PC player cap

(Blackened) #1

I know that the set player cap for consoles is 8v8. thats perfect, if the game was designed for 8v8 then thats how it should be played. does that player cap also apply to the PC version of the game. The last thing i want to see are 24 or 32 slot brink servers. having a huge player cap is game breaking in more than one way. Games like CS:S TF2 COD4 are all basically unplayable with high player counts, they just become a frag fest with very little team/objective play. So hoping the player cap of 8v8 holds true on the PC release, can anybody confirm/deny?

(trigg3r) #2

it hasn’t been confirmed but i think it will be possible.
I don’t see what’s your problem though, if you wanna play 8vs8 just join servers with 16 slots and problem solved :wink:

(Blackened) #3

the problem is that the vast majority of servers when allowed to have more than ideal numbers of players, will have the max allotted slots. you cant argue that 24 players on de_nuke is unplayable from T side, 2fort is unplayable with 32 players, and 48 players on strike is nothing but cross map frag tossing and wall spamming. when a competitive or teamplay based group wants to create and even, fair and balanced game, the first thing they do is limit player count.

by all indications brink maps are small and focused. can you imagine playing a 24 or 32 player game with 4 or even 5 engineers playing auto turrets around an objective… game breaking. player cap needs to be limited.

(SockDog) #4

I don’t see it as an issue, too many people will just totally break the maps and make playing them totally pointless. I’d make a wild guess and say some servers will see success with slightly more and less players but I doubt 16v16 will be popular if it’s just 5 minutes of spam and then map reloading.

(Linsolv) #5

I recall it being confirmed that 8v8 is the limit, even on PC. Of course, mods will probably come out to accommodate bigger teams.

(Blackened) #6

i truly hope not. why anybody would want to play this particular game with more than 8v8 is so far beyond my comprehension. having more than 8v8 just points towards every piece of teamplay, balance, and map layout being broken. just look at what happens when you change something as simple as the money system in CS:S. 16k servers degenerate into nothing but AWP’ing contests. thats not how the game was meant to be played.

(BioSnark) #7

What it comes down to is if you don’t want to play on a server with x setting you don’t.

(Blackened) #8

my experience shows that if a server CAN run 32 players, it WILL. game breaking or not, most servers will run it anyway. you point me to any CS:S server that has an 5v5 or 8v8 limit, or a TF2 server that has a reasonable cap. you cant, because outside of ESEA they do not exist. saying “if you dont like it, then dont play there” is a broken argument. 99% of server owners are run of the mill retards who think more is better and balance can suck eggs.

(BioSnark) #9

I had no problem with the player cap on any of the tf2 servers I played on. I guess they weren’t “game breaking” because my games weren’t broken by them.

edit: if you don’t like filtering server settings play the “campaign” game mode.

(trigg3r) #10

you’re talking about broken arguments?
How valid is your argument that brink will suck balls if it ain’t 8vs8, when the game is not even out yet? how can you know that?
even if it was meant to be played 8vs8 it doesn’t mean it can’t be fun playing 12vs12

(Blackened) #11

maybe not so much on TF2, but BADE! does not even begin to describe 50 players on de_dust2, 32 player cs_office, 64 player overgrown or 48 player crossfire.

the major problem is attacking threw linear maps when the defenders have 12 players jamming into the same objective room. same goes for reducing the respawn timer. it makes attacking infinitely more difficult than defending.

take QL for example. playing CTF would be unbearable if it wasnt strictly 5v5. having ONE guy surround the flag with proxy mines is hard enough to rocket jump around. imagine having 8 people doing it.

(Striker92) #12

its was said in the pc server article thingo that player limit was a server side option. i dont see why you cant jst join servers with lower number slots though. if you dont care about playing on servers where bots are enabled then it should be even less of a problem. Some servers may have higher player limits, but i think most will stick close to 8v8 and competitive servers will have less. But personally i wouldnt mind jumping on a server with a few more slots for lols every now and then

(Blackened) #13

it was said you can adjust player count. it never mentioned anything about having more players than 8v8. i actually have some faith in SD to keep it limited. im starting to think the developers are starting to understand that you have to design a game around a set number of players, or within a certain range of players. COD4 didnt really have a limit, but look at Black Ops, it limits its max number of players. Even TF2 gives a warning now saying “24 players is optimal” anything higher than that is not what the game was ment to do.

this along with some of the newer titles these days being more PC oriented, call of duty not withstanding, and developers understanding that more players does not equate to more fun is a good thing.

(Diablo85) #14

You’d be surprised. In TF 2 for example the most popular servers are 32 players 24/7 2fort. With 32 players that map is just a cluster**** spamfest. But for some weird reason people like that. Might have something to do with that fact that they can get kills easier that way, since random spam is much more likely to hit a target.

(Striker92) #15

people who run servers should be able to do what they like, its their time and effort. Personally i think SD will support that but thats my opinion. ETQW was very strict on the amount of players and mods for “Ranked servers” and this hindered the modding community. In an interivew very early on SD said that the strictness and its effects was something they took note of and aimed to improve in Brink. Since servers can be ran for free there should be plenty to choose from when the game is out, and there is no point worrying about it till uve actually played the game.

(tokamak) #16

I’m sure servers will attempt to host more players in order to stand out from the crowd.

There really should be a good ‘default’ filter (preferably on from the outset) in the game.

(hamstein) #17

CS:S was good with 64 players depending on the map/gamemode. TF2, not so much as there’s more explosives and explosive spam ain’t fun.

CoD4…god, why do PC players still say CoD4 was good on PC. With max player counts each grenade throw almost guaranteed at least two kills, airstrikes and helicopters would rake so many points.

For brink, most I can see working is 16 v 16, since the maps are designed for 8 v 8 it’s only twice as much :stuck_out_tongue:

(mestido) #18

For some people more is better so to have an option is always good.
You can always make your own server in BRINK and run it 8v8.
So if some one wanna run a server with 32players why not allow them?

(BioSnark) #19

and if someone wants to make a map for 16 vs. 16 or 2 vs. 2, why not let them?

campaign.

(Diablo85) #20

[QUOTE=mestido;286317]For some people more is better so to have an option is always good.
You can always make your own server in BRINK and run it 8v8.
So if some one wanna run a server with 32players why not allow them?[/QUOTE]

Because then you have the risk that there won’t be any vanilla servers left after a while, just like what happened to TF 2.