Max Players For Multiplayer!

[Green Goo]

I was blown away by JO's ability to hold so many players w/out lag... 100+ gets a bit jerky, but 64-96 players is a good lag free killfest... fun for snipers!

 

[63]

Best maps of the Tribes series:
Raindance
Rollercoaster
Archipelago
Reservoir
SlapDash
Gelatinus Prime

(I can't remember many more, been a while since I've played)

Also has anyone played the Construction Mod? GREAT!!

 

[adulus]

Hmm, is it just me or is the topic drifting? Well , I think the whole 128 players thing was meant more or less for mods, i dont see HL DM w/ 128 players. But Source Engines capabilities should allow for a mod like Joint operations or BF to look and run great.

 

[KiNG]

since hl2 map size is about 16x larger than hl1(compareable to bf or tribes series), and with more than 32 players it seems like we will likely see mods make large maps and put the entire map to use. i get so excited about the battles that will rage,, RAWR!!!

and mean with large maps u can use motars, atrillery, tanks, some types of flying vehicles, and with infantry combat as we know and love it in hl comparable netcode, i cant wait for hl2 and the mods that will come.

 

[Joeyslucky22]

I remember good old starseige tribes (the original)... building forts in the middle of no where on the map...

flying people out of the map area and seeing what they did...

laser turrets..

 

[Foxtrot]

I remember good old starseige tribes (the original)... building forts in the middle of no where on the map...

flying people out of the map area and seeing what they did...

laser turrets..

Do you remember Starsiege? Best mech game ever
Or how about Earthsiege?

 

[Cyber$nake]

I have no Idea why you couldnt host 256 players if you have a big enough map and a fast server (sure it would be real laggy for those without high-speed, but) source seems to be very optimized. Im sure valve will to their best to make it run wioth as many people as possible. Also consider that JOINT OPS: TYPHOON RYSING can host up to 150 players as FISKER said with just about no lag at all.

 

[gh0st]

a server might be able to have it, but individual clients would probably not be able to render that many people/interactions. source is very physics oriented, i.e. lots of calculations from the hardware. joint ops, ha, is not.

 

[Darkknighttt]

that many people will be awesome!!!!!!! itll be so laggy tho and with source and all that itll be so slow once u connect and play.

 

[BlazeKun]

I think a lot of you have totally the wrong idea on what a 128/256 player server will mean. The clients really have nothing to worry about in terms of lag. If the server can handle that many players, then they can just load it up with a HUGE map. The map would be large enough so you'd rarely ever see over around 32 people in the same area EVER. And that wouldn't happen often.

I can see an RPG Deathmatch/Team Deathmatch mod. There are safe areas you can go and find people, make friends, and join groups. Then head out into unsafe areas and collect items for money, and kill others for experience. You can then upgrade your equipment in the safe area.

The only place the client would lag would be in the safe areas, and I really doubt it would be that bad. As most people would be out fighting and stuff most of the time. It could really work great.

 

[tCh]

128 vs 128 joint clan match... think of the strategies and hard core team work...

Guerrilla warfare to the max... 5 member sqaud vs 200+ member army I can see it now

 

[Subatomic]

Actually, I wouldn't be suprised if games in close future support 400+ players... With technology basically doubling every 18-24 months, it's gonna be easier and easier for servers to handle large numbers of players. w00t

 

[adulus]

400 player? You could have a real war going on...seriously. Of course, You couldnt really have objectives...theres no way you could get past 200 people to complete an objective.

 

[ferd]

Boom and Jolt could probably set some 256 slots server up.
I mean, if I compare the BF1942 net code to what the HL2 net code is supposed to be, then a HL2 124 slot server should take about the same resources like a BF 64 slots server

 

[The Dark Elf]

128 is still a heck of a lot of players. I doubt Sourceworld would need to go much higher than that. Even though it probably could because it wont have the overheads the action games would have.

It's all great news though, cheers Rick

 

[Estevan]

OMG!!!! *me thinks playing svencoop with 256 players! me drools

 

[Dougy]

since hl2 map size is about 16x larger than hl1(compareable to bf or tribes series)

No HL2 map will match el alemain in terms of size.


Or gazala, or aberdeen, or midway, or coral sea

etc....

BF maps are a lot more than 16 times larger than half lifes.

