Well, I've gone from being hardly worried to a bit worried about this game, I don't like what it seems like they're trying to sell it as from what I've seen/heard. Seems like BC3 right now, not BF3.
How exactly?
[QUOTE=Previous Quote: People don't seem to understand that large amounts of players cause plenty of hardware issues.
Killeen]Exactly what I'm trying to point out.[/QUOTE]
As far as I'm concerned, PC Gaming is survival of the fittest, and that is exactly why many prefer consoles...for a singular unified experience for everyone. When it comes to the PC tho... hardware issues are abound and many like myself don't care about the people's comps that can't take the heat. I help my friends but everyone else can kiss my butt cuz idc.
Regarding the large player counts though, just remember player count is many times is a conscious design decision rather than a technical limitation. Many engines are technically capable of more players than are officially supported.
The thing is...once you start hitting the higher numbers, the testing and QC gets harder and harder to accomplish properly. That is why you are not seeing many games past 32 players, if any. 32 players or 16v16 is a time tested formula that developers know exactly how to execute properly for many years now.
[QUOTE=LittleDogX;28562652]
Yeah look at that video. Look at all those people and vehicles lagging around like crazy. [/quote]
You are seeing things, the whole thing looks absolutely normal, there's another video with players running up close and there is absolutely no problem with it.
the only performance limitation i see is the soldier quality for all those players, and that can be easily fixed with DX11's tessellation, so it's even easier to fix.
Also, don't forget how developers can make it optional to have that player count and leave it to 64 as default, so having a bigger and possibly laggy server would be entirely up to the server owner, they don't need to make complicated playtesting or adapting several mechanics to do that, whoever finds it fun will look for a server running it, whoever does not find t fun will stay on the default player count.
Ok if project reality has 128 players and is so great then just play it.
Keep your cancer out of my BF3.
Cancer.
:frog:
[QUOTE=Raidyr;28565285]Ok if project reality has 128 players and is so great then just play it.
Keep your cancer out of my BF3.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.zgeek.com/forum/gallery/files/4/0/2/1277831454037.jpg[/img]
Stop joking about cancer please.
[editline]12th March 2011[/editline]
In respect of my mother, grandparents, aunt and all the millions more who actually have the tragic illness.
[QUOTE=Spetzaz;28565852]Stop joking about cancer please.
[editline]12th March 2011[/editline]
In respect of my mother, grandparents, aunt and all the millions more who actually have the tragic illness.[/QUOTE]
Don't expect strangers to respect strangers in this world.
[QUOTE=LittleDogX;28562652]People don't seem to understand that large amounts of players cause plenty of hardware issues.
Yeah look at that video. Look at all those people and vehicles lagging around like crazy. The only reason it doesn't feel as bad in Project Reality is because PR is SLOW. If you were to try and have 128 people at the normal speed of a BF2 or BC2 game it would be terrible. People get this huge hard-on from high player counts in FPS games. Don't get me wrong I think games with high player counts can be fun, however, I know that there's limitations to player counts. Just because a game can support 10000 people doesn't mean it should.
Look at the Project reality 128 player video Raiskauskone posted. Notice the terrible lag. Note that it's on the BF2 engine and it's using modern hardware and it's still laggy as hell. Even if you had a server that could support BF3 with 128 players, it's going to be EXPENSIVE AS HELL to run. That much equipment would not be cheap, and that kind of connection just for 1 server wouldn't be cheap either.
128 players on BF3 is NOT worth the cost or massive increase to hardware specs.[/QUOTE]
They were running the server on a provider intented for 64 matches not for something like this.
Besides its funded by community so its not exactly some hot shit.
Don't be so fucking pessimistic
[QUOTE=Bomimo;28566072]Don't expect strangers to respect strangers in this world.[/QUOTE]
I got a lot of respect from a lot of facepunch members.
-snip- mergefail
[QUOTE=Bomimo;28566072]Don't expect strangers to respect strangers in this world.[/QUOTE]
I respect everyone no matter their actions, and I am respected back. It works.
Fuck you ghost page.
Page king.
Mods are asleep, post Al Qaeda with feet!
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1467131/DicksWithArms.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Spetzaz;28565852]Stop joking about cancer please.
[editline]12th March 2011[/editline]
In respect of my mother, grandparents, aunt and all the millions more who actually have the tragic illness.[/QUOTE]
I'm not joking, cancer is an excellent analogy for anyone trying to shoehorn realism shit into my Battlefield game.
I wouldn't mind 256 players in BF3 as long as all the maps are balanced for that player count. The maps being unbalanced for 32 players is my main gripe with BC2 most rush maps become a huge clusterfuck at that player count
[QUOTE=Raidyr;28567386]I'm not joking, cancer is an excellent analogy for anyone trying to shoehorn realism shit into my Battlefield game.[/QUOTE]
More players = realism
okay
I wasn't referencing the idea of having more players, I was talking about these ideas of having insurgents and real military fighting it out on huge maps that require you to walk for miles before you are shot at by someone you never saw. You know, fun.
Also as opposed to offering a rebuttal of my flawless logic (If you like something one game does, play that game), I get spam rated by the Project Reality mafia.
[QUOTE=Raiskauskone V2;28562379]I'm really disappointed for DICE not finally giving modding tools (again) and upping the playerlimit.
Look at Project Reality; they achieved 128 player limit easily and without problems.
Video VERY related
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkftME1SbXo&feature=related[/media][/QUOTE]
The screen goes green when I try to play this in 720p, anyone know why?
[QUOTE=Raiskauskone V2;28566088]They were running the server on a provider intented for 64 matches not for something like this.
