werd. i was very pissed off when valve limited dod servers to allow a maximum of 32 players. it’s up to the server admin, who’s paying the bandwidth bill, to set the number of players allowed on his server… not valve. some people like to play chaotic games, while others like to play in a slower pace. if you don’t like one or the other, then don’t play on a server that sets the player limit to that.
good move, splash damage.
Oh man, that reminds me of the country fights they organized in JO… You had about 4-5 clans from the same country fighting 4-5 clans from another country in a big 75vs75. Too bad there were only 3 games, UK vs. France, UK vs. Germany, and Germany vs. France (UK won 'em all, french lost 'em all). That was fun :D.
werd. i was very pissed off when valve limited dod servers to allow a maximum of 32 players. it’s up to the server admin, who’s paying the bandwidth bill, to set the number of players allowed on his server… not valve. some people like to play chaotic games, while others like to play in a slower pace. if you don’t like one or the other, then don’t play on a server that sets the player limit to that.
good move, splash damage.[/quote]
Bandwidth isn’t the only issue in fact I would say that for some games it’s a smaller issue then the average users system specs. Maybe if you could play 40 player DOD it would cause almost all users to get sub 20 fps because of all the extra player models. I’m assuming there will be a max number for most people to run Quakewars smoothly as well wether that number is 40, 50, or 64 we’ll have to wait and see.
At least with Quakewars we have a great track record for good netcode from Id. I run a ranked 64 man BF2 server and it consistently crashes during a night of playing with +60 players on it. That annoys the heck out of me, players and other 64 man server admins I know. If they say it can run with 64 players it should run smoothly and crash free on a server that exceeds their bandwith and server requirements.
On my point of view. there have to be more than 20 peoples from each side/clan, but meanwhile the game has to have some elements of RTS. why? - read following: each side/clan has to have the commander which would see the some part of battlefield and shows directions and commands for units, but units can ignore them if the discipline in the clan is low :))))))))))))) SO what do you think about this future of this game???
Currently, there is no commander. It was planned, but was left out in the end.
In BF 2, you need one to strike more effectively all over the map. On the other hand, ET has its objectives-type gameplay which focuses the whole team most of the time, if they are no n00bs going for some little objective. I could see some small benefit, but I think this can be done by using VoIP as well.
PRAISE THE LORD!
btw, just some remarks from the posts above:
2 clans in the same team? whaa? it’s so hard to get good teamplay with one clan… having 2 clans in the very same team would be… :S you were kidding right?
someone said that developers don’t publish games for clanplaying… well… grab your ET and fireup an etmain server. goto vote -> load competition settings. hey! competition support! wait! they even adopted the OSP competition mod (equivalent to etpro in W:ET) from RtCW! 
You must sell games. that’s a known fact. But if you know how clans work, there’s no reason for not supporting competitions/clans/whatever. It’s even more good publicity/marketing/etc.
Splashdamage is a great team of developers (and very nice lads, except sock, because socks smell). And they’re about to release the really first solid game with the doom3 engine (doom3 MP sucked :S, Q4 was screwed by Raven Software…).
I had doubts about clanplaying in QW (8vs8 and 12vs12 sounds really bad to me) and Bongoboy just made my day.
J
PS: release a “leaked” alpha demo already xD ehehe just kidding 
