Persistent Chivalry World



  • Hello,

    I know this topic has been discussed here but I did not quite find the answer I’m looking for. My goal is to make a Chivalry map that could run persistently and support up to 200 players. I’ve read that UE3 only supports 64 players but I’ve also read that it could support more so I’m just looking to get the absolute fact of the matter, would up to 200 players on one map be possible (assuming that server budget wasn’t an issue)? Or is it something I should forget about with UE3?

    Thank you in advance for any input you may have!



  • Well it is possible to hold more than 64 player, check Mortal Online.

    Yet having so many people would be horrid. Everyone’s ping will be so high that fights would be really annoying and inconsistent. I don’t think it is a good idea…

    Unless you have some sort of a monster server, but i doubt that it will help.



  • As far as Unreal Engine and Chivalry: Medieval Warfare limitations go, this idea should very well be possible.

    But as Vesanus mentioned, player connection and server stability will be serious issues.
    Consider adding massive fps drops on top of that as well, be it from the huge amount of players to be rendered, or the size of the map to actually make it fun for up to 200 players.



  • Thank you for the input! The map size I had in mind would be similar to that of the playable area in Rust (if you’re familiar with that title) but like you both said there would be server stability issues if I were to try and support 200 people but I kind of threw that number out there as an “at most” scenario. Ideally I’d like to create something that could handle 100 players without too many issues (with the right type of server of course).



  • The servers can handle it if the server software wasn’t shit. Uses about 5% of a 24 core 2.93GHz CPU and 200MB of RAM. That’s a full 32 player server.



  • Thank you! That’s good to know. Even on full 32 player servers I never really noticed a dip in performance even when every one is on screen duking it out so I had it in mind that something like 100 players could be doable with a good enough server.



  • Well, played on a server hosting my horde map: up to 45 players vs 55 spawned bots -> slideshow for me. (btw. I designed the map to be played with up to 6 players lol)
    The server owner claimed it had a ping of around 30, so I suppose the problem was my laptop which never had performance issues with Chiv before.


  • Developer

    You’d need a mod to uncap the player limit (change MaxPlayersAllowed in your GameInfo) since it’s capped at 64. Also mind that server CPU use increases geometrically as you add more players; 64 is much more than twice as expensive as 32 players is.

    I’ve seen the 64-player horde map server. It looks like the server’s struggling to run it, players skip around and whatnot.



  • @CrustaceanSoup:

    You’d need a mod to uncap the player limit (change MaxPlayersAllowed in your GameInfo) since it’s capped at 64. Also mind that server CPU use increases geometrically as you add more players; 64 is much more than twice as expensive as 32 players is.

    I’ve seen the 64-player horde map server. It looks like the server’s struggling to run it, players skip around and whatnot.

    Will chiv 2’s engine have fluid 64 player combat as a feature :DDD?



  • ################################################################################################
    Disclaimer:
    “Don’t be a Grammar-Nazi”, I am German and can’t laught about that"
    If you are bored of reading a text that is longer than the usual and average whatever post, skip to the FAZIT.
    ################################################################################################

    Hey BK (best rhyme ever),

    First of all I have to tell you, that I am allway super enthusiastic about modding-ideas and mods in general and that I have allready worked on alot of mods for warband and chivalry (haven’t finished a single one yet ;)).
    As a former Warband player I have also come along the Persistent World mod and played it for a while.
    I also had the idea of bringing the Persistent world and chivalry together in one hell yes epic mod that would change the world forever-thingy and well as good manners demand it I started to design this thing on paper.
    I worked on this gamedesign for serveral months and allways stopped because I ended up with another Gameplay-Pitfall and than another and than another one.
    But instead of beeing the good old japanese grandmaster and teach you a lesson in whatever I will just tell you why I think it is not possible:

    1.Community:
    Well everybody will pick on me after stating this one, but community is by far not the strongest of chivalrys attributes.
    To put it into a nutshell: It sucks (not everything about it but most of it)! Noobs hat pros, pros hat noobs, casuals hate noobs and pros and there is just no big bond between players in general (we see the opposite thing in the modding community, but not only do you need modders, you need players that are interested in your idea and are willing to play it).

