What is the reason behind 8v8?

(montheponies) #81

Some folk should try seeing the bigger picture. It’s absolutely the case that Brink’s demise on the PC was due in part to the lower player count.

Now I’ll stress again, I like 6v6 comp and anything upto 16v16 for pub - BUT guess what that doesnt matter as I’m only one guy. I don’t recall any pub servers with less than 12v12 on RTCW (getting old so no doubt someone will correct me with one guy who ran an uber comp server from his bedroom)…

playing the reductio ad absurdum route of some of the posters I reckon we should reduce player counts to 1v1 or even 1v0 so you remove any and all variables…god forbid we could have a mass appeal game.

(Hundopercent) #82

[QUOTE=iwound;441366]your thinking too small Loffy. Mount & Blade: Napoleonic Wars Multiplayer has 250 players.
you can even be a drummer boy or bagpipe player lol
i think it has last man standing.

[video=youtube_share;ZWt-n57K1rQ]http://youtu.be/ZWt-n57K1rQ[/video]

[video=youtube_share;c5Iu1lT0MNQ]http://youtu.be/c5Iu1lT0MNQ[/video]

in this video the guy pretty much sums up my feelings about having games with higher player numbers.
im actually tempted to get this just to be a drummer boy.:slight_smile: it looks fun.

[video=youtube_share;nFeN6NHScyU]http://youtu.be/nFeN6NHScyU[/video][/QUOTE]

You never cease to amaze me iwound. =P

(Volcano) #83

the game was terrible which is why it failed not the server size

(TacTicToe) #84

Granted Brink had its issues. The launch was horrible, multiple problems with the game itself, but the small player size was definitely a huge contributor to its demise. 8v8 just doesn’t cut it in this day and age. The unreal engine can very easily handle 32 players, however going beyond that it does get a bit buggy. The programmers would have to do a ton of optimizing of the engine for it to perform well above 32 players. IMO though, with proper sized maps, 32 slots would be perfect.

(Protekt1) #85

What fps games have failed because of server size? Many FPS don’t need or have large player counts and are very successful. IDC if there are high server counts or not but it shouldn’t compromise the competitive potential in the game. You don’t see competitive games like DOTA, LoL, CoD, CS ever use higher player counts. Its always less players designed for maps specifically suited for that amount of players.

(TacTicToe) #86

Brink
Wolfenstein 2009
Nexuiz

Right off the top of my head.

My point is, a game like ET for example, had up to 64 slots for the game. When we had our servers filled at 64 players, it was mad fun! Crazy and fun. It was very easy to recruit and build your clan. Game was still very competitive, and you could downsize your server if you wanted. 24, 32, 48 etc, but the option for more was there as well. We used to have many fun clan matches playing 5v5, 6v6, even up to 10v10.

How many Brink based clans exist today? My guess none.
How many Wolfenstein 2009 clans exist today? Again none.
Nexuiz? None.

How many clans play/have/recruit ET today? LOTS!!! And it is older then all the other games I have listed. If you want a small server, then have at it. If 5v5 is your thing, I’m happy for you. At least give the rest of us that wish to grow a segment of our clan on this game, the option to have a server that promotes clan growth. That would be a minimum of 24, preferably 32 slots. That’s all I am asking, I do not think it is an unreasonable request.

(Nail) #87

Nexuiz does 32 players afaik

Brink and Wolf09 didn’t fail because of server sizes

(HellToupee) #88

CS is comp is 10 players, but publics are usually 24players, some even go 40, also CoD4 last one with dedicated servers you had servers with up to 64 players chaos :slight_smile:

(Protekt1) #89

[QUOTE=TacTicToe;441477]Brink
Wolfenstein 2009
Nexuiz

Right off the top of my head.

My point is, a game like ET for example, had up to 64 slots for the game. When we had our servers filled at 64 players, it was mad fun! Crazy and fun. It was very easy to recruit and build your clan. Game was still very competitive, and you could downsize your server if you wanted. 24, 32, 48 etc, but the option for more was there as well. We used to have many fun clan matches playing 5v5, 6v6, even up to 10v10.

How many Brink based clans exist today? My guess none.
How many Wolfenstein 2009 clans exist today? Again none.
Nexuiz? None.

How many clans play/have/recruit ET today? LOTS!!! And it is older then all the other games I have listed. If you want a small server, then have at it. If 5v5 is your thing, I’m happy for you. At least give the rest of us that wish to grow a segment of our clan on this game, the option to have a server that promotes clan growth. That would be a minimum of 24, preferably 32 slots. That’s all I am asking, I do not think it is an unreasonable request.[/QUOTE]

I’m definitely not saying that DB shouldn’t have larger servers. I am okay with that as long as it doesn’t affect the competitive side of the game and maps that are built around 5v5-8v8. I definitely had a lot of fun back in the day with large servers full of people ie. ET or BF1942/2. But those maps also worked better for those amounts of people. DB’s current maps I don’t think could handle larger amounts. They have spawn points very close to the objective, passage ways and chokepoints are narrow too. Already sometimes I feel like I cannot move without several teammates getting in the way. I am down for larger maps too but I hope they put a lot of focus on competitive play for the game as well.

