Submission

doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0061r5January 2015

Allan Jones, ActivisionSlide 1

FPS Network Traffic ModelDate: 2015-1-12

Name Affiliations Address Phone email Allan Jones Activision 3100 Ocean Park

Blvd., Santa Monica, CA 90405

(310) 255-2000

allan.jones@ activision.com

Malcolm Dowse Activision (Demonware)

Inn House, Parnell St Dublin 1, Ireland

+353 1 247 6700

malcolm@demonware.net

Pat Griffith Activision 3100 Ocean Park Blvd., Santa Monica, CA 90405

(310) 255-2000

pgriffith@activision.com

Authors:

Submission

doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0061r5

The purpose of this presentation is to provide network traffic details of multiplayer First Person Shooter (FPS) online games. Modern popular FPS games present unique challenges when it comes to network traffic. From this profile we can cooperatively develop a simulation that can be incorporated into simulation scenarios.

Slide 2 Allan Jones, Activision

January 2015

Abstract

Submission

doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0061r5

Characteristics of most FPS games

The gaming industry has long understood the basic characteristics of First Person Shooter games.

• "Client traffic is characterized by an almost constant packet and data rate” [9] (High frequency)

• "Both, update and server information packets are usually very small since they only contain

movement and status information.”[9] (Low data rate)

• "We find that a ping below 50ms is associated with excellent game play." [9][3][6][7] (Latency

sensitive)

• "In each transmit cycle the server generates a burst of packets - one packet for every active

client. Consequently, the total data rate depends on the number of active clients. Thus, it makes

sense to evaluate the server traffic per client instead of it’s summary traffic. This also allows to

identify client specific variations.“[9] (Burst traffic)Slide 3 Allan Jones, Activision

January 2015

FPS Network Traffic Model

Submission

doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0061r5

Architecture – Dedicated Server

Slide 4 Allan Jones, Activision

January 2015

The dedicated server model provides geographically dispersed servers to host the game matches with optimal network paths. Some implementations[1] use virtual servers to provide the necessary matchmaking and virtual world state services while others use a combination of physical dedicated servers and console servers.

FPS Network Traffic Model

Submission

doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0061r5

Slide 5 Allan Jones, Activision

January 2015

Typical modern console game 18 player match (Dedicated Server)

FPS Network Traffic Model

Submission

doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0061r5

Architecture – Console (Local) Server

Slide 6 Allan Jones, Activision

January 2015

The console server model elects one of the consoles to host the game and synchronize the other consoles throughout the match. This console also plays the game as well. Statistics are still managed by centralized servers, but the majority of the network traffic is handled by the consoles. This model has key economic advantages as there does not need to be as many dedicated servers in order to host all the games and utilizes the consoles network bandwidth which lowers bandwidth costs as well.

FPS Network Traffic Model

Submission

doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0061r5

Typical modern console game 18 player match (Console Server)

Slide 7 Allan Jones, Activision

January 2015

FPS Network Traffic Model

Submission

doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0061r5

Client / Server Communications

Slide 8 Allan Jones, Activision

January 2015

The client to server communications averages will vary for any specific FPS game as will the server to client communication.

FPS games all have delay sensitivity (latency and jitter) that creates severe consequences to the quality of gameplay. (e.g. the player can lose the game due to delays in communications).

Network requirements for FPS games will increase by the time 802.11ax is deployed. Earlier IEEE and other supporting studies show a 50ms round trip tolerance. (e.g. 50ms bursts from the server) [2][4] We can anticipate the 50ms threshold to be around 25-30ms as 802.11ax is released.

FPS Network Traffic Model

Submission

doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0061r5

John Doe, Some Company

January 2015

Slide 9

1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 127 141 155 169 183 197 211 225 239 253 267 281 295 309 323 337 351 365 379 3930

50

100

150

200

250

FPS Client Packets/sec

FPS 1

FPS 2

FPS 3

Seconds

Packets

Submission

doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0061r5

John Doe, Some Company

January 2015

Slide 10

1 16 31 46 61 76 91 106 121 136 151 166 181 196 211 226 241 256 271 286 301 316 331 346 361 376 3910

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

FPS Client Bits/Sec

FPS 1

FPS 2

FPS 3

Seconds

Bits

Submission

doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0061r5

John Doe, Some Company

January 2015

Slide 11

1 16 31 46 61 76 91 106121136151166181196211 2262412562712863013163313463613763910

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

FPS Server Packets/sec

FPS 1

FPS 2

FPS 3

Seconds

Packets

Submission

doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0061r5

John Doe, Some Company

January 2015

Slide 12

1 16 31 46 61 76 91 1061211361511661811962112262412562712863013163313463613763910

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

FPS Server bits/sec.

