The space game has 1000 players. Most FPS games today have a maximum of 100 players.
Let's assume these FPS games send 1mbps - 2mbps per-client (many send less, some send more) but it's a good range to start with.
Now increase the player count from 100 to 1000. The number of objects that needs to be sent from server to client also 10Xs, because you need to send state for each player visible to each client, so that client can actually see the other players moving around. The end result is bandwidth is now approximately 10X what it was before, or 10-20mbps.
To address your question around RTS and inputs. Game developers usually end up using state synchronization methods (sending the positions, rotations etc per-object) instead of relying on input based deterministic methods whatever player counts are high. My personal threshold is around 4 players.
This is the reason FPS games and other higher player count games usually send state instead of just inputs. Because if they were to rely on a deterministic simulation synchronized only by inputs like an RTS, the server would have to wait for input from the the most lagged player before it could step the server simulation forward, and with regular internet jitter, packet loss and so on, as the player count increases it becomes more and more likely that the game will hitch and stutter waiting for these inputs.
So the answer is, bandwidth sent per-client scales with the number of players in the game, and games with higher player counts tend to send state instead of just inputs for the reasons above.
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?
> 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!
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.
> 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.
Let's assume these FPS games send 1mbps - 2mbps per-client (many send less, some send more) but it's a good range to start with.
Now increase the player count from 100 to 1000. The number of objects that needs to be sent from server to client also 10Xs, because you need to send state for each player visible to each client, so that client can actually see the other players moving around. The end result is bandwidth is now approximately 10X what it was before, or 10-20mbps.
To address your question around RTS and inputs. Game developers usually end up using state synchronization methods (sending the positions, rotations etc per-object) instead of relying on input based deterministic methods whatever player counts are high. My personal threshold is around 4 players.
This is the reason FPS games and other higher player count games usually send state instead of just inputs. Because if they were to rely on a deterministic simulation synchronized only by inputs like an RTS, the server would have to wait for input from the the most lagged player before it could step the server simulation forward, and with regular internet jitter, packet loss and so on, as the player count increases it becomes more and more likely that the game will hitch and stutter waiting for these inputs.
So the answer is, bandwidth sent per-client scales with the number of players in the game, and games with higher player counts tend to send state instead of just inputs for the reasons above.
cheers