64 limit or can we go higher?
- Thread starter IntegerDevourer
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Logan_Nine_Fingers
Recruit
To test it would be great of course, because you would get insight in limitations of your netcode, engine and server infratstructure. But as other people mention, it would not be very fun to play with more than 64 people. Although this may change if new maps are included to test in beta.
Esthet
Regular
Agree. The fun of playing CTF and specially Conquest and Siege modes grows with the number of players (high skill & good tactics are welcomed too but player count is essential) because they are not just massive killfest like DM/TeamDM or to boring to wait till one team is totally exterminated in Battle mode (btw, it needs a reasonable time limit - the team with less casualties wins, loosing survivors - count as retreated from battle) but they are objective-oriented modes - we need more of them see what Age of Chivalry has in almost all their maps.Adorno said:
And this is the best time to try to stress test the network code... but its not as easy as change a limit number, recompile and test. So right now just be glad they've doubled the limit of most multiplayer games and make sure they notice our interest in expanding it further by connecting to high populated servers.
The vanilla M&B maps don't have carts, fences, castles and people's houses all over them. Unless you're attacking a village anyway. At the moment, the plains map is fine (in fact, it's possibly a bit too big for less than 64 players) but anything with more "clutter" like the river or village (I'd hate to see that at 64 players) tends to descend into a mass brawl pretty quickly due to the lack of space.Plazek said:
In terms of map alone siege is fine, but to support more players you'd really need a couple more ladders or otherwise a means to enter the castle (although simply moving them from the corners might work too).
Mirathei
Sergeant Knight
I think a good idea for a multiplayer mode in the future would be similar to battle, only with every actual player commanding twenty or so bots which they outfit with weapons, armor, etc. This way it would be more like co op and with more than 64 fighters. They could theoretically get into the hundreds without the bandwidth/server problems.
That's a really good idea, if the AI will be at least as good as it is now in singeplayer.
I've seen these bots and they rarely attack and constantly (constantly!) run into walls/objects, to the point where you can basically ignore them.
I've seen these bots and they rarely attack and constantly (constantly!) run into walls/objects, to the point where you can basically ignore them.
Dutchornator
Recruit
Do you reckon you could put 64 players in a tournament fight? 
that i would love to see, a few Chariot's rolling here and there with either two to four teams battling out or even just deathmatch 
that i would love to see, a few Chariot's rolling here and there with either two to four teams battling out or even just deathmatch 
Currently, the bot limit is independent from player limit (I thnink it is set to 300) It would definitely be interesting to increase the player limit, however when we increase player limit by a factor of x, the load on the server increases by x-squared. This is still not too prohibitive but something to think about. Anyway, increasing player limit is something we'll be thinking about.
Coenraad
Good news: The master spokeArmagan said:
Bad news: The master didn't chose me
Hurry up and do it in the beta, so we can test it - what's there to think about?Armagan said:
The reason it's not getting filled up:
The beta participants for the original didn't get first pick.
If there's only about 8 servers, and there were 6000 people picked... Obviously most of them have completely ignored the beta participation.
The beta participants for the original didn't get first pick.
If there's only about 8 servers, and there were 6000 people picked... Obviously most of them have completely ignored the beta participation.
Darkness
Sergeant at Arms
Alec{zacool} said:The reason it's not getting filled up:
The beta participants for the original didn't get first pick.
If there's only about 8 servers, and there were 6000 people picked... Obviously most of them have completely ignored the beta participation.
Nope. Only 6000 people applied for the beta. My guess is that they have so far sent out a max of 500 (although a guess of 250 would probably be more appropriate) acceptance letters.
Well, then there's a lot of people still ignoring the beta.
Armagan said:
Thanks for answering me.
I can die in peace now.
This is the defining moment of history. This is the line that will make mods awesome, instead of just "I wish we could put more than 64 soldiers in there".
300 Bots+64 Humans or
236 Bots+64 Humans or
300 Bots + 128 Humans. Noone will be able to complain about the number of soldiers being a limitating factor for their mods.
Now, the other issue we need answered is about the maps.
How big will mods be able to make maps? How many objects/clutter will be able to be added? Will we be able to make a map so huge that inside of it, we would be able to put some castles and a few cities, forests, rivers in between and eventually make that map persistant and mod game modes just so it feel like an MMORPG?! Imagine how cool it would be, endless battles for territory/resources (like domination mode, that would give resources/points)....
We can only dream of the possibilities. With the Mount and Blade mod community we will definatelly become AAA.
IntegerDevourer
Recruit
Music to my ears.Armagan said:
