Overwatch Gameplay Architecture and Netcode

Entities are a collection of component instances and nothing more. Components in ECS are data-only. Systems in ECS are logic-only. If you follow this strictly, then you cannot support encapsulation or data-hiding. There is no sole definition of OOP, but it is widely accepted that the ability to do encapsulation, including data-hiding, is a key part of OOP. Therefore, ECS is not OOP. QED If you’ve not seen the Overwatch team’s talk in which they discuss ECS, I can highly recommend it as a good resource to learn about ECS: [this video] There may be models commonly used in those languages you mentioned that are similar to ECS, but you seem to be implying that ECS is a form of OOP; it is not. Even if you implemented OOP using Structs of Arrays, a thread per object, or whatever you like, you cannot strictly conform with ECS’s requirement that “components have no logic” while also strictly conforming with OOP’s requirement that “objects should not know about each others’ internals” (object hierarchy).

> The components on the entity define not only it's data but also it's behavior by the set of systems that act on the corresponding components. And you can take these object definitions and inherit them to add additional behavior or change the existing behavior by adding more components to the new definition. This seems to miss what ECS actually is, unless you're just referring to the old-school way of doing entity components and not the data-oriented way. Data-oriented ECS way of doing things is to separate state and behaviour. Entity components essentially become structs where their only behaviour is potentially some getter/setter utilities. Behaviours are then state-less systems (just functions, essentially) which act on a set of components. For example, a PhysicsUpdateBehaviour might take in a RigidBodyComponent and a HealthComponent to perform a physics update and apply physics/fall based damage. The main benefit of ECS (imo) isn't even really performance. It makes code in complicated game projects much easier to manage by clarifying the game loop and by making it much more obvious how and when entity state is being modified. It's the kind of thing that potentially complicates a smaller project, but makes larger more complex projects easier to manage. This Overwatch GDC talk is the best breakdown/example of data-oriented ECS in a AAA game that I know of: [this video]

The important two points are that the client must react immediately to a user's input, but at the same time the server has to have the authoritative game state. One way of doing that is that the server runs the authoritative simulation and the clients send input to the server, but the clients also run their own simulations. In some games the client will try to predict what the server will do. If there's a conflict with what the client simulates compared to the server then the client gets rolled back to the server's state. This usually happens when there's a second player that interferes in some way. Here is a talk by Timothy Ford about Overwatch's netcode (it's really fascinating): [this video]

Your comment made me feel compelled to mention a Blizzard talk I came across recently on the ECS (Entity Component System) architecture they used for Overwatch. It looks suspiciously like a function first architecture in that they don't allow mixing of data and functions. I'm not sure how purely functional it is, but it certainly strikes me as the kind of architecture that Carmack would appreciate in dealing with complexities that lead him to a more functional programming style. This talk is 3 years after release, and includes all the hindsight they gained from that. Also, the parts talking about the netcode are quite amazing, and the precision of their predictors that they attribute to using ECS. [this video]