    Hopefully this turns out good, Looks promising so far.
    I don't know if this will be as good as Warhawk though. 256 players or not.

  • Chufty #32 3 years ago

    PLEASE, everyone doubting whether a multipalyer game can handle this many players, go and look up Planetside and then extrapolate with today's Internet speeds.

    This game will have a mere quarter of the players per battle that Planetside did.

    It's not a case of it can't be done, just that it's expensive to do. Investors seem to have backed MAG this time.

  • Gazza_UK #33 3 years ago

    Cool. I was expecting this article to trash it completly, even so i wasnt expecting the great comments they made, cant wait to hear more. Lets hope it delivers.

  • Beano #34 3 years ago

    "...and PS3 could soon have [ANOTHER] multiplayer shooter that will be the envy of all."

    Fixed :)


  • Machetazo #35 3 years ago

    And, as sudden as that, they have my full attention.

  • butler` #36 3 years ago

    Probably another great on paper / shit in reality ps3 game

    I'd love to be surprised though.

  • Metalfish #37 3 years ago

    This does sound very cool. I think it's safe to say that the PS3 may well be reaching critical mass for people like myself, i.e. 360 owners with a gaming PC, to pick on up in the near future. I loved tribes, I loved battlefield(s) and I loved COD4, if this lives up to the hype and, most importantly doesn't feel like it's made of cheap plastic (looking at you far cry 2) this should be a real trump card for Sony.

    Still prefer a PC version though :p

  • Ansob. #38 3 years ago

    As PearOfAnguish sort-of-pointed-out, this does sound somewhat like Battlefield; the FRAGO system especially. I'm not sure how they intend to address OICs failing to issue objectives, or issuing stupid ones.

  • drumbaby #39 3 years ago

    MAG: Microsoft Are Gutted

  • Gazza_UK #40 3 years ago

    "I'm not sure how they intend to address OICs failing to issue objectives, or issuing stupid ones."

    Doesnt it say that you have to gain the ability to become a cammander? If so then i guess they hope this would cut out most of the morons.

  • chris_ace #41 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 11:55:13 13-12-2011

  • Sylpharion #42 3 years ago

    Whoa, wasn't expecting that. It sounds absolutely amazing and I can't wait to get my hands on it. Roll on release day!

  • ronuds #43 3 years ago

    "MAG: Microsoft Are Gutted"

    Yes, because I'm sure this will be another PS3 FPS to sell millions upon millions of copies.

    Oh, wait... :p

  • Goodfella #44 3 years ago

    @ronuds

    Looks like you're on the MDF team.

  • Davemanz #45 3 years ago

    It's really surprising to hear that this might actually be awesome. I was expecting a gimmick game with a really lousy title. So if it's good, awesome, but I'd still rather they find a new name for the game.

  • Jimbob89 #46 3 years ago

    This game along with killzone, resistance and uncharted is tempting me to buy a ps3!

  • sweatshop78 #47 3 years ago

    No player controlled vehicles- euurgh!

  • oerhoert #48 3 years ago

    Looks absolutely shit.

    If only they'd hired someone who know anything about branding.

  • Widge #49 3 years ago

    Got a certain CounterStrike-y look to the graphics...

    If it plays as good as Day Of Defeat then I'm in.

  • Dizzy #50 3 years ago

    WoW and WAR can't handle 256 people. This game will also not be able to handle it if they all come together. I guess the trick here is to "pretend" that you have a 256 people battle going on... by reducing the netcode by making sure people are in different parts of the map. Also 256??? Are we in 2009? They only store the number of players in a byte????

    That being said... I don't think there is a big market for this. You are a bit stuck between a full fledged smaller FPS (CoD, Halo, KZ2) and the MMO crowd (who won't really play online shooters... look at Tabula Rasa). This will not be a very big success IMHO. Also WTF is up with the name?
    Edited by 2 at 29/04/09 @ 21:54

  • thegamesthething #51 3 years ago

    "I'd rather have another PlanetSide to be honest."

    Me too, but this might be close. Also, if MAG works well, it might spawn a few imitations. Big firefights ftw.

    Werner NC ftw too, once upon a time.
    Edited by 1 at 29/04/09 @ 22:14

  • NotSoSlim #52 3 years ago

    Here comes the trolls...lol

    Positive preview and surprise surprise they come out of the wood work, now they attack the name. Clutching at straws much?

  • TheRealBadabing #53 3 years ago

    This would tempt me to get a PS3 if it weren't for the controllers tbh.

  • betahoven #54 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:36:16 17-12-2011

  • Rodchenko #55 3 years ago

    Dizzylol

  • Chufty #56 3 years ago

    IF you read the article it explains why the number of players is a power of 2. Nothing to do with bytes.

