Number of players.
- Thread starter Nicholas
- Start date
Let's all try and remember that the game will have been designed around a 64 player max limit. So all trying to increase the number of slots in a server is all well and good, but you aren't going to be enhancing anyones experience by doing so.
Upvote
0
So because you don't like 64+ servers, then it's a stupid idea? You talk as if every gamer is looking for the same experience you are, which is absurd.
I guess playing WWIIONLINE off and on, hating the graphics and gameplay mechanics, I can tell you it's pure awesome to have 120 people fighting over a specific area, which is no bigger than most RO maps. You really get the combined arms, large battle experience from that. So that's why I'm a fan of 64+ player servers.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
He's saying that the maps will be designed and balanced to work with 64 players, and significantly raising that number will break that balance. It is likely to cause the same congestion and nadespam problems you see in the 50 player servers in Ostfront today.
And by the way, it is "anyone's."
And by the way, it is "anyone's."
Upvote
0
But you forget that this newer engine is designed for dual core technology, which Ostfront wasn't. Meaning that one core will handle AI, another the other variables of the non-graphical kind.
Like I have stated previously, the 29th ran a 100 slot server - shared server - for a short time on DH. Did it lag? Yes. It lagged when everyone started fighting at almost the same time. But for the most part, one could posit that if the server could have used one more processor, it would probably have made the experience orgasmic.
You are correct; that's what I get to typing fast.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
64 is optimal if maps are well designed, balanced and netcode is ready to handle it. I totally agree with RO2 idea to have 3 version of one map, for 16, 32 and 64 players. So we get one bigass map for 32 vs 32 and also tiny one for 8 vs 8. It sounds like BF2 idea, but TWI went further: differences between map version are not only basing on size of playable area limited by minefield. Some areas, buildings will be different (hopefully we get more info this in todays podcast), so we get same intense action.
I don't mind to raise max player limit, if that will work good, w/o lags etc.
and what is most funny.
CoD 2 - 64 players
CoD 4 - 50 players
CoD 5 - 50 players
CoD 6 - 18 players
CoD 7 - 24 players
I don't mind to raise max player limit, if that will work good, w/o lags etc.
and what is most funny.
CoD 2 - 64 players
CoD 4 - 50 players
CoD 5 - 50 players
CoD 6 - 18 players
CoD 7 - 24 players
Upvote
0
No, I don't think that's what I said at all. (Thanks Bobdog)
I never mentioned liking anything, or my preference on playercounts. I was stating fact. If you design a map around 64 players, then throw (for example) 100 players onto it the gameplay experience will be vastly different. Focus points such as objectives just become an absolute cluster****, the areas people are fighting over have not been designed for so many players - and then you get issues like nadespam etc.
What does that have to do with it?
And
Yeay! Let's be nitpicky about my grammar...?
Upvote
0
That was the old WWIIONLINE. Now even the ABs are situated right outside of many towns, and most of the time you are spawning from a UMS parked in a bush (1.29) or spawning in town.
I apologize if I took what you said out of context. But when you say "objectives become an absolute cluster___", how am I supposed to take that? It sounds like you are talking as if everyone agrees with your way of playing a game. One man's cluster___ is another man's optimal gaming experience.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Nope, Your wrong. They made dedicated servers which allowed for 128 players. 64 is what the developers set though.
--
As for making a mutator that allows for 128 players. Yes...I will make a mutator that just breeds human players and whilst I do that I'll make this tree that produces money which I won't need because I'll be sculpting my own server out of wood
---
PUT IT THIS WAY
If you make it 64 players max. You can play upto 64 players. You can play 16 players. You can play 2 players. You can play 12 players. You can't play 65 player though.
If you make it 128 players max. You can play 64 player. You can play 16 player. You can play 2 players. You can play 12 players. But more importantly, you can play with upto 128 players.
-
If you don't want to play with 127 players. Then don't join that server. Pure class idiotic mistake on your half. Don't walk around with a stick beating up all the people that want to play 128 players going. NO...YOU...STAY IN THE SMALL SERVERs. YOUR NOT ALLOWED TO PLAY THE GAME WITH AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU WANT. YOUR GOING TO SIT IN THIS ****ING 2 PLAYER SERVER WITH ME.
=) smile! Thats essentially what your saying and I find it insulting!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I LOLed so freaking hard. The only bad thing is I can't fit all of what you said into my sig. =[
Upvote
0
![[TW]schneidzekk](/data/avatars/s/0/1.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
It is not linear.
One 128 player server needs way way double way more horse power and bandwidth than two 64 player servers.
No, multi core cpus do not really help. There is still one heavy weight, the game thread. We can not split that up into multiple threads.
Additional cores can take care of other threads like I/O, AI, Physix etc, but that is only a small percentage.
One 128 player server needs way way double way more horse power and bandwidth than two 64 player servers.
No, multi core cpus do not really help. There is still one heavy weight, the game thread. We can not split that up into multiple threads.
Additional cores can take care of other threads like I/O, AI, Physix etc, but that is only a small percentage.
Upvote
0
The point is let the hardware be the deciding factor. When I get my new computer constructed by santa and jesus and I go to make a 500 players server...all of a sudden to be greeted with this message saying
lol at you, fun denied...
However, to try and make a 200 player server...test it...realize its so freaking fail so you just cap it at 70 players instead. Is much better....
=) You and me all the way!
Upvote
0
They've decided on 64 players based around current hardware and tech...they haven't chosen 64 as the target just to ruin your goodtime.
