How to make Extraction more appealing

(shaftz0r) #61

nobody does. the turnover rate in 8v8 obj servers is insane

(ailmanki) #62

Let me explain my Kiwi!

I want big servers at least 32 vs 32, bigger maps, like Minas Tirith which last an hour. And a lastly give me balanced teams with a functional !shuffle command.
Get rid of that silly stopwatch for pub games, makes no sense at all to me. Get rid of 5vs5 pub servers… as soon as someone leaves a team has already a serious problem, your gona pause the game - till someone joins?

(attack) #63

[QUOTE=ailmanki;485817]Let me explain my Kiwi!

I want big servers at least 32 vs 32, bigger maps, like Minas Tirith which last an hour. And a lastly give me balanced teams with a functional !shuffle command.
Get rid of that silly stopwatch for pub games, makes no sense at all to me. Get rid of 5vs5 pub servers… as soon as someone leaves a team has already a serious problem, your gona pause the game - till someone joins?[/QUOTE]

so you want to compete with bf3?
64 players in a nonvehicle game is rly horrible .
we havent chooseable spawns yet , it comes maybe later with a patch.
so it simply will not work and the performance would go done like hell.
this game is simply not designed for it.
if you want go this way well than change engine redoo everything…

(ailmanki) #64

UT3 supported 32 players, this is more or less same engine. So you think its not possible? BF4 can do it, UDK can’t - must be kidding.

I started playing ET on a 64 players server and I had a blast - without any vehicles at all.

But yes, since the game currently struggles with more then 10 players, its unlikely to happen.
Just posting this for reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5QMu52Ln7Y&list=PL5E4A328BFD37F91F&index=7

that certainly is not 8vs8

(attack) #65

[QUOTE=ailmanki;485822]UT3 supported 32 players, this is more or less same engine. So you think its not possible? BF4 can do it, UDK can’t - must be kidding.

I started playing ET on a 64 players server and I had a blast - without any vehicles at all.

But yes, since the game currently struggles with more then 10 players, its unlikely to happen.
Just posting this for reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5QMu52Ln7Y&list=PL5E4A328BFD37F91F&index=7

that certainly is not 8vs8[/QUOTE]
i never played ut3 (:/),so i cant say smth about it.
but im pretty sure that xt looks alot better than ut3,
they implement so much details and stuff and if i compare bf3 to it i wouldnt say bf3 looks better,because bf3 is simply big maps with not many details in it.optical SD does a damn great job and much details cost much ressources.

64 players are sometimes funny yesb but this maybe would make sens in some years ,when the hardware of most PCS can handle it.
also SDwants to create a comp game,its hard enough to get a 5 man squad to work…

(montheponies) #66

Maps should define player numbers, the core game engine and netcode should be scalable to support small to large server sizes. It’s like we’ve regressed to suit crappy console matchmaking systems.

There are reasons why RTCW, W:ET and the likes CS where so popular - they could accommodate a range of gamer play styles from superpubspamtastic 64 player games down to 3v3 comp. Personally I enjoyed everything from 32 man shrub pubfests to 6v6 OSP competition, the first in particular because of the server community.

Anyone who says this game needs to be aimed at 5v5, ff on, sw only is consigning the game to the dustbin.

(attack) #67

[QUOTE=montheponies;485824]Maps should define player numbers, the core game engine and netcode should be scalable to support small to large server sizes. It’s like we’ve regressed to suit crappy console matchmaking systems.

There are reasons why RTCW, W:ET and the likes CS where so popular - they could accommodate a range of gamer play styles from superpubspamtastic 64 player games down to 3v3 comp. Personally I enjoyed everything from 32 man shrub pubfests to 6v6 OSP competition, the first in particular because of the server community.

Anyone who says this game needs to be aimed at 5v5, ff on, sw only is consigning the game to the dustbin.[/QUOTE]
the is still a baserace map in progress.so maybe we can try there.

fact is you have to aim to a size with the maps.you can do bigger maps or longer versions for more players.
the fact is the current maps are simply for 5o5 ,so lets keep it this way.
lets try to get all perfect for this size , other maps can follow as soon as we are ready with this stuff.

(ailmanki) #68

[QUOTE=attack;485826]the is still a baserace map in progress.so maybe we can try there.

fact is you have to aim to a size with the maps.you can do bigger maps or longer versions for more players.
the fact is the current maps are simply for 5o5 ,so lets keep it this way.
so lets try to get all perfect for this size , other maps can follow as soon as we are ready with this stuff.[/QUOTE]

That can’t be completely true, while to some degree a map defines how many players can be on… Maps usually can support many different player counts.
I have played Goldrush with 32vs32, and I played it 3vs3… And I had fun!