(en2ie) #90

Don’t get me wrong I love large player counts and would like to see 24 slot servers for DB, but I dispute a lower player count “not cutting it” and being the reason for games failing. Games fail for various reasons, server size just isn’t one of them.

(Kendle) #91

It is if it’s too low. Wolfenstein 2009 is the best (worst) example, servers locked to 12 players. When the game was still being played (which wasn’t for long) servers were either full or empty, nothing in-between.

IMO 16 slots is about the minimum you can get away with, 20 slots would probably be better. I’d never play on anything above 24 slot personally, but I don’t see why those who want that kind of experience should be denied it.

(INF3RN0) #92

I just think of performance. There’s plenty of games that do 64 players well, but in terms of DB’s performance and then the overall design I could only see maybe 10v10 max working.

(ailmanki) #93

ET had fireteams, like squads in BF. So even if you are on a huge server - 128 players (imagine it), you still can make your fireteam with your few teammates you like.

Artillery in spawn, that shouldn’t even be possible. Which army would place there spawn in such a way without a roof, or in case of DB a antiartillerly laser?
Bigger servers are for xp whores, only a few had been always rambos. True if you join today a big server… no sure what you will get. I only play on a few very selected servers, which are usually empty except for some special hours a day.

True is it gets chaotic, but that is what I love - that is why I still play ET. The chaos - I don’t like games where the outcome can easily be predicted. With 8vs8 its very easy to keep track of who died, who moved to where, probabilities of where the enemy is waiting/moving are easy to know.

This is what I love about pub gameplay, and it doesn’t happen in a 4vs4 or 8vs8 - at those numbers the game is almost like a scrim. Though it also has its appeal, being able to deploy advanced tactics due to more knowledge about the situation. But that gets boring very quick for me. Also its exhausting to play with such a low player count, one moment AFK … and it might be a huge problem.

Yeah this is coming from a ET player/admin/content creator… so very biased yes. But I have played DirtyBomb, and it had the same effect, I got even faster exhausted - well cause I had to learn the game first - e.g. the movement and aiming details, amongst the features db offers.

Now you might say the more chaotic, the more exhausting … nope, the probabilities are still there for the brain, but they become more fuzzy, so the overall knowledge is less detailed, and this does not allow for very detailed plans. And once you know your 8 enemies and your 7 teammates style and skill … for me it becomes extremely boring mostly. Unless it would be extremely well balanced. But that would be even more valid for a balanced 24vs24 match - the fun we miss if this isn’t going to be implemented.

Besides are there any plans for shoutcasters? Specators? Live-DBTV ? Would be nice to watch over the shoulders when others are testing.

PS: don’t worry about perfomance, this is alpha. If any you can compare it to other titles using the same engine, and they are doing fine. So it has to be something which can be optimized, and SD will surely do that sooner or later.

(Dragonji) #94

Why requesting only 24v24 while we should have at least 64v64… That would be epic!

(Dthy) #95

I want 256v256 like MAG!

(Ruben0s) #96

THIS! but only if you can walk through your teammates.

(meat) #97

I think the current 12 slot test servers are to low a player count for a game with 5 different classes. If the team class balance is not right for the current objective its almost impossible to win for the attacking team , and I have already seen this several times since the switch to 12 slot servers.

With a higher slot count it makes a winning team class balance easier to achieve, it allows for errors in the balance to be not as detrimental to the success of the attacking team. An example is :6vs6 3 coveys on the first half of Whitechapel sucks, doesn’t leave enough players for the other crucial classes. But if the teams were 8vs8, it would make possible 3 coveys, 2 medics,1 engie, 1 assault, and a FOPS which would give the attacking team a decent chance of success. The 3 coveys wouldn’t hurt there team as bad with a higher slot count.

I am sure some people will say that scenario won’t happen, but a lack of in game communication, and the desire of some players to play there preferred class regardless of the needs of the team are things that happen on Pub servers all the time.

The problem really is if were seeing unbalanced team classes in the alpha testers, who should be more aware of the need for a good class balance, what do you think a pub server full of NOOBS, is going to do.

I don’t think you will find most 6vs6 pub servers playing highlander rules, with the extra player going to the most crucial class needed to play the objective.

I think 8vs8 is the minimum size server I would like to have, possible bigger slot counts if larger maps are released.

(Breo) #98

Don’t worry it’s a test for echo I guess?

(meat) #99

that’s what I was hoping

(Bangtastic) #100

3.5.7.9 makes sense to me^^ but 6v6 is also nice