BF2S Forums 64 vs 64, Can we do it without the smacktards!!!

Gaming Rules

1)You are not allowed to swear or cuss , there is NO Racist or Degrading Remarks towards anyone members or other clans. If caught you will receive a notice and will be banned for one 1 week or more and Put on the Wall of Shame.

2)NO Hacking what so ever, if detected or seen by other people, you will be put on the wall of shame, and banned without notice!!!

3)Be proud of being in the 64/64.  We are here to have fun. Please do not dishonor the 64/64. We want to have fun, play fair, and win and loose.

Teamspeak Rules

1) If your are on our Team speak Server you will follow the rules and go into the rooms that we say or the room that you should go into.

2) If you are found harassing another person in the TS Server you will be banned for ever and never allowed to be able to play on our Servers.

3) Read the comments of each channel, if the room says DON'T TALK - Then don't talk .

4) Some channels have passwords on them. So if they have a password on it DON'T TRY TO GO INTO IT. Just send a text to a Admin and we will thank about putting you into the channel's.

Last edited by Broken-Down-Hitler (2006-01-08 19:55:41)

You better not put a swear filter on it
There's nothing quite like motivating your troops with unique and hilarious prose.

ishbu wrote:

Tagmaestro wrote:

How about 32 vs 32 vs 32 instead?

was thinking of something like that last nite

That topic has been covered in another thread. It basically will always come down to 1 team getting a heavy handed beat down, while the other two basically avoid fighting each other.

BF2 is in one way an RTS, and usally in an RTS the best option you have when playing a 1 team v 1 team v 1 team, is to have a non-aggression pact, and how that works is the the two teams that are the least talented will team up against the most talented, or what happens more often is the most talented teams up with the least talented to beat the second least talented. Let me just put it this way, it would require an entire new game to be built, think mod or expansion pack type deal, and would require serious balancing.

Now a 32 v 32 v 32 v 32 would be doable if all 4 teams allied with someone else, think 32 + 32 v 32 + 32

each 32 player team could have seperate assets and the like and only the commander could talk to other commander, but that would be the basic set up.

I think EA should get the first 64 v 64 player set up, with maybe a 128 version of Karkand(I would keep it at the same map, just extend the red area out a bit more, and add more CPs or flags, like there is the warehouse north of the bridges, and that little valley/river thats south of mec base would have less red and maybe a cap point in there.

Last edited by freebirdpat (2006-01-09 13:23:08)

someone25 wrote:

ok - then what about


16 x 16 x 32
or
64 x 32 x 32
(isnt also perfect - becouse the 2 smaller teams have to wire their asses together)




or

no still would have to be 16+16 v 32
and 64 v 32+32.

if the two smaller teams can fight and or damage each other without team damage it would lead to problems.

niomosy wrote:

stryyker wrote:

ok.

you WILL i repeat WILL need no less than

Intel Xeon Processors (dual core?)
Dual Socket Motherboard (up to 4 cores!!!)
4 GB ECC (registered) RAM
SCSI Controller Card
15,000+ RPM SCSI Hard Drive
HUGE Power supply (600-800 Watts)
lo-end PCI-E graphics card (essentially your not playing the game


it WILL be one expensive motherfucker

You could also use AMD Opteron's

Probably less expensive than buying Xeons.

opterons arent bad, but the newest xeons (65 NM) are more efficient power wise and performance ration.
i am getting excited about this idea dude

freebirdpat wrote:

someone25 wrote:

ok - then what about


16 x 16 x 32
or
64 x 32 x 32
(isnt also perfect - becouse the 2 smaller teams have to wire their asses together)




or

no still would have to be 16+16 v 32
and 64 v 32+32.

if the two smaller teams can fight and or damage each other without team damage it would lead to problems.

ok - then maybe a new gametype?

lets say - something like catch and hold a point in the middle of the map - and every team has fixed (dont know the word (not capturable)) spwan points...   

something different to conquest type...  maybe a complete new idea of a game type...
so that makes it possible to play 32 vs 32 vs 32   and there is no advantage for a team to stick together with another team an play against the third...

How about ENFORCED squad play, no lone wolfing, on such a big map you would need to concentrate forces to achieve intense firefights.

Also i would recommend a couple of forced chokepoints (like the bridge) as this would serve 2 purposes, it would promote some good firefights and also help prevent whitewashes ..... imaging spawnraping at the moment... at its worst .... then DOUBLE THIS and with an unbalanced side this is what could happen.

Suggest that there is an uncappable base for armor to spawn at for both sides and a no STEALING as this would seriously screw any game balance (perhaps a team specific out of bounds is possible???) and that would be very detrimental to such a large games balance.

Kooda

I don't think this will work. DICE had plans to have 64v64 (128 player) support, but that was dropped. Knowing how "good" BF2's engine is, that was probably a wise decision of DICE. I've seen the 128 folder made when I made a map once, but I don't think there's any feasible coding you can do to make it work. Your only bet would be to hope that DICE decide to code it, and when they implement it that nothing like 1.3 happens again.