  • davymackie #57 3 years ago

    sounds good, hopefully online runs smooth, smoothISH! will do tho.

  • TitusCrow #58 3 years ago

    wth did this spring from? i hadnt even heard of it before this preview :) oh well if it turns out as good as it previews im in.

  • Xerx3s #59 3 years ago

    "Doesn't really address the problem of what happens if 256 people all turn up in the same spot. The design of the game can discourage this by giving people different objectives to keep them apart, but the laws of Internet "physics" cannot be broken. There are limits to latency and bandwidth that's out of the control of the game designer. "

    There are more things you can do. A while back a ms thinktank i.e. presented an applied p2p way of working based on the Q3 engine that allows to have a massive number of players in a game simply by selective information streams.

  • mcmonkeyplc #60 3 years ago

    About fucking time! AFT

  • Spekingur #61 3 years ago

    It will be interesting to see if the game can stand up to its promises.

    I want see what E3 will turn up.

  • man.the.king #62 3 years ago

    @stepneg

    "Sounds great it's a shame it will be let down by PSN being so bad"
    You don't have to worry about it as you won't be playing it right? Especially as your profile seems to indicate you are a 360-only gamer. And on-topic, the lag can't be worse than old peer-to-peer XBL.

    Seems like good PS3-exclusive reviews/previews seem to bring 360 trolls (only referring to trolls like Dizzy and stepneg here, not honest commenters) out of the woodwork.
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/09 @ 00:57

  • Sneerk #63 3 years ago

    Sounds awesome, give me beta access please!

    But no controllable vehicles but APC's? What the frig?

  • andromeda #64 3 years ago

    this looks as grey and shite and the Quo song referenced in the captions

  • General_Zod #65 3 years ago

    @thegamesthething

    Werner NC also. Curse those Vanu lagriders and disco balls!

    Anyways looks good tis a shame that Planetside didnt work out so well. I have yet to have a similar experience of flying in a galaxy, hot dropping onto a tower with my brosefs, in a bitter struggle to capture. I also loved it when I got CR3 so I could draw pictures on the map, pictionary in transit was a good way to pass the time.
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/09 @ 08:59

  • Aggesan #66 3 years ago

    For all of you who cry about the PS3 controller, there is actually an adapter that makes it possible to use a 360-controller with the PS3. I believe XCM is the name of the company making it.

    Oh, and Mag, it seems like it could become the best multiplayer fps since BF2. I hope they manage to pull this off.

  • Dizzy #67 3 years ago

    "There are more things you can do. A while back a ms thinktank i.e. presented an applied p2p way of working based on the Q3 engine that allows to have a massive number of players in a game simply by selective information streams. "

    Yes indeed.. there are ways to do this but like everything in game design you always have to "cheat" a little bit and of course what you gain in one area you will have to lose in another. A lot of people (non software forum posters) seem to think you can have your cake and eat it ;) I believe that MS thing was based on only sending information directly to the people who needed it (who could "see" you in the world).

    So they will have to design MAG around the fact that those 256 people (apparently it has to be a power of 2 because errr... it HAS to) will not be able to come together in the middle of the map and have a big shootout. I do not think this is a bad idea... clever tricks have always been the core of game design. You start off with something cool on paper, realize it can't be done without some clever tricks and then start to work on those tricks. I do this all the time ;) First I write the proper code (usually mathematically correct) and then we start to tweak and cheat our way around it. The end result normally will be close to the "pure" version and sometimes only really software savvy people will see where the cheating was done.
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/09 @ 09:12

  • MisterCraig #68 3 years ago

    This all sounds very nice, but it's all looking rather grey and brown to me.

  • MaxiSleep #69 3 years ago

    It sounds fantastic, but I fear that real world multiplayer never meets the expection of internal trials

  • DrDamn #70 3 years ago

    @Dizzy
    The power of two thing as mentioned above is based on the game set-up and covered in the article. Give it up already.

  • sneetch #71 3 years ago

    @Dizzy
    So they will have to design MAG around the fact that those 256 people (apparently it has to be a power of 2 because errr... it HAS to)

    Jesus, maybe if you read the article you might be able figure out why it's 256? Does it have to be a power of 2? No. Does it happen to be a power of 2? Why yes, it does. It's called coincidence.

    "There'll be a benefit to sticking with your squad, however. 64- or 128-man armies are divided into eight-man squads and 32-strong platoons, and each of these is assigned a leader, with the OIC (Officer In Charge) sitting at the top. Squad and platoon leaders have special skills, ranging from team buffs to tactical support (artillery strikes, A10 strafing runs - big bangs, basically) to powerful strategic manoeuvres like satellite sweeps or blockades."

    Just to recap, the players are organised into 8 man squads, then 32 man platoons (that's 4 squads, in case we're moving too fast here) and then 1 to 4 platoons per side. 4 times 32 is 128 and 128 people on both sides would be? That's right, it's 256! Wow! Mystery solved, gang! It was old man Basic Mathematics from the old, abandoned, amusement park! Scoobie Snacks all round!

    (BTW: If they were to "store the number of players in a byte" it would be between 0 and 255 players so you'd need two bytes to store the number of players. Take the second byte, no one will miss it.)

  • mcbi4kh2 #72 3 years ago

    @Sneetch

    (BTW: If they were to "store the number of players in a byte" it would be between 0 and 255 players so you'd need two bytes to store the number of players. Take the second byte, no one will miss it.)

    Or 127 if it's signed :/

  • Dizzy #73 3 years ago

    "(BTW: If they were to "store the number of players in a byte" it would be between 0 and 255 players so you'd need two bytes to store the number of players. Take the second byte, no one will miss it.) "

    Oh dear... I think you better leave now. You really have no clue on how software works do you?
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/09 @ 11:23

  • sneetch #74 3 years ago

    @Dizzy
    Oh dear... I think you better leave now. You really have no clue on how software works do you?

    I do. I've been a software engineer for years. The range you'll have to track is 0-256 (as in, 257 discrete values) if you're considering using 0 to indicate 256 players then how will your "system" track 0 players?

    Are you sure you know anything about how software works? That's a rookie error.

  • Dizzy #75 3 years ago

    Dude...

    There won't be a variable for counting the number of players.

    Each network packed will have a player ID to identify the player. A byte will allow for 256 different IDs.

    But calling me a rookie made me smile. :)
    Edited by 3 at 30/04/09 @ 12:16

  • sneetch #76 3 years ago

    @Dizzy
    Dude...

    There won't be a variable for counting the number of players.

    Each network packed will have a player ID to identify the player. A byte will allow for 256 different IDs.

    I know there won't need to store the number of players in a single byte "counter" (although it will be keeping track of the number of players in some manner). You're the one who said (however facetiously) that there would be! In your earlier post:

    They only store the number of players in a byte????

    I was correcting your mistake: that you could store a number between 0 and 256 in one byte. Which is a rookie error.

    But calling me a rookie made me smile. :)

    Yeah, it was as amusing as someone implying I don't know how software works. After 17 years, I beg to differ. :)
    Edited by 3 at 30/04/09 @ 12:21

  • Dizzy #77 3 years ago

    Let it go Sneetch. It was fun.

  • sneetch #78 3 years ago

    @Dizzy
    Let it go Sneetch. It was fun.

    Aw, but I want more fighting... oh all right then. :)

  • Vanmunt #79 3 years ago

    ok, so how many bites in a Burger King Texan Whopper or should I compare it to a Big Mac as I have had zero bites and what ID do I need... will my driving license be OK?

    Oh, and good write up on Joystic with video...

  • Widge #80 3 years ago

    I like computers, they have buttons!

  • Rubarack #81 3 years ago

    if you're considering using 0 to indicate 256 players then how will your "system" track 0 players?

    Will you need to? Surely it depends on whether empty servers are allowed to exist or whether they are created on demand.

    Anyway this looks pretty interesting, at this rate I may have to get a PS3 this year.

  • geeza2020 #82 3 years ago

    need. ps3. for. this.

    software programming is really interesting too! :D

  • Ranger101 #83 3 years ago

    sneetch wrong, dizzy right. Dizzy's also right to question 256 as the total number - the explanation for 8v8/161v16/32v32 etc. just fits into the original limitation. The original limitation being minimising network traffic data while maximising the number of players. Not a design decision, thats for sure.

    On a gameplay point of view, how are they going to manage people's perception of achievement once it gets to the 128v128 session...thats a tough one.

  • Ranger101 #84 3 years ago

    also, in software we have this magical construct known as 'null' that gives us another possible value beyond all other values, which usually comes in handy for stuff like this.

  • sneetch #85 3 years ago

    @Rubarack
    Will you need to? Surely it depends on whether empty servers are allowed to exist or whether they are created on demand.

    Anyway this looks pretty interesting, at this rate I may have to get a PS3 this year.

