Mmortsfps
<div class="IPBDescription">80 player quake2 server?!</div> i just read an article about how they got a game of quake2 to work with 80 players and they think they can handle more except we were all too stupid to realize what was happening so we could download the specially enhanced quake2 executable and join the server to see how many players it could really handle.
actually it's a cluster of servers all interconnected serving the same map similar to how Everquest is done perhaps. it's technology developed by IBM and some total game freak addicts in some college apparently with too much free time on their hands fortunately.
imagine a game of Command & Conquer where every unit is controlled by a player. yup i think that would be quite nice. so get NS to work with this in the next patch please. k thx bye <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'><!--endemo-->
actually it's a cluster of servers all interconnected serving the same map similar to how Everquest is done perhaps. it's technology developed by IBM and some total game freak addicts in some college apparently with too much free time on their hands fortunately.
imagine a game of Command & Conquer where every unit is controlled by a player. yup i think that would be quite nice. so get NS to work with this in the next patch please. k thx bye <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
and 640 kb of ram should be enough for anyone <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'><!--endemo-->
but a few years down the line this would be cool!
80 players might be too much, but 40 is not. Perfect for a more RTS-ish FPS that might show up for HL2 someday.
<a href='http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1227299,00.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1227299,00.asp</a>
NS runs great on 6-8 per team. A game like I describe would need 20+ people per team.
BUT BATTLEFIELD 1942.. with.. say 256 people... you could actually have trenches that worked.. a no mans land... and what not.... AMAZING
/me imagines omaha beach.... actualy filling up the lc.... and thousands of people on shore.... MWAHAHAHAHAHA
This needs to be incorporated into Battlefield 1942... not Half life.. IMHO
Skulk 1: "Well, I just died, I'll just wait for the map to change so I can respawn"
Yeah bf1942 with 80 players *drooool*. But not NS. At least not in it's current form.
Good times.
NWN has some 64 player persistent worlds, the equivalent of a small-scale MMORPG, with a great community of players that actually want to contribute to the server.
Tribes 2 has had games in the 64 range for a long time. The problem is that in Tribes 2, there's no real command role and the commander doesn't have any great pull. The commander doesn't give you weapons, nor are you compelled to follow waypoints that he gives to you. It made for a very underutilized command system that has no obvious benefits for someone actually being in command. Therefore, it relies on the team all working together with no one there to threaten them with not receiving weapons or something like that. Ergo, it doesn't really work out unless it's in a clan situation, since you really do need people in all sorts of roles.
In BF1942, one or two people who know what's going on will generally be able to keep up the support roles. Unless you have jerky TKs, it usually works out. A 256 player version would not only be feasible in terms of gameplay, it would be amazing to see. Just how EQ was worthwhile back in its day because it was the first of its kind, an actual smooth-running 256 player FPS would be great just for the wow factor (and I'm not talking Planetside, I mean something with more variety that's not dependant on a server farm run by the company; i.e., not a persistent world, but a massively multiplayer world).
When you start playing a NS round, you do know that you and your team starts out at a reasonably even footing with the enemy. What you do and how you play really matters.
In Planetside and DAoC, what you do don't really matter. 9 out of 10 combats are forgone conclusions, with the victor beeing determined by who brough along the biggest horde of soldiers. As someone said previously, you are just a statistic.
doug
i know i dislike CS and DOD because i don't feel like i'm having an affect because they don't let me really use my aim skill because they made the aim less interactive by adding some bot-code to it.
Imagine that scene with Omaha as it really happened - who would want to play allies? That means ramp opens and you get mowed down by an MG salvo within 3 seconds... whoa, teh pUr3 fun! =)
/edit
For those who remember the gold ol' DoD 1.3b times, think of dod_omaha with lets say 5 Axis snipers... brrrrr
In the future we will all be playing 1000+ player games and thinking how we made do with 32 player servers.
Anyone remember nettrek with the max players at 16, most servers at about 7-8?, that was massively muliplayer in those days.
that would pwn in bf
At the end of the day, I only found two classes fun: the bard and the enchanter. The bard has a limit of eight songs (equivalent to everyone else's spells), but they go off every three seconds as long as you continue singing them and you can only sing one at a time. They stay around for a little while after you stop singing, just enough to get two (and possibly even three) other song in the middle. So the challenge is to try to keep three song effects, and the right ones, up at the same time. Bards also get a lesser version of the abilities that almost every class has, so another challenge is to pay attention and use those when necessary. For example, a bard can use a mezz song to make a monster stop moving/attacking for a little while, but it's to the detriment of the other songs they could be using. It's complicated and takes skill, ergo fun (you can also switch instruments around while playing for extra benefit/challenge).
Enchanters control the flow of combat. They're the best mezzers and can also do things like stuns, debuffs (makes them less powerful), hastes (makes combat people attack faster), etc. They have a lot to do and the group depends on them in many cases.
Otherwise, for the other classes you pretty much just fill your predetermined role, over and over again, with some exceptions.
actually it's a cluster of servers all interconnected serving the same map similar to how Everquest is done perhaps. it's technology developed by IBM and some total game freak addicts in some college apparently with too much free time on their hands fortunately.
imagine a game of Command & Conquer where every unit is controlled by a player. yup i think that would be quite nice. so get NS to work with this in the next patch please. k thx bye <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
"imagine a game of Command & Conquer where every unit is controlled by a player."
yes. The future is here
Movies will meld with games, they will be interactive, you will play the lead.
Entire virtual nations/organizations will develop and will have the same clout as if they were real - because now they are.
If the technology allows an immersive fantasy world, we'll have people addicted as if to drugs.. much much worse than Evercrack.
Good for old people, bad for young people :/