Upvote
0
This is because many people in the world are just plain dumb. The type of people who would now join with a 56k modem and wonder why the game sucks online =p
-
I bet this game can handle 128 people. The same way as most games can handle 128 players where modification allows for it and someone hosts a decent server.
-
Having 128 capability, with or without mods, will not destroy 64 players. It seem everyone who is against 128 players in a server thinks that nobody will be able to play 64 player games ever....
So I guess we'll be morning the loss of 64 player games when 128 player comes? To be honest. I see your point now. I want 2 players to be the cap now. And LAN to be the only option of play. Why should I be forced to play with 3 or more players on a broadband connection? Since there is only going to be one server I think it should only be a 2 player server for just me and my friend.
Upvote
0
Yeah so when EPIC tested their netcode against current hardware specs and the possibility of higher playercounts they just decided to go with 64 for funsies? If the engine and current servers could handle 128 players, don't you think they'd state that...instead of 64?
There's no "hard limit" on the number of players that a server can be set to - all EPIC and TWI are saying is that anything above 64 and you'll start to degrade the performance of the game.
I'm not saying 128 players is a bad thing - but expecting it to work (well) on
a. A game with maps balanced around 64 players
and
b. An engine thats developers have recommended 64 as the max
Is just foolish.
Upvote
0
Warband is also something that was considered 64 players and so was the old call of duty. But back in the days of call of duty 2 we wern't packing the same technology. I think ArmA 2 is the most demanding game I've ever seen but I don't think that Red Orchestra 2 will be doing anything on the scale of what they are doing...The biggest comparison to red orchestra 2 would be call of duty 2 or ofcourse! Red Orchestra 1!
No hard limit is a good thing...Just as long as us folks can go beyond what they say and have more players. Then thats fine.
I don't think its foolish considering every game I have ever played in the entirity of the world that has allowed for 128 players or more...works fine with the exception of people on bad connections or connecting from far away.
Unless, your telling me...Red Orchestra 2 is going to critically destroy any machine out their with its godly revolutionary outstanding server and computer within a 200 mile radius of the game being loaded up onto any hardware.
In which case, we won't buy the game.
Or your saying the developers are completely useless bunch of fools that have developed a horrible net code and are working with a lame graphics engine...In which case. Don't be mean!
-
As for the maps...Did the developers not allow for people to make their own content? The maps look plenty big enough to support 2 more people at every point. They don't look very action packed in the demo. They could use some more liveliness. Bit more fire-fights and stale mates.
So what will it be! Useless developers or the game is just so super amazing that it will melt hardware and your hardware's hardware?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Development costs time.
I much rather play in maps suited to different player amounts without major lag. Than only play on 128 player servers that cannot even handle the player amount.
As most server administrators do not care about performance but only care about how many people are playing on their servers. I think that hard locks are needed to ensure the quality of the game.
Again going over that player limit should be doable by a mutator, which brings it out of twi's responsibility.
I much rather play in maps suited to different player amounts without major lag. Than only play on 128 player servers that cannot even handle the player amount.
As most server administrators do not care about performance but only care about how many people are playing on their servers. I think that hard locks are needed to ensure the quality of the game.
Again going over that player limit should be doable by a mutator, which brings it out of twi's responsibility.
Upvote
0
None of those games have been developed on the Unreal engine 3. So we cannot draw a comparison. I have never seen anyone offering hosting a 128 player ArmA2 server, and I'm pretty sure that the M&B Warband netcode (and the netcode of the Quake 3 engine) is a damn side simpler than RO or HOES given the additional amount of information the server is processing.
You're misconstruing what I'm saying - I'm saying that it's foolish to expect a game to run well with twice the intended playercount from both technical and design aspects.
Try and find me a game based on Unreal 3 tech that supports more than 64 players...or even 64, yet.
uhhhh...what?
We've barely seen any of the maps so far, and certainly not with 64 players on them. All the demo footage so far was using bots, and if you look at the videos Ramm is always spawning 32 bots.
Upvote
0
Taisenki,
I think you're forgetting about the greater detail in ballistics and such that RO deals with. These aren't hitscan weapons, but with bullet drop, flight time, and now penetration and destructible environments, I'm pretty sure the servers need to do a whole lot more calculations than CoD. Remember the RO MG-42 was at the time (and maybe still is) the only MG-42 that models each bullet (unlike the typical half the bullets with twice the power cheat other games use).
Not to mention, the cost benefit ratio mentioned earlier. Sure TWI can double or quadruple the dev time to make larger maps and optimizing servers for 64+ players, and it'll further delay the game. But in the end, most servers (besides yours) won't be able to handle 64+ players, so there'll barely be any servers doing so. Personally, I'm skeptical about how many 64 player servers will be running.
I think you're forgetting about the greater detail in ballistics and such that RO deals with. These aren't hitscan weapons, but with bullet drop, flight time, and now penetration and destructible environments, I'm pretty sure the servers need to do a whole lot more calculations than CoD. Remember the RO MG-42 was at the time (and maybe still is) the only MG-42 that models each bullet (unlike the typical half the bullets with twice the power cheat other games use).
Not to mention, the cost benefit ratio mentioned earlier. Sure TWI can double or quadruple the dev time to make larger maps and optimizing servers for 64+ players, and it'll further delay the game. But in the end, most servers (besides yours) won't be able to handle 64+ players, so there'll barely be any servers doing so. Personally, I'm skeptical about how many 64 player servers will be running.
Last edited:
Upvote
0