Orel

[PAN]

Hi Guys.
I hope I am not repeating a thread here.
Will there be a possibility in the future of increasing the amount of players in game. I think that a map like Orel, because of its immense size, has the scope for some amazing clan or combined clan matches. I was thinking in the region of perhaps 100 players. This would add some awsome team work between armour and infantry and give players some real insight to what it would have been really like on the steppes of Russia.

Is there anything in the pipeline for this or possibly other large maps?

 

[Barneby_Jenkins]

The Devs have said it can't be done with the current engine.

 

[Gunrun247]

Also the fact that the servers would have to keep track of SO MUCH they would just melt, and the bandwith concerened too, would be quite huge. I mean, at the moment they have to deal with 32 players shell trajectories, bullet trajectories, angles with other tanks, collisions, movement, other tanks movement in relation to what they can see, and a crudload of other stuff. Now imagine doing that but for 3 times as many people.

 

[-=KnIfE=-]

Also the fact that the servers would have to keep track of SO MUCH they would just melt, and the bandwith concerened too, would be quite huge. I mean, at the moment they have to deal with 32 players shell trajectories, bullet trajectories, angles with other tanks, collisions, movement, other tanks movement in relation to what they can see, and a crudload of other stuff. Now imagine doing that but for 3 times as many people.

And remember that increases in player slots increases the load on servers EXPONENTIALLY...... You'd be lucky to get 40 players on a tank map working smoothly, let alone 100

 

[Xendance]

If you can find us a 10 GHz server maybe we could run a 64 player server

 

[slyder73]

And remember that increases in player slots increases the load on servers EXPONENTIALLY...... You'd be lucky to get 40 players on a tank map working smoothly, let alone 100

Battlefield 2 runs with 64 players easily. If it is possible and available, the servers will be there because people would set them up, guaranteed. They might cost more, but that has never stopped people from paying to play games or upgrading.
If it isn't an option with this engine, hopefully the next version
Like the guys said, with Orel, it would be absolutely magnificent to see about 32 per side working on those scattered objectives and coordinating.

 

[Moz]

Not to mention if Slash decides to increase the view distance then servers had even more to stomach.

 

[Silky_Slim]

BF2 dosen't have to run ballistic calculations, as far as i know, it is lazer tag style.

 

[Tetch]

BF2 dosen't have to run ballistic calculations, as far as i know, it is lazer tag style.

If, by that, you mean 'bugfest' then you are 100% correct

Excellent song btw, and an even better band!

 

[Plaid13]

Even if it would require a hell of a good server that should never be the reason why its left out of the game. people upgrade all the time. if a server needs two powerful processors and 5 gig of ram and absurd amounts of bandwidth that dosnt mean someone wouldnt build that server. if the option for 64 players was there someone would build a server that could handle it. if people couldnt build that computer then they would just make it a 40 player server untill they could build a server that could handle 50 or 60 or 64. if its possable with the engine the option should be there even if the servers that are used now cant handle it.

 

[Welt]

The engine doesn't support multiple processors AFAIK, so there wouldn't be any benefit for having a server with multiple processors.

But we can always dream of 64 players servers