"Sorry, Servers Full" - Multiplayer Gamings Decline

[Agayek]

I'd say lag is a main issue with huge servers.

One game I go on -- a Doom source port -- can support upto 32 players per server, 16v16 on Deathmatch.
Even though the players are sprite based in a 3D environment, having 32 players can result in a lot of lag. My computer can't handle really clogged up servers... but that may be due to it being quite low-spec.

What this guy said.

The problem is, as graphics and whatnot have advanced terrifically, the standard level of networking/internet/processing speeds have not grown at a relative pace. Servers simply cannot handle all of the information needed to put 32+ people on a single map.

 

[Idocreating]

I personally like smaller numbers of players because it makes it a game of skill and tactics rather than just a clusterfck.

I'm a little biased right now because I just got off playing CoD4. There's not a single map that can support 50 players.

That's what i liked about CoD4 and Battlefield 2. There wildly different in their focus, CoD is more small scale skirmish fighting and Battlefield is a much more large, conventional warfare style battles. The reason i like them both so much is precisely because there not trying to be one another. They've figured out their shtick and there staying with it.

 

[NeutralMunchHotel]

"Ah Putin" you retort, "it has nothing to do with design"

I didn't notice your name before I read this post. I thought it was a funny, though slightly communist remark...

 

[Iron Mal]

There are games that allow huge numbers of players in a single game (I'm not sure if I have the right game but I remember once hearing thar Resistance on the PS3 could support something like 48 or 64 players at once, correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't played it) but not everyone is going to be as eager to be in huge epic battles as the OP is.

I personally prefer battles on a smaller scale (in fact, I love doing one on one games like the Cage match in CoD4) since they allow you to interact with other players more and it's far more interesting to have you and another player silently stalking each other across a silent map than to have your buttocks picked off time and time again by the team of fifteen enemy snipers before you can even find a decent gun.

You also have a greater feeling of importance in smaller games since your actions, successes and failures have a greater impact on the game (getting a kill in a 1-1 game is quite a big deal while in a 50-50 game it's something that happens every other second), in larger games you are expendable by the very definition of the word and you are very easily overlooked (getting credit for something you've done is very difficult if you're one in a large crowd).

Practically speaking, sitting around waiting for larger games to aquire enough players is a lengthy process (unless the game is 'Halo' popular), in some games getting a single player to join can take in excess of half an hour so imagine what it would be like waiting for the other 47. With the recent addition of 'casual gamers' you'll also find that more people are interested in games that are set up, played and done in the time it takes for a Taxi to arrive. A game with a huge number of players would have to be much longer to give everyone an opertunity to do something useful which in turn would mean that such games are simply inpractical for most people (that's my theory anyway).

 

[cyber_andyy]

The main problem is map size. For instace, I loved a good 60 man romp in Wolf:ET. However, the most maps simply weren't big enough, being desined for say, 32 players. With the bigger maps, you took forever to get to the front line as well which was a problem. It seems that game designers need to find the balence between map size, and veichle to infantry ratio to get that right battle feel. You dont want it too big, nor too small.

 

[V379]

I think that Tribes Starseige supported at least 32 players in multiplayer, and T2 supports up to 64 players, and neither of them make you feel like you aren't doing anyting to help your team, and both were created before bf 1942. So really the map designers are getting lazy in my opinion and they don't want to create maps big enough to support larger ammounts of players that will still be fun with smaller ammounts of players.

 

[Gyrefalcon]

All of a sudden multiplayer games, whether it's a "feature" of the single player game OR a game designed purely for multiplayer, the numbers that can compete online have been declining.

I'd just like to point out that fewer people per match does not mean there are fewer people playing, nor does it limit the number of people who can compete. It just means more matches.

Also, I disagree with your whole premise here. GeOW showed us that it is possible to have a hell of a lot of fun with only 8 people per match. Smaller matches do not necessarily represent a decline in gameplay - most games are just as fun 2 vs. 2 as they are on a completely full server.

I am of the opposite opinion. As a fan of Suikoden I really like the idea of super huge groups working together, especially in a war simulation. You SHOULD feel like a cog in the machine, far more realistic than being the "lone hero" on the beach of Normandy.

Despite being a good game, I hate Left 4 Dead. Why? It says 4 players. Not 2 at home and 2 online. Why? We had 4 players with Goldeneye. And gamers do manage to congregate. I want to see more multi-player games and not just online. We have the technology. Let's see it come back!

 

[squid5580]

Where the generic online component is indeed part of the problem. Another big part of the problem is "other people's children". How many times have you read here that I don't play XBL because of screaming kids or racist/homophobic slurs. And lets not forget griefers.

 

[Dr.Sean]

griefers

Greifing is one of the most fun things to do in games before the developers come in and stomp out all our fun with so called "updates"

 

[squid5580]

griefers

Greifing is one of the most fun things to do in games before the developers come in and stomp out all our fun with so called "updates"

Fun for the griefer maybe. Not always for the griefee. And I don't mean all types of griefing either (like the WOW griefers that ended up enhancing the game in that article around here). I mean griefers like you see on TF2 youtube videos or the L4D lets block the stairs type griefers. Which again is fine if you are just having fun with your friends in a private match. When you are doing it to random people who have no idea what is going on and they wanted to play, you are ruining thier fun. And if they aren't having fun they won't be coming back.