Even 1vs1 - but that is a pita with the respawn times and tank barriers. It really shows who is even slightly better then.

(Ruben0s) #69

[QUOTE=montheponies;485824]

Anyone who says this game needs to be aimed at 5v5, ff on, sw only is consigning the game to the dustbin.[/QUOTE]

Exactly this… to bad that xt is built around 5v5. I see no future for the pub scene because of this.

(shaftz0r) #70

[QUOTE=ailmanki;485827]
I have played Goldrush with 32vs32 And I had fun![/QUOTE]

that sounds absolutely horrendous…

(ailmanki) #71

Its some of the most amazing plays I ever had in any game. Running in bank, flamethrower out (adrenaline enabled :), grilling 10-15 players, take objective, run out - secure it… Wow man! Just amazing moments!

(shaftz0r) #72

haha :wink: i was bored earlier and jumped into a 10v10 server on braundorf. i wanted to die…

(ailmanki) #73

Yeah well today I don’t like either to play in 32vs32… its just complete chaos, noobs and very good players mixed. Lots of campers everywhere. Its not really fun anymore.
I prefer today from 6vs6 to 16vs16… yet it heavily depends on the players around. To bad there is no kind of match making. Basically you have to find a good server you and stick with it most likely. I had say there is only 1-3 servers I can play and have fun. I usually only play on one at europe sleep time… lol. And thats the server from the community I am in… so yeah I more or less agree :smiley:

But still I could imagine with match making and play with larger amount of players on teamspeak - all on your skill level, it could still be a great experience. But if you look at Splatterladder or Trackbase - the top list of servers I can’t play there either… lol. Don’t like it at all.

(prophett) #74

I agree, It does (I threw up in my mouth when I read that), but a lot of people enjoy it so to attract those people the game should consider catering to this need.

(tokamak) #75

[QUOTE=onYn;485647]“It feels like brink” (they also said it´s better at some points, but the maps and stuffs…)
(from someone who played et:qw for 2 weeks!): “they just should have picked up more things from their previous games, and polish them in a working engine/netcode” … “I don´t understand it why they haven´t done it”
“they are trying to develop a game, that´s different then et and etqw, but they cant. they are doing the same mistake like they did with brink”[/QUOTE]

Pretty valid points.

(Hundopercent) #76

[QUOTE=RasteRayzeR;485710]yes.

But that’s absolutely not the point we are talking about here :

  1. What I said is that pro players from here or from other similar games should be consulted because this can help improving the map designs. I never spoke of Potty, though he is used to comp. playing and could certainly have good feedback for SD.

  2. ET still has players after 10 years. There are not many games that can claim that award but mostly it’s not about the number of players right now 10 years after, it’s about what made this game so enjoyable all along compared to newer games.

  3. Please focus on what I really said : bringing selected players to the table of early design for maps can save money big time and ensure SD has all the elements at hand to make the best maps possible. And that’s worth the shot imo.[/QUOTE]

They had a pro team here for about 6 months trying to help and pointing out the problems. They fixed and implemented small things here and there but core problems (which are critical to the survival of this game) have yet to be addressed for about a year now. **** we even had Fatal1ty here for a month or so chip in.

As we’ve stated time and time again, across multiple lengthy threads. There is no point in fixing the maps if you dont even have a worthwhile spawn system. You can design the maps however you want but it won’t matter because the spawn system is terrible.If you stretch this here and move that there all that will happen is new areas will become meat grinders.

The game is hallow, the shell of what could be a great game. Sadly, there are no guts for it to lift itself and take off.

(BomBaKlaK) #77

that’s Extraction destiny if nothing is done

(spookify) #78

Its no fun and laggy and is spam tastic TRASH

(RasteRayzeR) #79

You guys are being pretty harsh here imo. Of course the game has issues but most of them are quarantined to the maps and overall performances. Both these things can be fixed and will be since it’s all the devs can read in the forum.

Patience is key, alpha or beta testing ain’t easy every day

(INF3RN0) #80

It doesn’t take a pro player to identify the issues. Not to mention at a certain point a “pro player” is just going to blindly argue why the game they were good at was the best and this game should be the same, which is completely illogical.