PC player cap

[Jamieson]

I think 10v10 will be most ideal as it strikes a nice mid ground between 12v12 and 8v8. Sometimes 8v8 can feel to small and sometimes 12v12 is to much so 10v10 is nice. Of course I fully expect comp will have smaller teams perhaps 5v5.

[KrilionGD]

people also tend to foget history… It used to be that game companies ran their “Vanilla” servers and left custom servers for the community, so that both camps had support. Then some marketing genius said, we could save money by just having communities run the servers and drop the server hosting expenses. Then the outcry of players but I wanna play vanilla and these community run guys have all the rules on their servers…

Companies started to infringe on what server owners could and could not do, and now you have the current cluster ***** that is…

Frankly I am extremely happy that SD is taking a ‘Its their server, let them do what they want’ approach… It’s the way it used to b and the way it should be…

If you want vanilla servers, get SD to run some… otherwise, allow the people PAYING for the servers to run them as they like.

[Bridger]

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.

Internet, this is SockDog, SockDog, this is the internet. I don’t think you two have met.

More than half the TF2 servers that I’ve found at either fast respawn (breaks game balance in favor of the defender) or modded to have high player numbers (breaks game balance in favor of the defender). Many of them are BOTH. Many gamers either don’t know what they want, or they just want mindless spamming games where they get to do lots of kill kill pew pew exploding bodies w00t!

I’d rather the game force players to try playing brink correctly. Then the ones who wanted a spamming omg kill everything on my screen game can go elsewhere and the others will figure out they actually appreciate games more when they are balanced correctly. Also I’d have more real choices for servers

[Bridger]

I think 10v10 will be most ideal as it strikes a nice mid ground between 12v12 and 8v8. Sometimes 8v8 can feel to small and sometimes 12v12 is to much so 10v10 is nice. Of course I fully expect comp will have smaller teams perhaps 5v5.

8v8 is not nearly as small in a game where the winner of a firefight can instantly revive their fallen players. I’d guess that it will often feel more like a 12v12 because there will often be less waiting/running from spawn.

[hellreturn]

I personally prefer 10 vs 10 to 13 vs 13 and couple of private slot for clan member so they can enter as they wish since servers are being paid by clan members.

Anything less then 5 vs 5 get’s boring. I prefer action over wait time.

[Kendle]

In DOD:S almost all public servers are 32 slot simply because they CAN be 32 slot, and as with most games 16-v-16 is effectively mindless TDM. As someone mentioned above, if SD allow > 8-v-8 there will be many, many servers > 8-v-8, in fact give it a year or 2 and they’ll ALL be > 8-v-8.

I’m not sure however that 16 slot max is the right thing to do.

Many successful public servers are host to “communities”, large groups of people who frequent a particular website / forum / server so as to play with like minded people etc., and very soon limited slots becomes too limited to allow all members of that community to play on the same server at the same time.

IMHO I’d prefer 20 - 24 slot servers so as to allow these communities to evolve, as they’re what keep games alive year after year.

[Jamieson]

8v8 is not nearly as small in a game where the winner of a firefight can instantly revive their fallen players. I’d guess that it will often feel more like a 12v12 because there will often be less waiting/running from spawn.

If like me you are used to playing ET and ETQW which also feature instant revives then it wont feel any different, thats why I say for me 10v10 is perfect.

[Linsolv]

Yeah… I suspect this is going to have that infuriating “shogi” feel as opposed to the “chess” feel.

Where you can just put down a captured pawn whenever you’re worried about that lance threatening your gold general. Shogi is such a slow game… <_<

[Blackened]

CS:S was good with 64 players

ha…haha…ha…aahahahhahahahaha. thats funny.

im actually willing to bet everybody in this thread a dollar, that on launch day, the forums get flooded with “why is the PC version capped at 8v8”.:stroggtapir:

[LyndonL]

[QUOTE=Kendle;286406]Many successful public servers are host to “communities”, large groups of people who frequent a particular website / forum / server so as to play with like minded people etc., and very soon limited slots becomes too limited to allow all members of that community to play on the same server at the same time.

IMHO I’d prefer 20 - 24 slot servers so as to allow these communities to evolve, as they’re what keep games alive year after year.[/QUOTE]

Buy or host 2 servers then. Cost of servers is based on how many player slots (ie bandwidth) is available. So effectively 2 16 slot servers shouldn’t be much higher than 1 32 slot server.

[Mustkunstn1k]

I’d rather they don’t. In Team Fortress 2 there is an option to play 16 vs 16 (32 players). But it’s just a horrible clusterf**k. Anything over 24 i(24 is the actual max number they balanced the game around) horrible. Yet the average player is a complete moron and thinks more means better… and a lot of servers are 32 players now. But honestly, it’s just horrible.

