Next gen multiplayer.
- Thread starter Soopy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Multiplayer isn't really limited by the computer its limited by the server and the connection speed and to be honest 64 players worries me. Australians already get MASSIVE lag even on something like diablo with only 4 players how is it going to be with 64???
Now PC has to outdo the consoles by having multiplayer matches of 250 vs. 250 on the PC.
It's the only logical progression!
It's the only logical progression!
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,802
- 3,383
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Consoles having massive player numbers isn't a new thing.
MAG had 128 versus 128 on the PS3, and I don't remember there being abhorrent amounts of lag, though I didn't enjoy MAG very much to begin with.
MAG had 128 versus 128 on the PS3, and I don't remember there being abhorrent amounts of lag, though I didn't enjoy MAG very much to begin with.
The 64 players comment stems from the Battlefield 4 announcement. I guess we have to have some sort of benchmark when comparing user volumes. I guess it would be vastly more difficult to support a large volume of players on Battlefield than it would a game like Earthworm Jim.
Well you can already play with 256 people on mag, but I say you can have as many people you want on pc, as long as you got a game, the server amount, and infrastructure to support it. I say pc can easily handle 512 people, and may be able to do 1024.....maybe
Based on mag
Based on mag
Of course you would take one step forward then go off for work for 8 hours because it would take that long for the lag to clearGergar12 said:
I think everyone here has forgotten about Planetside 2.
I don't know how many people are fighting each other at the same time on that game but its way more than 64.
I don't know how many people are fighting each other at the same time on that game but its way more than 64.
Planetside is meant to be a continuous, gigantic conflict. Battlefield and most other multiplayer shooters have a match with a definitive beginning and end and are made for it.Soopy said:
I don't think either approach is inherently better. Having massive, constant battles that go on with or without you is great, but the more instanced approach of shooters like CoD, Battlefield and others means that there's typically a lot more thought put into how the match can progress, more detail in the maps and the ways people can utilize them, things like that. Things like destructible environments and semi-scripted events (like the skyscraper falling in BF4's Shanghai) probably wouldn't work with huge numbers either, then there's the connection nightmares and sheer cost of it all.
I don't reckon any shooter really needs to be very huge if it does matches rather than a persistent world. When it's persistent it makes more sense, but if you have a 500 vs 500 player match of Battlefield the map will probably be made just to be playable by that amount, rather than having many interesting features. Also when one side loses and the match was a really long one, that's 500 pissed off players right there.
Imagine if something like Quake had 1000 player matches. Sure, it'd look awesome, but everything else would be screwed up as it just isn't suited to that sort of thing. More players doesn't necessarily mean a better game.
Oh, of course. I agree entirely. I remember back when BF1942 was released and I was fighting battles against about 60 bots at a time. I thought it was great, coming from Unreal Tournament.IBlackKiteI said:
I think games such as Battlefield do benefit from a large player volume, as I believe the series has always aimed for an authentic war scenario, to an extent anyway. But yes, I completely understand your point regarding Planetside and how it differs.
Speaking of bots, I hope AI sees a step or two forward soon and they end up in every multiplayer game from now on. Often there'll be a really cool multiplayer game but since noone plays it and there's no bots to play against, you pretty much can't play it. The earlier CoD games, tons of promising Source Engine games and other games beyond count have effectively turned up like this.Soopy said:
Shouldn't devs account for the possibility that their game just might not have enough players for anyone to have a reasonable sized match, and that even if it does, the playerbase will eventually decline?
Even if the bots are the stupidass, run forward, shoot variety, at least they're something.
I miss bots as well. I never played Unreal tournament online (FPS and 56k connection isn't a match made in heaven) But I spent HOURS fighting Tamerlane and Xan. I loved it.IBlackKiteI said:
Bots are a good way to ease into a game. Heck, allot of modern FPS games may even be more accessible to a wider audience if they can train themselves against bots before moving online. I know a bug bear of mine is getting twitch killed by someone far more skilled than myself when starting out. It sucks all the fun out of the game.
It can be like, "Here's a basic gun and a map, UI and bunch of mechanics you have no idea how to figure out. Also you're fighting guys who have been playing almost non stop since launch and are armed with the absolute best gear you can get. Have fun."Soopy said:
Also I hope that sometime in the not too distant future there's some completely crazy stuff in multiplayer with next gen stuff, like freak weather dynamically wrecking the map, or the ability for players to build a gigantic walker out of items on the map, crew it and use it to fight stuff. If we've got the tech for 1000+ players rendered in high detail with a full day-night cycle, maybe we could manage stuff like this.
More players, smoother gameplay, better AI, all are cool things but they're just improvements. A more-or-less straightforward multiplayer shooter can only be so much (especially when many are seemingly just reiterations of each other) and games can be so many things. Let's have more flat out crazily awesome crap.
That would be great.IBlackKiteI said:
I would love an multiplayer 17th century Naval shooter/combat game. Using both FPS mechanics and distance combat where each time would work together to command a Sailing ship, fire on enemy ships and eventually board one another for close combat.
Its designed to be played with that amount of people. I bet Battlefield 3 on the PC could have a lot more players at the same time but the maps (and basicly everything else) are designed with a limit of 64 players.Soopy said:
Nah, here's our 'new' CoD/Battlefield/Borderlands/WoW/LoL...with a minor twist!Soopy said:
Ah I suppose it's not like all new releases are like that, who knows we might see something like that in the future.
And there's always the mod scene...
Way back in the day Quake 2 had 64 player maps that worked real well for their time. They weren't technically released with the game, but it did support them without mods, unless you consider a player-made map a mod. Still it didn't require altering the game.
Anyway, it worked ok over dial-up. But on LAN (10baseT) it ran pretty awesome. I miss LAN parties.
Anyway, it worked ok over dial-up. But on LAN (10baseT) it ran pretty awesome. I miss LAN parties.
Remembering back to playing FPS' over 56k back in the day. It was just an accepted fact that you had to lead your shots in order to account for the lag.amaranth_dru said:
This is speaking as an Australian user who often had to connect to the US west coast to find a game. Imagine having to deal with that these days. Forums would be crowing at the moon!