I like seafood Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 I always thought 64 players was a bit chaotic. You have less teamplay and more people camping for vehicles and not doing anything else. Everyone wants a vehicle and with more people on your team I assure you, there will be waiting lines to grab an AT-AT. Also throw in the NPCs and you can have huge lag. Though this game is broadband minimum so it should be more stable. I like Dragnarr's suggestion of earning vehicles. Much better than just have fools camping for vehicles. To ensure the epic feel of Star Wars I think 32 is too small but 64 is too large. How about a compromise? 40 players, 20 a side? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grep Posted September 14, 2004 Author Share Posted September 14, 2004 I'll try to address each of the responses here, but when it comes down to it, it really is preference when it comes to the amount of people you like to play with. "Because Battlefield 1942 always lagged with more than 32 players." >Huh? Not sure what your specs are on your machine, but I play on ECGNetwork's 64 player server and I never lag. Besides, people have the misconception that "lag" is due to the amount of people on a server... "Lag" has to do with FPS on your own machine. Packet loss is a different story, though. Of course people playing on 56k will always "lag" as you put it. "More players, more team-killing." > Ah, that depends on the people.. you're gonna tell me that you may go into a 16 vs 16 server and people won't team kill? It really depends on the players, not the amount. "You know how laggy Joint Ops is? At least the demo was for me. I got about 10 fps on it on low settings. With 100 people on one server." > No, I don't know how "laggy" JO is, I don't experience it. The demo does not do that game justice. As one person indicated, the game has had several performance patches applied to the retail game that has done wonders. "If you want a shooting fest, play another game. If you want to have fun, play SWB." > LOL! Sorry dude, I have fun with all the games I play... WITH more people than 32 max. "How about a compromise? 40 players, 20 a side?" > Now that would be perfect... Look, I'm not knocking the game at all and the 32 player limit will not make me buy the game... there will be a ton of other factors involved such as out-of-the-box performance, support, etc... I am very much looking forward to this game, but in my opinion, if I am going to go to war, then the more the merrier. I guess I envisioned the "battle sequences" in the movies themselves applied to this game and was hoping thats how the battle would be recreated. Its also going to depend on the size of the maps too. Strategy is only applied by the players playing, nothing more nothing less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master William Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 I usually don't like to play with a lot of players on PC because it's all a huge mess, but since I am getting this for Xbox I will definitely try to find servers with a lot of players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediCrow Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 Originally posted by grep I am very much looking forward to this game, but in my opinion, if I am going to go to war, then the more the merrier. I guess I envisioned the "battle sequences" in the movies themselves applied to this game and was hoping thats how the battle would be recreated. Its also going to depend on the size of the maps too. Well they of course have limitations in bringing the look and feel of authentic movie battles to a video game. Both in terms of technical limitations and the interest of making a fun, playable game, where all Lucas had to do was visually astound us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoxStar Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 Originally posted by grep "You know how laggy Joint Ops is? At least the demo was for me. I got about 10 fps on it on low settings. With 100 people on one server." > No, I don't know how "laggy" JO is, I don't experience it. The demo does not do that game justice. As one person indicated, the game has had several performance patches applied to the retail game that has done wonders. But... do you really want to wait for a patch to a game that comes out of the box with crappy netcode? Besides, the demo is what made me not buy the game after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S31 Apoc Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 "Lag" has to do with FPS on your own machine. dude lag is network related.. fps is cpu & gpu related WTF you smoking... lag is ruberband effect, things dissapear & ****, shots miss.. cpu & gpu, make your fps get low... if this game is anything like BF or BFV as far as servers. then it will take at least a 2.4 & a constant 4mb connection to run 32 players " at least " my server is on a 100mg pipe lets hope the cpu can take it.. in BFV i limit my cpu at around 34 players... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler_Durden Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 Originally posted by grep I am very much looking forward to this game, but in my opinion, if I am going to go to war, then the more the merrier. I guess I envisioned the "battle sequences" in the movies themselves applied to this game and was hoping thats how the battle would be recreated. I feel you, man. I want as many people as possible on a server for some epic ass kicking action. 16 vs 16 players is ok but it's not as close an epic battle as 32 vs 32 players. Sure you got people camping and whatnot but most people are out there on the field having fun. I can only imagine how awesome it's gonna be when i have lasers and all kinds of hell around me as i'm trying to capture a base. It's gonna be cool when you're alone capturing a base then trying to escape on a speeder bike while the other team is shooting at you. As for lag issues, i play vietnam on a MINIMUM of 48 players and i HARDLY EVER experience serious lag. The only lag i do experience is when i start out a game and the server is a little shifty or the server will pause but it'll let you know, it then resumes perfectly. I give it a few moments, though and the game performs beautifully. I always get a great 50-60 frames per second and that is with 64 max players. I really don't see how this game will lag with at least 50 players unless you're on anything less than a cable connection in which case it's you who's lagging. These games are made for cable/dsl connections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawaJoey Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 Lag does have to do with the number of players on a server. Nowadays, with most online players using some high speed internet, that's not as big a problem. But when a bunch of people are one a seerver, and when the data has a long distance to travel (as opposed to a LAN, where' it's practically computer to computer in 10 feet), the server has more to process and send. Even when you look at it from an FPS viewpoint, which technically isn't what you might call lag, it has pretty much the same effect, and is also affected by number of players. When there are more people, there's more movement, more action, more models, more effects to render. In ANY game, you'll get a worse FPS in situations with more characters in the scene than with fewer characters. Period. Lag may be an issue, and smaller servers will run better, which could be a reason. But to me 32 players isn't small. 16 v 16 is perfect. Plus bots, it's an intense battlefield. And with fewer people, it's easier to communicate and agree, and consequently, strategize and use tactics. That's just not happening with a larger scale. 8v8 was due to console restrictions. The PS2 just couldn't do any more. In development, they realised that the Xbox could do more, so they expanded server capacity to 24, or 12v12. If more was possible, they'd have done more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grep Posted September 14, 2004 Author Share Posted September 14, 2004 Originally posted by S31 Apoc dude lag is network related.. fps is cpu & gpu related WTF you smoking... lag is ruberband effect, things dissapear & ****, shots miss.. cpu & gpu, make your fps get low... if this game is anything like BF or BFV as far as servers. then it will take at least a 2.4 & a constant 4mb connection to run 32 players " at least " my server is on a 100mg pipe lets hope the cpu can take it.. in BFV i limit my cpu at around 34 players... I'm not smoking anything there, tough guy, but I agree with you on certain items and I guess you can attribute lag to a few things in online gaming.... But every instance of people I've seen online complaining about "bad lag" in BF has been a framerate drop, not lag. Your system chugging is not related to lag. People get these two confused so often it makes my head spin. Most of the so-called "lag" in the BF series games is a framerate problem. Certain areas on certain maps are hard on your video card and proc in the first place and when you get 15 or so players there you have to draw all of that and keep track of everyone so you see a drop in FPS. The only lag problem I've ever had has been the "connection problems" box coming up. That was on servers that overtaxed themselves with 25+ players and not enough bandwidth and/or processor to back it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoxStar Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 If I understnad correctly, more player will be supported on a Local Area Network? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syzerian Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 yes, but who would have a 32+ LAN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieStarWarsGeek Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 Originally posted by Syzerian yes, but who would have a 32+ LAN? A large LAN party.. lots of fun if you've never been to one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.