I’d rather the developer sets a limit and balances the game around it. And I do think that 16 players is enough for Brink.

[hellreturn]

Buy or host 2 servers then. Cost of servers is based on how many player slots (ie bandwidth) is available. So effectively 2 16 slot servers shouldn’t be much higher than 1 32 slot server.

Issue is everyone likes to play together. I noticed one thing in COD:BO ? Not many players know each other like in W:ET or BC2. Why? Everyone wants to join server with 14+ but as soon as player count drops below 9, many start leaving and it becomes dead server and they hope on next one. 20-26 slot server is perfect, IMO.

Cost of servers it not only limited by BW. CPU usage also takes roles in it unless any host starts over stacking server. My one W:ET server uses 75% of my Xeon 3.0Ghz CPU if server is full. I have noticed COD4 server is most optimized one. Way less CPU usage and less BW usage compare to W:ET, BC2, TF2, etc.

But off course with bigger slots, you also need bigger maps to handle that many players or it becomes cluster mess.

[Blackened]

short and skinny of things, the game has been designed for 8v8. its been said many many times by paul and others in several differnt video interviews and blogs. chances are the game is going to be capped, as it should. if you really want to break the game by allowing an unbalanced number of scrubtards into your server, COD4 is that way.

[BrigandSk_A]

[QUOTE=BioSnark;286320]and if someone wants to make a map for 16 vs. 16 or 2 vs. 2, why not let them?

campaign.[/QUOTE]

because every human being has a grieffer inside, the difference between a noticeable person who harms his own team and fair players are that the fair players are trying to grief opposite team from winning while the the true grieffers just focus on wasting their own time just to bother everyone else who’s doing the right thing.

For me the right thing is always let people CREATE the best DESIGN and GRANT ACCESS TO them ALL.

Doing things like… high end for minimal specs for a released game, exclusive maps, rushed console ports, lack of options, no dedicated servers, no SDK tools, no server software release, no custom full re-mapping, fast release of a game franchise instead of innovating and tweaking the last released version, unstable massive player cap, slim / limited player cap and ect
Are forms of grieffing by developers because those sort of things reduce the player’s base of a game and decreases the chances of community out puts / releases / activity.
So these sort of things will kill the game longevity . . . these ‘‘kill’’ features’’ if implemented are certain intentional if the company has the money to invest, there for with the purpose of suggesting the players to drop the game and buy a fresh game from the franchise.

when do we all start to wake up ? . ! . ? . ! . ? to get tuned into the same radio ‘‘mind’’ wave!

Get on the edge of the most common technology and create something that is available to everyone and can be modded / adapted to everyone’s tastes / likes

most important SD is aware of these things so they designed the game personalized for each platform equally unless there’s a technology barrier or game breaking design.

[Blackened]

^^^^^^^ was there a point relevant to the topic anywhere in there?

[BrigandSk_A]

^^^^^^^ was there a point relevant to the topic anywhere in there?

PC gamers will have the option to get the player’s cap over 16 (8vs8).

Unless… when running over 16 players [24 (12 vs 12), 32 (16 vs 16)] either the game becomes very unstable OR the game design gets destroyed.

If non of these happen, then I’ll guarantee to you that a custom server will be able to offer over 16 players (8 vs 8).

I do not want to paint targets… just take a look at some over hyped games that do not innovate much and keep releasing new games every once in awhile because their previous release was limited (cut down options and features for DLC or cut developing budget), intentionally to increase their yield by exploring the popularity of 1 time only well built version of the franchise… oh well… scams in love of money and capitalism while stagnating the whole evolution of that specific game genre proving their are true to their fame.

[Blackened]

where does the line get drawn then? if not 8v8 then what, 10v10? 12v12? if you honestly think playing brink with 32 players is anything other than blatant retardation then so help me, i regret steam pre-ordering for me and my girlfriend.

[Chex]

I don’t understand what the fuss is about. The size of the map should determine the no. of players.
There should be a standard for competitive modes/maps but that’s it.

[LyndonL]

where does the line get drawn then? if not 8v8 then what, 10v10? 12v12? if you honestly think playing brink with 32 players is anything other than blatant retardation then so help me, i regret steam pre-ordering for me and my girlfriend.

Mate, you are making so much fuss over nothing. Just because you might be able to set more, doesn’t mean everyone is going to. I won’t be I know that much. There you go. One server you can play on. Pre-order saved.

[Linsolv]

I kinda see his point. People have no sense of self-control sometimes.

But since you can EASILY set up your own server, if only for you and your close friends (bandwidth issues might prevent you from wanting full teams or something) I’m not convinced it’s a huge issue here.