64 limit or can we go higher?

[IntegerDevourer]

I am not sure this has been really discussed, but is it possible to push the limit beyond 64 players? Although I imagine the server might not be able to handle so many players, it would be interesting to see how many players you could theoretically have on a single server. Have you (the devs) tried this yet or just chose 64 as a "good enough" player count? It really would be amazing to see a large scale battle (or even a huge vanilla deathmatch). Of course, getting more than 64 people on at a single time would take some planning.

 

[Lord Rust]

I do hope we can mod in huge 100-500 man battles

 

[Esthet]

Highly unlikely. Why else almost every game with intensive multiplayer action limit the player count to 32. Because when pushed to the connection bandwidth and server processing power limits you will start to notice some warping (teleportation).

 

[Bossman]

Well, Tribes 1 supported 128 players and that game came out 10 years ago. If they have a good netcode and some powerful servers, they should be able to support 100 players.

 

[Esthet]

Follow the link, read... and then remember that M&B has heavier physics (damage by speed and such), "non-laser" ballistics, pick-able missiles, bots with commands and formations, the best mount and blade (as in melee) combat around. A server farm hosted game over a gigabit LAN could do the trick - but don't expect it over internet anytime soon.

 

[Archonsod]

Wouldn't be much point to be honest. Apart from Server 8 it's rare the 32 player servers get filled up, let alone the 64 player ones. Some of it will be just the restricted number of players in the beta, but then there's only a restricted number of servers too.

 

[Adorno]

But I hope the amount of bots can be large so we end up having epic battles with 100-200 fighters in the field.

 

[Esthet]

Wouldn't be much point to be honest. Apart from Server 8 it's rare the 32 player servers get filled up, let alone the 64 player ones.

Lets just wait for release and some popular mods and see if when you change your mind

 

[Temuzu]

Hehehe,maeby well get a battlesizer for Warband too

 

[Interesting]

Answer this question Armagan:

Will a game with 32 human players be able to have over 32 bots?

In other words, can a group of 20 humans eventually battle against a number of bots that surpass the 64 player limit?

Will this setting be flexible enough to be modded for that purpose?


64 players is awesome already.
But for the purpose of the inescrutable future that the mods awaits us, eventually we will want to be able to see more than 64 characters logged, even if the majority is formed by bots.

I can foresee huge modded maps hosted on excelent servers that feature a number of castles and cities within and its own group of bots, in an never ending struggle for control of the land. If the 64 player limit applies to bots as well, than our dreams would be shattered by such limitation. Dont restrain the force of mods with such limitations, please.

 

[Archonsod]

Lets just wait for release and some popular mods and see if when you change your mind

Given I don't play mods and find 64 players ridiculously overcrowded, I doubt it

 

[Devin]

I'd love to see giant battles (1000+), but I don't think it's possible.  Massively multiplayer games are set up differently than most action games like Mount & Blade.  In a MMOG, players are only connected to the server, and the server handles sending all game updates to the client.  So if there are 1000 players, the server is handling 1000 connections (1 for each player).  In a game like this, where having a low ping is really necessary for good gameplay, there is usually a client to client connection.  This means that each client has to manage a connection to every other client, which doesn't scale nicely.

 

[Plazek]

I have been on the busy American server when it is full up. It was not laggy even though I had 100 ping. I think it can be pushed a bit higher.

To you people suggesting bots can make up the numbers they take up CPU power as well you know, though I am not sure how much compared to an actual player, a larger maximum amount would be great. Who cares if there is no point? It is an option, options are always good. If you don't want to play on such large servers just don't, but some of us do.

 

[IntegerDevourer]

Wouldn't be much point to be honest. Apart from Server 8 it's rare the 32 player servers get filled up, let alone the 64 player ones. Some of it will be just the restricted number of players in the beta, but then there's only a restricted number of servers too.

It isn't the feasibility of getting 64 people on that I am talking about. It is about stress testing the server so when the game is released that there is a clear understanding that past a certain point the game can't handle x number of players. I think the beta honestly is the best place to test this.

 

[Archonsod]

It works fine with 64 players. We're already testing this. The only real problem (at least imho) is the maps aren't particularly well suited for that many players at present.

 

[Adorno]

The siege is well suited for many players I think - it's sort of the ideal crowded blood bath.

 

[Plazek]

That is a good point there by integer.

 

[Pratolli]

more than 64? OMG there will be the lag hell.. There will be not.

 

[IntegerDevourer]

It works fine with 64 players. We're already testing this. The only real problem (at least imho) is the maps aren't particularly well suited for that many players at present.

Which further proves that pushing the limit would help understand the game/servers/etc limits. What does it hurt to push the limit higher for testing purposes?

 

[Plazek]

Im not sure thats even true anyway, the vanilla M&B maps are of similar sizes and handle 200 people just fine. Granted they are bots but overcrowding was never a problem for me.