Dirty Bomb: optimal playercount on current state of the game (Jan. 2013)

(acQu) #1

Hey,

no not a troll thread :slight_smile:

I am also not quite sure yet of how much my framerate and bad performance affects my opinion, but i feel that Dirty Bomb is a very nice game and shows its true beauty when it is played exactly how it is supposed to be played. Interesting is that i am still not quite sure of how it is supposed to be played ^^ but i certainly slowly grasp the concept of how it is to be played and that it is seemingly specifically designed for competition play with low playercount, e.g. 4v4, 5v5, 6v6 matches. In my opinion DB develops a nice tone and atmosphere when being played that way.

And that is exactly the point: Dirty Bomb, from my point of view, should not be played above 5v5. Otherwise it will turn into one huge massacre and i am sure if i would hit a first impression of this game on a full 16 people server (or even higher) i would not be able to understand this game and grasp the concept for what it is designed for. DB has the habit of going from one extreme to the other really quick, that means imo just a difference of +4 players quickly turns the game into this huge, seemingly random fragfest, at least this now has been my impression for more than 2 times.

Now, am i the only one thinking that way ? What are your opinions ? What is the optimal playercount at this current state of the game, with only the two maps, London Bridge and Victoria, in the mapscycle (Camden excluded).

From my point of view it should not go above 5v5.

(SockDog) #2

I feel the same. The player count does seem to have a marked effect on how a map progresses. That does also bring a conflict if the game is going to be competitive at 5v5 but pub games are 8v8. Do you tweak maps for which player count?

That is not to say both can’t be fun. Just that I too feel a difference.

(Reacto) #3

Agreed: http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/33856-Reduce-max-player-amount-on-servers-to-10-12

(Rex) #4

I want more players for pub play no matter what map. At least 8on8 and for bigger maps I would also love to see even more players.

(acQu) #5

Oh, silly me. Should have searched before, but i am glad i am not the only one thinking that way. It becomes alot less random with a low playercount, yes.

The problem SockDog is mentioning i think is crucial. Not only do you have to ask yourself for what playercount you design, you also have to advertise this game for exactly for what it is. I fear if this is not done correct and maybe there will be servers with a lot more players for pub play, then i think Dirty Bomb will be misunderstood. More a problem of a mindset from the players. I am sure if players, who first try this game out, know exactly for what it is designed, it will not scare them away that quick. For example if they would join a 20+ server, they would know that the game is not supposed to be played that way.

Just my 2 cents. Glad i am not the only one thinking that way :slight_smile:

(DarkangelUK) #6

I’d rather pub and comp were on the same level, so at most 6v6 for both. I thought the idea was make pub and comp as close as possible which would make it easy for pubbers to make the leap to comp if they want. I know 8v8 isn’t exactly far off, but I think if you’re going to gear maps towards 6v6 then why not make the servers 6v6 by default.

(acQu) #7

Yes, i also rather have the game design be more “pubber friendly”. Probably we have to reconsider what “pub” play means ^^ Would love to see it gear up towards maybe 24 player maps, but i think this is a huge design problem. Imo you either make a game for pub play, lets say max 64 players, from the start and hope that a comp gameplay evolves around it, or you just focus on comp with low playercount. Imo designing for comp and then hope that a pub gameplay evolves around it is the harder way.

(SinDonor) #8

I have more fun in larger pop matches. When it gets down to 3v3 or 5v5, my lack of skill becomes more obvious. At least in the larger pop games, I feel like I can be a valuable member by doing Obj’s while there’s a massive shootout going on.

(Kinjal) #9

For london bridge - 5vs5 optimal
For Victoria - 4vs4 optimal
8vs8 - frag fest for both maps

(DarkangelUK) #10

Maybe it all feels too hectic for me with 8v8 due to the short spawn times, which raises a question. I played some RtCW the other week, and the spawn times were like 20 - 30 seconds… are SD keeping the spawn times short because they think the average ADD gamer will get annoyed at having to wait to spawn and just quit? Hell even CoD BO2 hardcore mode removed the spawn time all together and that was just 7 seconds.