    Although I'm loathe to get back into this, if you were hosting it then you could be considered the 1st player and so you would - strictly speaking - only need to keep track of the amount of other players, however if it's a standalone server then you'll need to keep track of how many people there are so you'll need 0-256, servers should be up and waiting for connections always (IMO) who wants to wait an additional minute or two while they "crank up" the servers.

    I'm pretty positive this game will need dedicated servers. Firstly, I suspect that most home broadband connections wouldn't even have the upstream capacity to let 255 other people know where everyone else is. Secondly, I believe that any console (or indeed PC) would be hard pressed to both run the client and a server for this kind of game (although servers tend to be a lot easier on the CPU, consoles are a little light on memory). Thirdly, what would happen if the host decided to go to bed or their PS3/net/power fails? With warning a game could decide to offload the hosting to someone else's machine but that'd be a bit of a messy transfer and people will probably get lost if the host crashes hard for whatever reason.

    On the other hand, perhaps they've developed the bestest server EVAR! Who knows.

  • kenbrilliant #86 3 years ago

    MAG -> maggot -> small penis

    Just sayin.

  • sneetch #87 3 years ago

    @Ranger101
    sneetch wrong, dizzy right.

    Really? I'm wrong in saying that a byte can't contain 257 different values? Because that's what I said. You must have magical computers where you come from.

    Dizzy's also right to question 256 as the total number - the explanation for 8v8/161v16/32v32 etc. just fits into the original limitation. The original limitation being minimising network traffic data while maximising the number of players. Not a design decision, thats for sure.

    Where did you read that they decided on 256 in order to save a byte (or possibly a bit or two as quite often in networking bytes are split between two or more fields)? How would you be sure that it's not a design decision or coincidence or because of other technical issues or simply a nice neat cut-off point?

    also, in software we have this magical construct known as 'null' that gives us another possible value beyond all other values, which usually comes in handy for stuff like this.

    Firstly, null or NULL is not really a construct, it's a constant, in C and C++ for example it's 0, it's not "another possible value beyond all other values" it's just another name for plain old 0.

    Secondly, most languages I've heard of don't even allow null primitive values (as in "byte b = null;" will give you an error) the very act of declaring a primitive tends to allocate memory for it after all. If the language were to allow you to assign null to a primitive it would probably just assign the value 0 to it so there's no discernible difference between 0 and null. Which brings us back to square one.

    Null references or pointers to objects yes, null primitive values no. Did you really think null was magical?

    Jesus, it's turning into computing 101, you were right, Dizzy, time to let it go.

  • Ranger101 #88 3 years ago

    Sorry sneetch I didn't read your essay. It looked like it was like something on the lines of "troll troll troll troll".

    Thanks for trying. bye.

  • sneetch #89 3 years ago

    @Ranger101
    Sorry sneetch I didn't read your essay. It looked like it was like something on the lines of "troll troll troll troll".

    Thanks for trying. bye.

    Pathetic. You're fired for failing at basic computing and being incapable of admitting you're wrong.

    Oh, and trolling whilst accusing others of trolling.
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/09 @ 16:08

  • DrDamn #90 3 years ago

    The way I read it Sneetch = right, Dizzy = wrong. Dizzy didn't actually respond to the main point (why 256) and side tracked the issue with an irrelevant discussion on how you keep count of the numbers of players.

  • Buggs #91 3 years ago

    It takes 16 bytes to finish a foot long meatball marinara.

  • El-Dev #92 3 years ago

    Programmer smack talk...really isn't that great to be honest.

  • flapps #93 3 years ago

    I'm all in for this.

  • M_of_the_sys #94 3 years ago

    This is looking really good from the previews I've read. Looking forward to playing this with a team of mates. The squad based idea sounds like it will work really well.

  • fardeen #95 3 years ago

    cmon guys,this aint a engineering thread. lets talk about the game and let go of these bits and bytes. i for one am very disappointed,coz i wont get to play this.the max speed in my country is 1mbps wich translates to 128kilobytes per second.theres no way i think i cud play this game.damn my third world country. anyway this game sounds awesome,and if they can pull off 256 players shooting at each other at the same time,then kudos guys. wonder if they have proper variety in weapons? also this game should be available to be bought as a digital download,i dont trust the comment the designer made on the blueray,the ps3 doesnt have a good read speed for blue rays.

  • XxTotalzxX #96 3 years ago

    Now all we have to do is wait for Eurogamer to give it a 7...:p

  • Rizzler1 #97 2 years ago

    this game is gona be great :) dont know how servers will cope with the massive amount of players at one time tho "/

  • BlitzwingHaz #98 2 years ago

    Is this not going to come out on X-Box? A pity, I love the sound of commanding a small army in a real time war.
    I'd like to see this concept applied to a fantasy game.