FPS 1

FPS 2

FPS 3

Seconds

Bits

Submission

doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0061r5

Client/Server Packet and bandwidth profile

Slide 13 Allan Jones, Activision

January 2015

The client to server communications and server to client averages are presented in the table below.

Description FPS 1 FPS 2 FPS 3

Average Client Packets/sec server 29 34 41

Average Client bits/sec server 37018 23118 54039

Average Server Packets/sec client 10 26 77

Average Server bits/sec client 20489 51464 269326

Average Server Aggregate Packets/sec clients 177 248 861

Average Server Aggregate bits/sec clients 372519 625974 2396306

FPS Network Traffic Model

Submission

doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0061r5

Allan Jones, Activision

January 2015

Slide 14

0-19

20-3

940

-79

80-1

59

160-

319

320-

639

640-

1279

1280

-255

9

2560

-511

9

5120

-429

4967

295

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Comparison of FPS Client Packet Sizes

FPS 1

FPS 2

FPS 3

Packet Size

Number

Submission

doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0061r5

Allan Jones, Activision

January 2015

Slide 15

0-19 20-39 40-79 80-159 160-319 320-639 640-1279 1280-2559 2560-5119 5120-4294967295

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000Comparison of FPS Server Packet Sizes

FPS 1

FPS 2

FPS 3

Submission

doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0061r5

Recommendation:

Slide 16 Allan Jones, Activision

January 2015

The recommendation is to use the most network intense model (FPS3) that will ensure that our emerging standard can facilitate the needs of FPS games of today and emerging FPS multiplayer games over the next few years. Additionally since FPS games are extremely sensitive to network latency and jitter we need to ensure that our emerging standard adds as little latency as possible.

Description FPS 1 FPS 2 FPS 3

Average Client Packets/sec server 29 34 41

Average Client bits/sec server 37018 23118 54039

Average Server Packets/sec client 10 26 77

Average Server bits/sec client 20489 51464 269326

Average Server Aggregate Packets/sec clients 177 248 861

Average Server Aggregate bits/sec clients 372519 625974 2396306

FPS Network Traffic Model

Submission

doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0061r5

Straw Poll:

Slide 17 Allan Jones, Activision

January 2015

Should we add the FPS network model information (FPS 3 Column on Slide 16) to the Simulation Scenarios document(0980 current rev) in the reference traffic profile sections?

Y:

N:

A:

FPS Network Traffic Model

Submission

doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0061r5January 2015

Allan Jones, ActivisionSlide 18

References[1] Saroj Kar, “Windows Azure: The power behind upcoming game Titanfall for the Xbox One”, Silicon

Angle – February 25th, 2014 ; http://siliconangle.com/blog/2014/02/25/windows-azure-the-power-behind-blockbuster-game-titanfall-for-the-xbox-one/

[2] Mark Claypool, David LaPoint, and Josh Winslow. “Network Analysis of Counter-strike and Starcraft”, In Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE International Performance, Computing, and Communications Conference (IPCCC), Phoenix, Arizona, USA, April 2003

[3] Amit Sinha, Kenneth Mitchell, Deep Medhi “Network Game Traffic: A Broadband Access Perspective”, Computer Networks, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 71-83, 2005

[4] L. Pantel, L. Wolf, “On the impact of delay on real-time multiplayer games”, Proc. International Workshop on Network and Operating System Support for Digital Audio and Video (NOSSDAV) (2002) 23-29

[5] Tristan Henderson, Saleem Bhatti “Networked games — A QoS sensitive application for QoS insensitive users?”, ACM SIGCOMM 2003 Workshops August 25 & 27, 2003, Karlsruhe, Germany

[6] Rahul Amin, France Jackson, Juan Gilbert, Jim Martin “Assessing the Impact of Latency and Jitter on the Perceived Quality of Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2”, In HCI'13 Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Human-Computer Interaction: users and contexts of use - Volume Part III Pages 97-106, (2013)

[7] Kjetil Raaen, “Latency Thresholds for Usability in Games”, NIK-2014 conference (2014)

[8] Mark Claypool, Kajal Claypool, “Latency Can Kill: Precision and Deadline in Online Games” , February 22–23, 2010, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.

[9] J. Färber, “Network game traffic modelling,” in Proceedings of Netgames, April 2002, pp. 53–57.