 

[Gunner]

That's true Dougy, but those maps are huge for a purpose: aerial combat. I mean look at how the B17 banks and turns, it's like a semi with no brakes on ice.

 

[The Dark Elf]

Strip a Source map of just about everything, change the player sizes down to the smallest you can. Except low detail maps and everything looking a bit plain and boring and you too could have BF style maps in Source.

Nobody is gonna want to play them though

 

[urseus]

Half life maps were playable with 32 players. Anything more than that and you start to have alot of lag, and game server companys wont want to use up alot of their servers to support one map of one game.

You can have too many players in a match. In battlefield i never played 64 man servers, simply because it was just total insanity. Youd never ever get a vehical, and if you did you get smashed as soon as you drive out of the base. That many people also means alot more idiots in the one server, camping for planes and tanks.

128 is insane. You couldnt play a map with that many people. When you get up to those kinds of numbers, you need maps like Shogan total war, with big sweeping plains. Tight infantry maps would just be complete chaos, with the map absolutly saturated with people.

With physics intensive maps, i doubt that you will see very many 64 man servers, let alone 128 or 256.

 

[crabcakes66]

400 player? You could have a real war going on...seriously. Of course, You couldnt really have objectives...theres no way you could get past 200 people to complete an objective.

Not on a public server....but during a tourny it would most definatly be possible.

Half life maps were playable with 32 players. Anything more than that and you start to have alot of lag, and game server companys wont want to use up alot of their servers to support one map of one game.

You can have too many players in a match. In battlefield i never played 64 man servers, simply because it was just total insanity. Youd never ever get a vehical, and if you did you get smashed as soon as you drive out of the base. That many people also means alot more idiots in the one server, camping for planes and tanks.

128 is insane. You couldnt play a map with that many people. When you get up to those kinds of numbers, you need maps like Shogan total war, with big sweeping plains. Tight infantry maps would just be complete chaos, with the map absolutly saturated with people.

With physics intensive maps, i doubt that you will see very many 64 man servers, let alone 128 or 256.

This is why you dont play on pub servers that are not well admined.....its just like CS, who in the right mind wants to play on an unadmined 32 player CS server.



Btw CS itself just isnt meant to be played with more than 32 players, bigger maps or not. Its about small squads and close quarters.... you change that....and it isnt CS anymore.

 

[Gunner]

Strip a Source map of just about everything, change the player sizes down to the smallest you can.

Hmmm, rats! Oh yeah an all new 2K4 version of rats for HL2 hah!

 

[Eejit]

Like was said in the rumors thread about this, CS with too many players would suck due to 1 respawn a round.
64 v 64, the first players to be killed would probably have to wait quite a long time.

 

[RoguePsi]

64 player on BFV was laggy as fook. I think 64 should be the limit really. I understand how 128 or 256 would appeal - it'd be awesome to participate in such a large scale game but the reality is that you'd rarely fill such a large server. It'd only work if there were only a few servers to choose from.

Imagine CS with 128 or 256! If you die early, you might as well go to bed because it'll take ages for all of those players to die!! Haha.

 

[crabcakes66]

64 player on BFV was laggy as fook. I think 64 should be the limit really. I understand how 128 or 256 would appeal - it'd be awesome to participate in such a large scale game but the reality is that you'd rarely fill such a large server. It'd only work if there were only a few servers to choose from.

Imagine CS with 128 or 256! If you die early, you might as well go to bed because it'll take ages for all of those players to die!! Haha.

Thats just dice's shitty engine..... and playing on servers that

a. are not fast enough.

b. are not setup properly.

c. Do not have a good enough connection.

d. all of the above applied to the client



there are a few games that do 100+ players without lag.....

 

[urseus]

^^^even though, ISPs would have to supply superhuman servers, which alot wont do. Most will be content with many 32-40 servers, rather than 1 128 man server.

 

[The Dark Elf]

^^^even though, ISPs would have to supply superhuman servers, which alot wont do. Most will be content with many 32-40 servers, rather than 1 128 man server.

It's likely the larger servers will be paid for ones, not lend to a friends. Paid for means they'll likely be better run, less screwing about and jerks. Bring in payment options and it should spell the death of the cheats, since they'd hardly want to lose months they've paid for just cause they got caught cheating. It'll also put off some of the younger stupider cheaters who wont be able to borrow daddy's credit card.

