Reflecting on Enemy Territory: Quake Wars and it's 24 player limit

[kaddar]

According to this article (http://pc.ign.com/articles/723/723487p1.html) it is continued to be confirmed that ET:QW is a 24 player only game. 12 players per team. Several google searches come up with the fact that they did this because it works best, from playtests, (taking into consideration both gameplay and framerate).

I realize that the game offers many similar features and designs to the next Battlefield iteration, but I am not quite sure why people are drawing comparisons between this game and Battlefield 2. It seems like a different sort of game, with more direct battles, perhaps somewhat true to the original enemy territory style gameplay? (But with vehicles and open terrain)

What are your thoughts on this?

[saber07]

Battlefield 2 was always too open for my tastes and never got into it when playing on my friends computer. 24 players sounds like a good number, I know even in a lot of games that I have played, 24 can be a huge number and is just a spam fest.

[Isaacav2]

nvm...

24 sounds perfect, I just hope the guns dont dissapoint :o

[The King of Pants]

24 is ok. As i understand it the action is going to be much more concentrated than waht you see in BF2. And the general lack of huge firefights isone of my main complaints in that game.

[Carv]

I would rather have it at least bumped up to 32, but if 24 makes it run right then I guess that's what I'll have to take.

Seems like it'll be more teamplay oriented that way also.

[defiant007]

All other previous articles state that there is no limit to the number of players, but that maps are designed for 32 players in mind.

[Bambi005]

sorry but nothing beats 64 players for war games no more. Huge open maps and you dont have to spend minutes searching for someone. 24 sounds ok for a round based game of say cs, but i guess i wont be getting qw if those are the numbers. Dod offered 32 and that felt good aswell although the maps sometimes felt packed.

[alphaone]

24 is fine to me. From the video I watched the maps are much smaller relative to bf2 so 24 will be perfect. Plus the "push" style of combat suits the number. It still should be very intense.

[Pharacon]

ahh i dont know, i think like q4 and D3 the limited multiplayer is going to be its downfall. i mean in this day and age 32 is a bare minimum.

Sure if the map is small it might be nice but there is nothing like having 64 people go at it! i mean jeesh Quake 2 had 64 player DM for godsake.

Now not that the limit multiplayer is going to stop me from buying it, but i think like doom 3 i will more then likely regret it 3 months down the road when no one is playing.

[Wally]

Not sure - it's less the number of players to me than the gameplay style. I think the problem with BF2 is not the massive open maps, but the fact that objectives aren't ordered, meaning you can spend an entire round zooming about re-capping the same flags over and over. Regardless of the number of players, QW will only be better if indeed the objectives are ordered in a "push" configuration like has been mentioned, similar to BF2's hidden gametype. Open maps and player numbers seem irrelevant.

[meatfestival]

24 player matches in Wolf ET were very intense. 32 was just insane most of the time. Quake Wars should be pretty much the same.

[fallguy]

Major ding as far as Im concerned. Doom3 engine doesnt do outdoors well, as most already knew.

[versello]

I always looked for BF2 servers with 18-24 players. 32 players just gets annoying.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Hmm...all the playtesting they've done leads them to believe 24 is best. I dont really see much justification in questioning that from people who havent actually played the game.

[deathBOB]

24 is fine if the maps are set up for it. Good mapping + good gameplay = fun, no matter how many players. BF2 just needs a lot of players because its maps are huge and (IMO) poorly designed.

[meatfestival]

Doom3 engine doesnt do outdoors well, as most already knew.

that's why they completely reworked it.

[rpgaction]

sorry but nothing beats 64 players for war games no more. Huge open maps and you dont have to spend minutes searching for someone. 24 sounds ok for a round based game of say cs, but i guess i wont be getting qw if those are the numbers. Dod offered 32 and that felt good aswell although the maps sometimes felt packed.

The point of ETQW's system is that you'll be seeing enemies even more often than in 64 player BF2. There is only one possible objective at a time, not ten that don't require any coordination whatsoever.