 

[Kuchinawa212]

While I am not a fan of 4v4 matchs I am also not a fan of huge matchs. That way a few people really good at the game will be able to explote some loophole, instead of just one. So I think ut needs to be a nice balnce.

Now I've been playing BF:BC and I gotta say I like that on the best.

 

[Rusty Bucket]

The reason 1943 is only 12v12 is probably because it's a £10 arcade game. And it doesn't matter that much, the maps have been designed for that many players, so it works. I don't mind low player counts at all, TF2 on 360 only supports 8v8, and that's still huge fun.

 

[EvilMaggot]

The half life 2 Mod - Battleground 2 was awesome when you had over 100 people on a server the mod was based around the 1700 century with the old muskets ^^ that mod is so awesome imagine 50 rifles being shot at the same time and see how many of the other teams players fall to the ground and the massive amount of smoke xD

 

[fix-the-spade]

Well DICE, the developers of the Battlefield Series, had that dream. ?

Sorry but I think you are wrong.

In DICE's case you are noticing the difference between PC and console more than anything, 64 player FPS's are not that uncommon on PC (Battlefield, Counter Strike, Quake mods, Red Orchestra) whilst on console they literally do not exist.

The Console version of BF 2 (Modern Combat) only supported 32 and that was a full retail game. It follows that a download only budget release would support fewer players.

When Battlefield 3 lands (for PC) it will continue the 32v32 theme or possibly expand on it.

You are also neglecting to mention MMOs, which can have hundreds at any one time. Planetside springs to mind as that can have several hundreds players on each team all moving on specific objectives engaging in FPS type combat. It takes eight people to operate some of the vehicles in that game!


I think your viewpoint has been skewed in that you appear to have gone from playing PC online games to console online games. Where you have mistaken the drop in quality for a backward trend, it's not the case, it's just how console gaming is.

 

[Puppeteer Putin]

Well DICE, the developers of the Battlefield Series, had that dream. ?

Sorry but I think you are wrong.

In DICE's case you are noticing the difference between PC and console more than anything, 64 player FPS's are not that uncommon on PC (Battlefield, Counter Strike, Quake mods, Red Orchestra) whilst on console they literally do not exist.

The Console version of BF 2 (Modern Combat) only supported 32 and that was a full retail game. It follows that a download only budget release would support fewer players.

When Battlefield 3 lands (for PC) it will continue the 32v32 theme or possibly expand on it.

You are also neglecting to mention MMOs, which can have hundreds at any one time. Planetside springs to mind as that can have several hundreds players on each team all moving on specific objectives engaging in FPS type combat. It takes eight people to operate some of the vehicles in that game!


I think your viewpoint has been skewed in that you appear to have gone from playing PC online games to console online games. Where you have mistaken the drop in quality for a backward trend, it's not the case, it's just how console gaming is.

Yes - of course they wern't the first: they were the first game, as a product, that could support 64 players. I'm not talking about mods, gameplay adaptatoin, or Red Orchestra which was release 4 years after the original.

In fact you bring up a good example - Tripwire Interactive, the developers of Red Orchestra, went BACK and back a 8 player game Killing Floor. More and more developers are now saying "We don't need more players to make a multiplayer game good" - and that's fine. It's just a shame that those who founded the notion of mass FPS based games have cut out their own idea.

Platform is unimportant. If someone came up to you with a port of a game, which lacked in any other facet to the original game, you would feel ripped off wouldn't you?

I should of put a disclaimer at the beginning: I am specifically talking about FPS Games. MMORPGs have indeed grown in numbers, but that's rarely a "Battlefield" situation - and yes I am fully aware of the Battleground mods in WoW and the RvR in Warhammer Online. You can still play the game with less people because it's quest centric, you don't need those other people there for the core mechanics of the game to work.

As many have already pointed out here there are many console games that can support up to 60 player support. It's got nothing to do with Platform or Restraint, it's the bastards being fuck-lazy.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

I'm a little biased right now because I just got off playing CoD4. There's not a single map that can support 50 players.

I've played CoD4 50 player and yes, its hectic. Epically funny, but not playable for a serious game.

Man I can only imagine how much fun that is on Shipment... total chaos. Awesome!

 

[squid5580]

Well DICE, the developers of the Battlefield Series, had that dream. ?

Sorry but I think you are wrong.

In DICE's case you are noticing the difference between PC and console more than anything, 64 player FPS's are not that uncommon on PC (Battlefield, Counter Strike, Quake mods, Red Orchestra) whilst on console they literally do not exist.

Frontlines Fuel of War for the 360 had 50 some odd person MP matches (I can't remember the exact number). You could either just solo it or join squads of 7 others and communicate with them.

Frankly I just don't see the difference. If I can only talk with 7 other people and Ican't tell the difference between the enemies (since everyone looks the same) I could kill the same guy over and over or shoot down 32 different people and it is all the same to me.