How can you comment on this when you haven’t played the game or it’s the game that came before it, RtCW:ET?
You clearly have a warped view on this issue since you think BF2 will be any yard-stick. BF2’s map was poorly laid ut (where BF42s had logical advancement-points) and seems made to disperse people into large areas without focused battles.
ET:QW is the opposite.
I agree with I3LiP and I hope your right.
What would happen if you cant design map/mods for
larger amounts of players because it’s fixed at 32.
Hard-coded sounds so … unchangeable.
So Arnout could this be increased with a mod.
hard coded to 32, waaaaah? in some time where computers become much faster and are capable of such madness and when smb makes a huuuuuuuuuuuuuge map… then what? tho yes an obj based map bla-bla. but with many obj maps, or both teams battle for some obj that is everywhere on the map…
FYI: I believe it’s nothing more than changing one constant value MAX_PLAYERS.
The performance problem is that all client slots need to be checked to see if there is a client in there. If you have 64 players instead of 32, you need to check the double amount of client slots.
I saw this awhile ago… the devs say that 24 players is the ‘sweet spot’ that gives great action while not going out of control.
It dosn’t say anything about the number of players being capped (at least I don’t think so I watched the vid awhile ago) it just says that 24 players is what the devs, through testing, have determined to be the most enjoyable player number for the maps.
Weather or not the public can run servers with a higher player number was not addressed, but it is possible that the maps will not allow for it. Who knows.
OK I missed reading a page where the devs commented =]
As for exploring… this isn’t battlefield… ET has focused action objective to objective, so your not going to have all that random space to nub around in. You have a place to go to fight, once you win that fight you have another place to go. You don’t have 5 objectives both teams can run around and nub out trying to hold (oh please god say that this is true, becuase if ET:QW is anything like battlefield I’m cutting out my eyes and sending one to SD and one to iD and filling both the sockets with my own shit… well I’ll wait one or 2 updates =]).
This was not the case in ET. The hard coded max is also in the engine, not just the game code.
Hmmm, I believe I forgot to add the keyword “SD” somewhere in that quoted text.
My mistake.
This was posted on Total Quake Wars, Read Question 6.
The game will be balanced for 16 players, but harware-optimised for performance for 24-32. This is considered to be the ‘sweet spot’ for great team play while pursuing each mission’s military objectives as part of an overriding campaign.
and
All that said, the game will not have a hard-locked player-limit, and as with Wolf ET, for sure, people will run larger servers (in Wolf ET many people run 64-player servers, for that ‘absolute mayhem’ experience).
Don’t make a server feel like Bangladesh.
Bangladesh = most densely populated country.
Bah, who should I trust, a human geography textbook written by my human geography professor, or wikipedia. Decisions, decisions.
Maybe Bangladesh is outdated, but you get what I mean by having too many people on a small map.
hah check this out. That is becuase monaco is a microstate.
I guess monaco would be a better example of overcrowding in small ET maps.
But my bangladesh example is much better.
The monaco example is like saying a very small map, like only a few rooms but with around 24 players. We are talking large scale here so Bangladesh, being a smaller than average sized country, has lots of room for the population of monaco, but not enough room for the population of bangladesh. Therefore it is like saying a ETQW stock map stuffed with 128+ players.
Ahh but Monaco has a Formula 1 track! I guess you’re beat there. :evil:
On a side note, why does that “Total” site misquote things and typically get it wrong? You think it has to do with their staff all being under 19 years old? The game is optimised for 24 players, that has been said a million times now.
12v12 sounds way too low. 2-3 per tank. 1-2 per flying vehicle. if a tank and 2 flying things are being used that only leaves like 5-6 ppl on foot per team…thats horrible. but the way it seems the maps are created you are always in a small choke point, so i guess you cant really have more =/. i just hope it isn’t completing an obj then finding another choke point to fight the same 5 players over and over.
I don’t get the problem, vehicles, foot soldiers, what’s the difference ?
I don’t understand your complaint/objection, can you explain ?
wow…what is 5-6 + 3? 8-9 entities running around. doesn’t that seem kinda small to you? hopefully most server admins change it to 32. that would help a lot. would probably get kinda boring killing jim 30 times a map.
Well I will like the idea of a 24 user server. The teamplay will be alot better and you wont be playing a DEATH MATCH GAME!. ( frag fest ). I like the idea of of a team working together and I like the idea that a lone wolf player wont be any good in this game because each user will have an objective to complete. If a user doesnt complete their objective your team can loose the game.
Its kinda like the Old Capture The Flag Saying:
KILLS DONT WIN GAMES… FLAG CAPS DO!!
