MAG: This deserves a new post

2008-07-15 16:12:07

#26

icecold2510: Member; +31|6532

Archer wrote:
Vilham wrote:
DoctaStrangelove wrote:

Yeah but that many, you'll only either only be able to engage a few of them at a time or it will be a massive cluster fuck.

64 players is more than enough for one server.
You have no idea how large or massive the levels might be.
We also have no idea what it'll look like either to be honest; since it's a pre-rendered trailer..

I've never even seen a Zipper Interactive before today, dunno if I can trust them. Not saying it'll 100% fail

I'm expecting slightly better than PS2 graphics. if it's not; it'll be easily forgettable, imo. Unless it ends up like OFP

Zipper Interactive made Socom 1,2, 3 and Combined Assault for the PS2.

They also made Fireteam Bravo 1 I think for the PSP

2008-07-15 16:14:49

#27

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|7005|UK

Archer wrote:
Vilham wrote:
DoctaStrangelove wrote:

Yeah but that many, you'll only either only be able to engage a few of them at a time or it will be a massive cluster fuck.

64 players is more than enough for one server.
You have no idea how large or massive the levels might be.
We also have no idea what it'll look like either to be honest; since it's a pre-rendered trailer..

I've never even seen a Zipper Interactive before today, dunno if I can trust them. Not saying it'll 100% fail

I'm expecting slightly better than PS2 graphics. if it's not; it'll be easily forgettable, imo. Unless it ends up like OFP

Exactly until it comes out we know nothing.

However as I already said, if it didn't work well in prototype stage the game would have been dropped. It hasn't and thus we can assume the format works well.

2008-07-16 03:01:35

#28

Spidery_Yoda: Member; +399|6508

I'm going to remain very sceptical about this.

Also this:

Miggle wrote:
Why is bigger better?

I can't stand games with a lot of players, never play cod4 with more than 6, never play TF with more than 24.

I completely agree with that. Except I never play CoD4 of course. BF2's 64 player battles sucked. More players =/= better gameplay.

However they might pull it off somehow.

2008-07-16 03:06:02

#29

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6776|Long Island, New York

Spidery_Yoda wrote:
I'm going to remain very sceptical about this.

Also this:
Miggle wrote:
Why is bigger better?

I can't stand games with a lot of players, never play cod4 with more than 6, never play TF with more than 24.
I completely agree with that. Except I never play CoD4 of course. BF2's 64 player battles sucked. More players =/= better gameplay.

However they might pull it off somehow.

I love huge battles. It really gives you that true "war" feeling. That's why BF2 64 battles on Wake were so awesome. 6 guys in a blackhawk, 2 guys in each jet, 8 guys in the boats..etc. (sorry if I got any of that info wrong...haven't played in like a year).

Personally, I'm pumped for it.

2008-07-16 03:07:46

#30

Machine_Madness: Madness has now come over me; +20|6675|Brisbane, Australia

the maps have to be ArmA size to fit it.....remember 64 player karkand....was a hell hole.

2008-07-16 05:33:45

#31

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|6996|Argentina

Machine_Madness wrote:
the maps have to be ArmA size to fit it.....remember 64 player karkand....was a hell hole.

Because you have one bottleneck at the hotel. As soon as you pass the hotel and take another flag the things improve. When you play Karkand with vehicles there's no major problems, the big deal is going through the hotel on foot in a 64 players server.

2008-07-16 05:39:21

#32

Spidery_Yoda: Member; +399|6508

Poseidon wrote:
I love huge battles. It really gives you that true "war" feeling. That's why BF2 64 battles on Wake were so awesome. 6 guys in a blackhawk, 2 guys in each jet, 8 guys in the boats..etc. (sorry if I got any of that info wrong...haven't played in like a year).

Personally, I'm pumped for it.

And about 20 guys standing on the carrier deck because the USMC can't get to the island. But thats Wake's fault for being a crap map more than because of the fact there are 64 players.

I just don't like it when there are too many people. It's too chaotic and everything devolves into spam.

2008-07-16 05:44:24

#33

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|6996|Argentina

Spidery_Yoda wrote:
Poseidon wrote:
I love huge battles. It really gives you that true "war" feeling. That's why BF2 64 battles on Wake were so awesome. 6 guys in a blackhawk, 2 guys in each jet, 8 guys in the boats..etc. (sorry if I got any of that info wrong...haven't played in like a year).

Personally, I'm pumped for it.
And about 20 guys standing on the carrier deck because the USMC can't get to the island. But thats Wake's fault for being a crap map more than because of the fact there are 64 players.