    2.The “original” Persistent World" Community
    Well the idea is amazing, but the Warband PW is not without it’s flaws. For the 5 amazing minutes of roleplay and pure awesomeness you expearience playing for a bit, you have to overcome 3 houres of bullshit and lame gameplay and the pure stupidity of the average server population. Randomers everywhere and “money or life” isn’t roleplay for god’s fu**ing sake. As I allready mentioned the “Chivalry” player community isn’t the best around, but the “Warband” one is still better (in my opinion) and it still sucked to play on EU-NEXUS.

    3.Gameplay Flaws original
    Crafting sucks, Kingdom-management sucks, party system sucks, mining sucks, the classes suck, the professions suck. Well almost everything exept for combat sucks.
    So you would have to to rework every single aspect of the original. I will not doubt your modding abilities, because I haven’t seen your work yet and even if you are able to copy the Warband-PW system it would still suck, but you could still rewrite these gameplay aspects or come up with your own ones. (amazing transition to my next point)

    _4.Gameplay Flaws Your own PW
    _As I allready mentioned I have allready worked on gameplay concepts for my own Chivalry-PW thing and thought them through on paper again and again, but there are too many gameplay-pitfalls that I don’t want to mention here, because this post is allready to long and it would take ages to explain it, but I can still message you via Skype if you want to.

    5.UDK and technical stuff
    To be honest: UDK is amazing if you want to archive things fast without putting years of development and effort into your project.
    BUT (FUING BUT): Pushing UDK beyond it’s own limits is a hell lot of work, especially if you have no access to the fricking source code!** TERRA and all these fancy games that support more than 64 players are made by big companies that have access to the source code, because the payed for it. You don’t have access to the source-code (well I guess so),so you have a hell lot of work working around the usual UDK-issues and as I allready mentioned I have allready pushed some mods on my own and I swear to you you will burst into tears fighting these little problems.

    FAZIT:
    It is possible, but not alone and even if you manage to make a decent PW mod, it will suck because of the community (this is not your fault). Even if you are the most awesome and evil overlord of modding of all time and all whatever, I would recomment to spend your time and effort in something different like a smaller and easier mod that does not relie on so much community gameplay.

    Greetings Lalalolo



  • @CrustaceanSoup:

    Also mind that server CPU use increases geometrically as you add more players; 64 is much more than twice as expensive as 32 players is.

    Could you give any hint as to why this is? Hit detection is done client-side, so that only leaves server-side movement, which can be quite expensive I suppose. But geometric? That’s an exponential asymptotic bound. Surely you mean quadratic?



  • Collision detection is very expensive on the CPU (but not really with modern day CPU’s and in a game with no dynamic object physics, or not a lot of them at least) 64 players vs 32, double the collision math that has to be run every milisecond then fired out the network pipe. Which brings us down to hit detection and then the quality and location of every player on the server. Good / decent / atrocious. Then lets just throw in everyone’s varied hardware specs on top of that. There’s a lot of room for data loss / misinterpretation just from network stuff alone.

    Anyway as far as persistent world goes I think it’s a cool idea, and had such an idea myself for another UE3 game a couple years ago. But it’s a big project for one person, and there needs to be a goal / purpose besides -standard- game mechanics. If it acted as a hub to say, a larger MMO-esque world where teams could pick castles/villages/places of resources to attack… (throw in some sort of gold mechanics for buying;… siege equipment? Medical supplies?) you might have something going.

    Narrow it down to a goal of some kind. 64 players in a persistent world space will be chaotic enough, narrow the purpose down, then look at what can be done from there.



  • Playable size the entire agathian empire.

    You’ll be fine.

    Though I wonder how they managed to make just cause 2 support 5000 players on a server fine. A bunch of modders turned a singleplayer only game into a multiplayer game with 5000 player servers.



  • @lemonater47:

    Playable size the entire agathian empire.

    You’ll be fine.

    Though I wonder how they managed to make just cause 2 support 5000 players on a server fine. A bunch of modders turned a singleplayer only game into a multiplayer game with 5000 player servers.

    they probably didnt use TBS spaghetti code


Log in to reply