Number of players.
- Thread starter Nicholas
- Start date
mag was the only game i saw that balanced 128+ soldiers however you have to make bigger maps and more people have to play to make it fun the reality is that there's just more bots 64 players works fine bigger is almost never better. :IS2: the is2 was even a tad big
Upvote
0
first off all 128 people is to many and not supported by UT3 and even if it was the maps would have to expanded to hold taht many people, redesighned even why because of lack of room and cover. (say hello to somthing i like to call a spamfest.) i don't want to shoot and hit some random guy in the head when im not aiming. go play mag its great for 256 poeple you'll love it.
also just because you like the idea doesn't mean that we have to like it or aprove of the idea. if you can't take criticism GTFO of the kitchen. just because you want something doesn't mean you get it.
also i love to play with 128 plus (i have mag and love it.) but it would not work with this game for above reasons. also unless you design the maps right its just spam-fest. which it seems you want spam-fest i sir do not.
1 final note that ww2 online is expensive to pay for not worth it get a ps3 and mag and you'll come out cheaper in the long run. in just a year youve paid more than 150 bucks. (about 170) almost 200 so in 2 years you've paid for a ps3. practically and not much longer you have even more games. also who the hell plays this game its a rip off. i guess people with rich parents.
Upvote
0
Yes, WW2OL is expensive, but it's worth it. No other game offers it's style of play.
No.
I don't want a ****ty console ffs!
People actually working for their money? I doubt that the average age of WW2OL players is below 20.
Upvote
0
Seriously?
They said that someone with a bad ping/bad connection doesn't cause the server to lag - and you've taken that to mean "there's no such thing as lag"...?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I can put that issue to rest for you right now: No, they wont be, because AI is not a sentient lifeform capable of real thought and emotion, and thus can never offer the variety in playstyle of humans.
But that said, well coded AI can make perfectly servicable enemies, they will rarely do anything supricing, but if done right, they will do what they are supposed to be doing, what makes sense for them to do in the given situation, they are just following their routines, much like a soldier might follow his training, and in some instances that can even be prefable to certain human players (omg look at me bonnyhop! i'm so 1337 lol), and if there is a human to guide their tactical decisions (a squadleader), they may even play quite well (but only if they are coded propperly, ofcourse).
From what we've seen of infantry AI in Hos thus far, and knowing that they aren't done yet, i think they will be perfectly servicable, and having a few of them amongst some human players will probably not be a problem (all humans will probably be prefable still, but that doesen't mean bots have to be a problem), not like it was in Ost where the bots just ran around like headless chickens fiering from the hip, on narrow predetermined paths.
They may not make as interesting choices as humans, or try as advanced tactics as humans, but they seem to be quite usefull cannonfodder, a bit like unimaginative newbie players basically
The tank AI remains to be seen though.
As for 128 player support, well sadly, just cramming in more people isen't as simple as all that, i've played games that supported big playercounts, but usually they had quite crude and inaccurate netcode as a tradeoff, subpar graphics for their time aswell, atleast if they had to run on peoples private servers.
I suspect TWI settled on 64 because that was the most the engine would do reliably and accurately, also with more advanced vehical support, not to mention map considderations, more players would require larger maps, larger maps have more visible poly's on screen, making it nessesary to scale back the graphics to render it all smoothly, or seriously degrade the drawdistance (not acceptable for tank maps).
There's a lot of technical challenges there that i don't think most people are aware of, i barely understand them all, and only because i've dabbled in mod making, it's a lot more complicated than most people probably realize, and in the end, TWI has to provide a stable and functional product, or people will scream bloody murder at them.
Upvote
0
I get the feeling the the unreal engine is some what outdated then =p
As for destructible environments. I havn't seen any yet but given that no game has "True" destruction yet thats not much information to process. If your just going to give this game "This building is destroyed...do animation". Thats that hardly something that will consume the server.
As for actual physics in building destruction...That would be too much information for 64 people too!
ArmA 2 doesn't have 128 player servers because the community has gone DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWNHILL.
The amount of Evolution and Domination maps being played is stupid. "Lets play a map where we have to take 20 towns and theres about 10 soldiers which spawn inside that town and maybe the odd tank....Then lets have 50 players on our side and we have 2 apache helicopters and 2 A10 bombers...Then lets put respawn on"
"Oh man, were amazing at working together as a team...."
OFP and ArmA had plentiful of 100+ player moments. The only laggers are the ones from far away and 56k connections =)
----
But all this doesn't matter now because people have given me the answer I wanted. We will be allowed to do 128 player servers if we decide to...right? =) So we will see
As for destructible environments. I havn't seen any yet but given that no game has "True" destruction yet thats not much information to process. If your just going to give this game "This building is destroyed...do animation". Thats that hardly something that will consume the server.