I just don't like it when there are too many people. It's too chaotic and everything devolves into spam.

It's actually fun, specially if you are the commander of China, arty fest ftw.

2008-07-16 05:53:54

#34

Spidery_Yoda: Member; +399|6508

Well yeah the thing is..

It's fun for the 2 J-10 guys, its fun for the 2 PLA chopper guys, its fun for the PLA commander.

But the other 40+ folk are either standing around on the island seeing no action or standing on the carrier being bombed to oblivion over and over again. Now I know thats not what all Wake games are like, but its happened far too often to be dismissed.

But of course MAG isn't going to have Wake Island so it doesnt matter.

2008-07-16 05:58:12

#35

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|6996|Argentina

Spidery_Yoda wrote:
Well yeah the thing is..

It's fun for the 2 J-10 guys, its fun for the 2 PLA chopper guys, its fun for the PLA commander.

But the other 40+ folk are either standing around on the island seeing no action or standing on the carrier being bombed to oblivion over and over again. Now I know thats not what all Wake games are like, but its happened far too often to be dismissed.

But of course MAG isn't going to have Wake Island so it doesnt matter.

You have a point. They made it too difficult for the US to take the island. I mean the guy who takes the jet will never play as a team player, and most of the times he focus on whoring points instead of supporting his team. Then you have the transport choppers which get rapped literally in their intent to get into the island.

Let's hope that won't happen in MAG.

2008-07-16 08:44:48

#36

killaer: Member; +41|6956

When speaking about how Planetside also had massive battles with hundreds of players, you have to also remember that it had awful crippling lag.

2008-07-16 08:47:56

#37

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6707

If the game's main selling point is that you can have allot of people on a server at once then you know it's gonna suck.

Especially cause it's a console FPS and those all suck already.

2008-07-16 08:48:35

#38

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|7005|UK

killaer wrote:
When speaking about how Planetside also had massive battles with hundreds of players, you have to also remember that it had awful crippling lag.

yeah but that was back when people had 56k so its not surprising.

2008-07-16 09:18:13

#39

killaer: Member; +41|6956

DoctaStrangelove wrote:
If the game's main selling point is that you can have allot of people on a server at once then you know it's gonna suck.

Especially cause it's a console FPS and those all suck already.

Hey hey now, Bad Company is pretty awesome

2008-07-16 10:06:53

#40

BigOrangeArmy: Don't tase me, bro!; +12|6234|Dallas

MAG games sound cool, but what about...

Maps: Think about BF3 being an MAG...256 players would need, like, five Wake Islands or three Kubra Dams to fit all the players, amirite? How would consumers computers be able to render all those players and all that map space? The awesome graphics, with the multiple explosions and dozens and dozens of units, would bring most computers to their knees.

Transportation: They would have to find a way to move soldiers around the map quickly. Air traffic would be heavy, and it might seem overwelming to be at an airfield and see six J-10 strafing you. It would be cool to have:

--Transport Aircraft (slower than jets but still speedy) that can hold up to 20 players
--Movable PT boats with greater AA range
--Portable (and destructable) command posts that squad leaders can build to serve as a mobile spawn point.
--Maybe increase boat speed?

Number of soldiers: would it seem too overwelming to be swarmed by 40-50 soldiers at once? Then again, would jets become whoring machines by strafing clusters of dozens of soldiers grouped around the airstrips ?

The idea sounds cool, but the idea sounds hard to implement. Thats my $.02.

2008-07-16 10:09:17

#41

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6707

killaer wrote:
DoctaStrangelove wrote:
If the game's main selling point is that you can have allot of people on a server at once then you know it's gonna suck.

Especially cause it's a console FPS and those all suck already.
Hey hey now, Bad Company is pretty awesome

And it could be 20 times as if it were on the PC where it would have Proper mouse and keyboard controls.

2008-07-16 11:30:06

#42

The_Mac: Member; +96|6464

r'Eeee wrote:
It's obviously gonna work well. Hence why they announced it

Naivete your calling card?

2008-07-16 11:33:02

#43

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6707

r'Eeee wrote:
It's obviously gonna work well. Hence why they announced it

Disaster Movie is obviously going to be funny, that's why they're making it

2008-07-16 11:37:16

#44

r'Eeee: That's how I roll, BITCH!; +311|6687

The_Mac wrote:
r'Eeee wrote:
It's obviously gonna work well. Hence why they announced it
Naivete your calling card?