(warbie) #11

Agreed. It feels very CoD like when the servers fill up - getting shot from all angles, not seeing who killed you. It’s quite brutal! I played Camden for the first time last night - most of my time was spent running around, trying to find out where the objectives were, and almost constantly running into crossfire or getting shot in the side/back. If that was someone’s first introduction to the game - especially if they hadn’t played RTCW/ET/ET:QW etc - it wouldn’t be a good one. It’s hard to put a finger on what’s different, but RTCW and ET were never like this and never felt like a random frag fest when the servers filled up.

(Violator) #12

+1 to the above.

We played some great games on Camden last night, 5v5 and it was excellent (esp. the battle for the buffer) - I wasn’t on comms (don’t know if anyone else was) but we were functioning as a unit and the backraging was at a minimum. Soldiers were getting great backup from meds + flops (the supply stations are great too btw), engies were getting cover from soldiers + meds. When it gets to 8v8 it does tend to become a backrage / spamfest with players wandering and not sticking together plus the lag factor kicks in a lot more as previously mentioned. Also I was getting 80-100fps on camden as opposed to the usual 30-40 due to it being a blockout - please leave it ;).

RTCW’s maps were a lot bigger so 8v8 was not too bad. ET did get spammy with high numbers though tbh.

(iwound) #13

[QUOTE=acQu;421164]
From my point of view it should not go above 5v5.[/QUOTE]

if that was the case i would stop playing on release.
you may think 5v5 is good but i can find many people who would think 16v16 is ok. i could go much higher.
fighting isnt all in the same place.
but you cant judge it on just two maps. Camden could easily accommodate many more players. and others designed for more.
5v5 matches atm are pretty poor as not everyone bothers to play the objectives rather just kill count.
8v8s have been better battles with at least some defence.
we had a lot of 5v5s 6v6s last night all walkovers. little or no defence. on waterloo at the start i just ran up to the wall and planted a few times.
also same on hack and c4 parts defence can not do a thing to stop it. LB has similar issues with the last barrier and the data cores.

the only reason to cap this game would be from a technical pov. et was never capped and i dont think that was an issue.

darkangel makes a good point about the spawns. i prefer longer period 20-30 secs and go in a wave.
continually spawning is killing my hands and back.

[QUOTE=Anti;416827]The Camden map is already much bigger and plays quite well, despite the few balance issues. I’m hoping our next few maps at least will be a similar size to it.

The footprint of the current maps isn’t actually that small, but the playable spaces are too cramped for the way our gameplay is evolving. We may be able to fix this, or it may just be that these become our ‘small’ maps, we’ll have to wait and see.[/QUOTE]

yay more bigger maps.

(Anti) #14

We’re trying to ensure that 5v5 has optimal balance for comp.

That said, public servers do need more players. First there has to be a buffer for the constant, one joined, two left, churn that you get, on top of that we find that the more casual players tend to prefer the anarchy and madness of bigger teams when playing.

I think what is important here is that we make sure 5v5 balance is very good, 8v8 balance is good, and that we provide methods by which to play both styles in a ‘public’ environment (think ranked matchmaking).

I think we agree with you guys as well that 8v8 is too chaotic right now, and a little too random. We’d rather fix that through improving the maps rather than cutting back player numbers though.

(maxxxxlol) #15

Pub players love spam. I think a lot of people would be disappointed with 8v8 even.

(iwound) #16

i misread anti then, thought he was suggesting over 8v8 but no.
how about an official word on this now. is 8v8 the max? is there any max?
i would want at least 16v16. its war not tennis.

(Violator) #17

Not true from this pub player :slight_smile:

(Breo) #18

16v16 means bigger maps, vehicles, rocketlaunchers and less stable servers :<

(iwound) #19

where did these come from. a lot of the stuff in etqw that cluttered the bandwidth are gone.

(SockDog) #20

Is it worth testing a 16v16 server at some point just to see if the netcode/servers can handle it well? May not fit the current DB gamemodes but who’s to say what comes in the future?