It could be a good thing in the long run.

 

[crabcakes66]

^^^even though, ISPs would have to supply superhuman servers, which alot wont do.

Huh?

No one would "supply" anything. You would have to pay for servers just like you do now....ony it would be cost/resource prohibitive to kids....and like fenric said, that is a good thing.

Most will be content with many 32-40 servers, rather than 1 128 man server.

Again this doesnt really make much sense. It depends on what type of mods we are talking about. I would much rather play a BF/TF or a sourceworld type mod on one 128 player server than on 3 40 player servers(though it depends with SW if tying servers together is possible).

 

[urseus]

Well in australia all the servers are free. I dont know what the setup is like overseas.

I was talking in terms of public stuff, where the majority of gamers go.

Absolutly im sure that if you have private servers with massive rigs it would work.

 

[figge]

Doom 1 had 4 players... aah... the memories...

 

[crabcakes66]

Well in australia all the servers are free. I dont know what the setup is like overseas.

Sorry. I didnt know that. In the US 99% of ISP's specifically state you cannot use your connection to run a server.


..not that you would be able to run a 256 player server out of your house even if you had a T3(and im pretty sure those are almost impossible to get in a residential area).

 

[SubKamran]

I smell 3 SCSI drive RAID arrays and quad Xeon servers with 4GB of memory

 

[urseus]

Sorry. I didnt know that. In the US 99% of ISP's specifically state you cannot use your connection to run a server.

Hmmm. I think that we can run a server (obviously it will run like shyte) for a small amount of people. All australian broadband has download limits, so using your connection will get that blown mighty quick, i guess thats why they dont care.

However all australian servers hosted by ISPs, like telstra and optus, are all free to jump on as long as you have the game. Anyone in the world could jump on. We only have to pay for our internet, and we can play anywhere.

 

[Rupertvdb]

i want to see DOD with like 50 players a side, that would rock big time, when games get that big team work is what is absolutely vital. You have to move in groups and set up fire teams to hold any objectives. Going alone would be impossible.

 

[mayro]

Ok guys, ive got the idea to solve the PC/Bandwith problem.... Advertisements! Hear me out though before you get the rope. The only time you would see the advertisement is when you where logging onto that server AKA when you are doing the precash crap. It would give you the information of your server provider and their ad information that would pay for the server. At that point you would have microsoft running their beasts on their fiberoptic super pcs saying "Buy are windows longhorn for it will take over your computers and turn them into drones" but no really, companys already pay for popups and such that people dont even look at, im sure for just the charge of renting the server that some companys would be really interested in hosting big games. Also FYI- Unreal 2k4 hosts some beast servers on oc3's.

 

[Foxtrot]

I never understood why you can't change make the player models smaller so the map seems bigger. In red orchestra I was complaining about the size of the maps(ut2k4 maps are suppose to be 64 times bigger than a half-life map) because they were so small, and someone said the map is as big as can be made...it seems maybe 3 times the size of a half-life mapa at the most. To make maps bigger couldn't they just slow down the players and make them smaller?

 

[crabcakes66]

I never understood why you can't change make the player models smaller so the map seems bigger. In red orchestra I was complaining about the size of the maps(ut2k4 maps are suppose to be 64 times bigger than a half-life map) because they were so small, and someone said the map is as big as can be made...it seems maybe 3 times the size of a half-life mapa at the most. To make maps bigger couldn't they just slow down the players and make them smaller?

In short. yes

 

[Cyber$nake]

Well maybe if you had 4 gigs of RAM, dual AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 processors and a T3 connection you might be able to host it!

 

[Foxtrot]

Well maybe if you had 4 gigs of RAM, dual AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 processors and a T3 connection you might be able to host it!

Why would you host it? I assume someone with a real server would host it.

 

[Axyon]

I never understood why you can't change make the player models smaller so the map seems bigger. In red orchestra I was complaining about the size of the maps(ut2k4 maps are suppose to be 64 times bigger than a half-life map) because they were so small, and someone said the map is as big as can be made...it seems maybe 3 times the size of a half-life mapa at the most. To make maps bigger couldn't they just slow down the players and make them smaller?

I'd imagine that might screw the physics up somewhat, though. You might have to recalibrate those as well.