As for actual physics in building destruction...That would be too much information for 64 people too!
ArmA 2 doesn't have 128 player servers because the community has gone DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWNHILL.
The amount of Evolution and Domination maps being played is stupid. "Lets play a map where we have to take 20 towns and theres about 10 soldiers which spawn inside that town and maybe the odd tank....Then lets have 50 players on our side and we have 2 apache helicopters and 2 A10 bombers...Then lets put respawn on"
"Oh man, were amazing at working together as a team...."
OFP and ArmA had plentiful of 100+ player moments. The only laggers are the ones from far away and 56k connections =)
----
But all this doesn't matter now because people have given me the answer I wanted. We will be allowed to do 128 player servers if we decide to...right? =) So we will see
Upvote
0
Unreal Engine 3 is still being developed and upgraded by Epic Games studio. RO2 will use one of the latest engine versions. According to that what Yoshiro said, they use UE/UDK from September of this year. Beside that most depends of developers skill and we all know TWI are one of the best
:IS2: approved it.
Upvote
0
Not really, what it is, is a specialized engine, it's ment to do shooters well, rather than doing everything so-so.
There's just no such thing as the perfect engine, just look at Arma, yeah it'll do large terrains and lots of players and vehicals, but how well is it doing it? to what degree of accuracy? well, you can find shooters and dedicated sims that handle all thouse aspects better, and which looks much better doing it too, because they are specialized in doing so, Arma is not, it's a jack of all trades, but a specialist of nothing in particular.
RO is a different kind of game, it's quite specialized in what it wants to portray and do, and requires a high degree of accuracy to pull it off, so for this, you need a different kind of engine, a good shooter engine with solid vehical support, and solid netcode, something like the UE3 engine.
Upvote
0
SheepDip, that is the mindset that has to be dealt with daily it seems.
I'm oft reminded of the quote, "Better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt."
Upvote
0
Regarding what Hans Ludwig mentioned, it is possible to remove this restriction from the game with a rather minor bit of coding. All it takes is to override the InitGame event in the GameInfo class, specifically where MaxPlayers and default.MaxPlayers are set. You can do this just for your server by extending the GameInfo class and changing your server's gametype.
As Hans Ludwig said, though, it does take a toll on the CPU. I'd love to try this on a very high-performing server though. What I have done successfully is removed the restriction on max bots (also in the GameInfo class) and added a few hundred bots. They seem to take up a lot less CPU and you can actually play pretty easily with them. The problem is bots just aren't the same thing :/
As Hans Ludwig said, though, it does take a toll on the CPU. I'd love to try this on a very high-performing server though. What I have done successfully is removed the restriction on max bots (also in the GameInfo class) and added a few hundred bots. They seem to take up a lot less CPU and you can actually play pretty easily with them. The problem is bots just aren't the same thing :/
Upvote
0
Unreal 3 does support 128. I played a game of UT3 with 128 players. Well.. bots. It worked well and it wasn't laggy. Now of course, having a server with 128 clients is a whole different story.
Upvote
0
So what you're saying is...I'm correct?
The Unreal engine website states 64 clients as their supported maximum, I didn't say it couldn't be set higher.
Bots != clients.
The Unreal engine website states 64 clients as their supported maximum, I didn't say it couldn't be set higher.
Bots != clients.
Upvote
0
It still proves that it can be higher. Besides, look at Mortal Online, an entire MMO built on the Unreal 3 engine.
Upvote
0
I'm bored of this thread again.
SheepDip said:
SheepDip said:
SheepDip said:
SheepDip said:
Upvote
0
It has 64 players.. but assuming you ment more than that, well, that's why RO has allways used respawns (reinforcements), so there will allways be lots of people to shoot.
But seriously guys, i don't mean to be crass here or sound like a jerk, but if you have no solid understanding of how this technology works, then would you kindly leave it to the experts?
Saying "but game X did it, so Ro2 must also!" only underlines your lack of technical knowledge here, it doesen't work that way, it is by no means that simple, and i'm not qualified to start explaining it all either, so i wont even try.
Needless to say, TWI are not setting the limit at 64 just to annoy you, there's a damned good reason for it.
Now that said, there's a real good chance they will up the numbers at a later date, they did it for Ro1 (from 32 to 64 player support), and they very well might for Ro2 aswell, and for free, but it'll happen when the tech is there for it, not out of the box.
Upvote
0