Besides its funded by community so its not exactly some hot shit.
Don't be so fucking pessimistic[/QUOTE]
It's not pessimism. It's realizing that having large amount of players would actually be a negative towards gameplay and game development. It's also knowing that not everyone has top of the line hardware. Not everyone will be able to support 128 people in one match. Even if the engine was some kind of godsend and made even older computers able to run it, the maps would not be designed for it. Even if Dice decided to go out of their way and modify the maps a bit for 128 player size, it would still just be a terrible cluster fuck. It would also just escalate into 95% vehicle warfare making infantry almost useless against the amount of vehicles there would be. You could increase the amount of ammo that an AT/Possibly AA class would have, but then that would ruin gameplay in 64 man servers since vehicles would become death traps. If they didn't increase the number of vehicles people would complain about maps being too big and having to walk across them.
High amounts of players don't work. It becomes a nuisance to gameplay and game balance. It's not pessimism, it's thinking about things practically. If there was some kind of way to balance 128 players without ruining gameplay of 64, 32, or 16 player servers then okay that would be awesome. The amount of work they would need to put into making 128 players possible would most likely decrease the overall value of the game. I would rather have High quality 64 player gameplay than low/medium quality 128 player gameplay.
i was so pissed off when i found out about the 128 player test the day AFTER it had already happened
[editline]12th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=LittleDogX;28569195]It's not pessimism. It's realizing that having large amount of players would actually be a negative towards gameplay and game development. It's also knowing that not everyone has top of the line hardware. Not everyone will be able to support 128 people in one match. Even if the engine was some kind of godsend and made even older computers able to run it, the maps would not be designed for it. Even if Dice decided to go out of their way and modify the maps a bit for 128 player size, it would still just be a terrible cluster fuck. It would also just escalate into 95% vehicle warfare making infantry almost useless against the amount of vehicles there would be. You could increase the amount of ammo that an AT/Possibly AA class would have, but then that would ruin gameplay in 64 man servers since vehicles would become death traps. If they didn't increase the number of vehicles people would complain about maps being too big and having to walk across them.
High amounts of players don't work. It becomes a nuisance to gameplay and game balance. It's not pessimism, it's thinking about things practically. If there was some kind of way to balance 128 players without ruining gameplay of 64, 32, or 16 player servers then okay that would be awesome. The amount of work they would need to put into making 128 players possible would most likely decrease the overall value of the game. I would rather have High quality 64 player gameplay than low/medium quality 128 player gameplay.[/QUOTE]
have you ever played an FPS match with 100+ players?
I just want to say this, any game that has 64+ players typically has that because it fits their gameplay. Project Reality has giant maps where even 64 players seems underwhelming. Think about 128 players on a 4km map. Now think about Karkand with 128 players.
Doesn't seem right does it?
that's why you increase the map size. durp.
and PR's 4KM maps are perfect for 128 players, if they can do that with stuff from 2006 then i think a professional game developer company can do it in 2011
[QUOTE=JerryK;28569272]that's why you increase the map size. durp.
and PR's 4KM maps are perfect for 128 players, if they can do that with stuff from 2006 then i think a professional game developer company can do it in 2011[/QUOTE]
A: Increase map size -> Needs more vehicles
B: More vehicles -> Infantry becomes raped by vehicles and can't kill all of them
C: Increase infantry effectiveness against vehicles -> Vehicles become useless against infantry in anything other than 128 players
D: Try to make vehicles and infantry even -> What's the point? Vehicles should give you an advantage over infantry, but shouldn't make infantry useless as said in B.
If you don't give more vehicles but still increase the map size, then infantry is forced to walk extreme distances which would be annoying.
[QUOTE=LittleDogX;28569451]A: Increase map size -> Needs more vehicles
B: More vehicles -> Infantry becomes raped by vehicles and can't kill all of them
C: Increase infantry effectiveness against vehicles -> Vehicles become useless against infantry in anything other than 128 players
D: Try to make vehicles and infantry even -> What's the point? Vehicles should give you an advantage over infantry, but shouldn't make infantry useless as said in B.
If you don't give more vehicles but still increase the map size, then infantry is forced to walk extreme distances which would be annoying.[/QUOTE]
it's called a ratio
all they do is up the ratio to a fitting amount and it's just like it would be in 64
[QUOTE=JerryK;28569272]that's why you increase the map size. durp.
and PR's 4KM maps are perfect for 128 players, if they can do that with stuff from 2006 then i think a professional game developer company can do it in 2011[/QUOTE]
4km makes traveling by foot terrible. As said above, they would require more vehicles and more anti-vehicle defenses. Battlefield still depends on infantry on foot more than any other means of transportation.
Also considering the fact they are bringing multiple BF2 maps back and I'd say the scale is going to be a little bit larger than BF2 maps, 128 players would still be unwieldy.
[QUOTE=JerryK;28569272]that's why you increase the map size. durp.
and PR's 4KM maps are perfect for 128 players, if they can do that with stuff from 2006 then i think a professional game developer company can do it in 2011[/QUOTE]
Once again it's not a question of if they can do it so much as why. Why do they need to go from 64 to 128? So people will start asking for 256? Also this:
[QUOTE=Erebus.;28569571]
Also considering the fact they are bringing multiple BF2 maps back and I'd say the scale is going to be a little bit larger than BF2 maps, 128 players would still be unwieldy.[/QUOTE]
They are clearly designing the game around 64 players. Maybe someone will mod in support like Project Reality did for BF2, but you aren't going to have 128 player matches in BF3 because the game isn't designed that way. Deal with it.
I want 4000 v 4000 players.
I want 10000 vs 10000
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