DoctaStrangelove wrote:
r'Eeee wrote:
It's obviously gonna work well. Hence why they announced it
Disaster Movie is obviously going to be funny, that's why they're making it

Two consoles haters, get out PLOX.

Last edited by r'Eeee (2008-07-16 11:37:43)

2008-07-16 11:40:54

#45

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|7005|UK

r'Eeee is quite right tbh. If the concept failed they would have dropped it during prototyping, clearly it was fun to play and thus they went with the idea and have started developing a game around it.

2008-07-16 11:55:11

#46

Defiance: Member; +438|6909

firebolt5 wrote:
Reminds me of that game PlanetSide, which Sony made, so the two games really sound similiar. In PlanetSide I think you could have a squad of up to ten people but I'm not sure about player numbers in one world or server.

If I remember right, there were 2 servers in planetside so each one had many, many people and the maps were huge.

And why the hell wouldn't MMO's count in this context? MMO is only a scale of magnitude so you're just saying "This game is the BIGGEST EVER MADE! (OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL) except for the ones bigger than it..."

256 on a small scale will be a clusterfuck, 256 on a big scale has been done before. Still done. Since we're on the topic, I'm going to go play Eve, where as of this moment there are 33,000 people on one server.

And r'Eeee is not quite right (speaking of which: Them calling you out on this has what to do with consoles?). That makes sense in theory, but why don't you look at all the games that failed miserably after launch.

Last edited by Defiance (2008-07-16 11:56:09)

2008-07-16 12:01:54

#47

r'Eeee: That's how I roll, BITCH!; +311|6687

I told them to get out, because all they do is troll in the consoles threads.

DoctaStrangelove wrote:
Upgrade your PC with that money.

That's from the other thread, a guy created, whether to chose a PS3 or a 360.

The Mac bashes consoles as well, and how the controller sucks.

Last edited by r'Eeee (2008-07-16 12:13:29)

2008-07-16 12:04:07

#48

Miggle: FUCK UBISOFT; +1,411|6980|FUCK UBISOFT

ok, I'm confused.

if it's 256 players they're going to have to do it with servers, I see no way people can host from their own machines. Console people generally have no idea what a server is, so I doubt many people will be renting or hosting them. Not to mention that it would take a pretty expensive computer to host 256 people, and considering consoles generally go for the young audience, I don't think anyone will want to pay for them. And even if they do have enough servers, the maps will have to be huge for it to be any fun, which means massive load times...

seems like a great failplan to me.

2008-07-16 12:14:25

#49

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6776|Long Island, New York

Miggle wrote:
ok, I'm confused.

if it's 256 players they're going to have to do it with servers, I see no way people can host from their own machines. Console people generally have no idea what a server is, so I doubt many people will be renting or hosting them. Not to mention that it would take a pretty expensive computer to host 256 people, and considering consoles generally go for the young audience, I don't think anyone will want to pay for them. And even if they do have enough servers, the maps will have to be huge for it to be any fun, which means massive load times...

seems like a great failplan to me.

I'm sure they have something set up. They know what they're doing, you just don't know about it.

2008-07-16 12:20:41

#50

Defiance: Member; +438|6909

Poseidon wrote:
I'm sure they have something set up. They know what they're doing, you just don't know about it.

The gamble is if that's true. See, here's where everything gets ass backwards:

PC Players pay for MMOs (or most) because of server costs. This makes sense, massive bandwidth is not cheap. When we get to FPSs (and RTS and whatever, I'm no bigot, but non MMOs!) however, where the majority of servers are player supported, there is no monthly payment. It makes sense.

However, here we go to consoles. On the 360, where (and I'm sad to say) the servers are run off of the 360 itself and on home connections, you have to pay for the service. What? And you go to the PS3, where online service is free, but there is no way in hell a PS3 and home connection will host a 256 player server so Sony will have to run the servers.

Frankly... good luck and have fun Sony.

Last edited by Defiance (2008-07-16 12:21:24)

BF2S Forums MAG: This deserves a new post

Archer wrote:

Vilham wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

Archer wrote:

Vilham wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

Miggle wrote:

Spidery_Yoda wrote:

Miggle wrote:

Machine_Madness wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Spidery_Yoda wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Spidery_Yoda wrote:

killaer wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

killaer wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

r'Eeee wrote:

r'Eeee wrote:

The_Mac wrote:

r'Eeee wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

r'Eeee wrote:

firebolt5 wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

Miggle wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Board footer