Major ding as far as Im concerned. Doom3 engine doesnt do outdoors well, as most already knew.

They have reworked the engine, obviously.

[kaddar]

I'm thinking actually I like the 24 player limit. It almost goes to show me that the development team is somewhat concerned about keeping the game similar to Enemy Territory.

However, I will say this, I do enjoy going into battlefield 2 with 3 or 4 friends and finding our own strategy or tactic to use in a huge war, and yet not being pressured by the limited size of the server to work with the rest of the team and ignore my friends.

So I think it'll be really fun, but I wish there were a game to compete with battlefield for the huge server gameplay thing, so my friends and I could go into a squad based fighting during a huge war that surrounds us, without having to deal with the more annoying aspects of battlefield's engine.

[Big Fat Duck]

Let's just say I was dead set on preordering ET until i heard of their 24 player limit.

god damnit :mad:

[rpgaction]

Let's just say I was dead set on preordering ET until i heard of their 24 player limit.

god damnit :mad:

64 players at one objective point would be far too catastrophic. You very rarely see ten people even in 64-player BF2 because the capture points are so spread out and nonrequiring of any collaboration.

[Big Fat Duck]

64 players at one objective point would be far too catastrophic. You very rarely see ten people even in 64-player BF2 because the capture points are so spread out and nonrequiring of any collaboration.


Its catastrophic and I love it.

In BF2 the 64 player karkand is one of the most fun things at the very beginning when a front line is established

[meatfestival]

Quake Wars is a different kettle of fish to BF2.

But even so, there won't be a limit. 24-32 is merely the optimal number for good gameplay, and will be the default server setting. No doubt some maniacs will increase the limit.

[Stereophile]

24 player matches in Wolf ET were very intense. 32 was just insane most of the time. Quake Wars should be pretty much the same.

A 24 player ET match was perfect imo.
The large 32 and 64 player servers inevitably were bad games.
Too much spam and a large percentage of players didn't go for the objectives.
Typical reasoning there are already 8 engineers on this team, so I don't have to build/destroy objectives. But when everyone operates that way, it screws up the game.
I have complete faith in Splash Damage.

[kaddar]

Meat: I actually have some doubts, if you design a game for 24 players then it isn't really optimized for 64 players.

This is reinforced even more with the advent of added physics math to entities within a game.

The maps probably aren't great for 64 players in ET:QW, if they are built for 24 players. They'd be too crowded, chaotic, and possibly lagged.

64 player games are different beasts than 24 player games. I just hope people stop comparing the two. I'd compare battlefield 2 to tribes games, if anything. I like both styles, but for different reasons.

[Wildace]

the ingame movies of QW look "Meh" to me doesnt look like it plays too good from those vids. i think the game is getting way to much hype.

[lozaning]

i look for ~24 person servers anyways, my wireless lag wont let me play anything higher

[Wally]

...

Well, having just read wildace's comment, I went onto google video as i've not yet seen any vids for quake wars.
The game looks like a damn BF2 mod. Everything i've seen works the same, even down to the animations of the engineers repairing - they just switched a spanner to a pair of pliers. Not greatly impressed. :rolleyes:

EDIT: just a little personal rant here; why the cocking buggery do all fucking game devs suddenly feel the need to produce goddamn game trailers with this shitty hollywood action movie "IN 2006!" FLASHOFEFFECTS "SIDES WILL BE CHOSEN!" FLASHOFEFFECTS "AND IT WILL BE REALLY COOL AND EXCITING AND WE'LL ALL PISS OUR PANTS!" FLASHOFEFFECTS shit? Honestly, if the person that created that doesn't burn with shame every time they behold what a clichéd, tasteless and frankly embarassing piece of nonsense they've concocted soley for the enjoyment of twelve year-olds worldwide, i'm going to fucking find them and give them a Glasgow Kiss they'll remember their entire lives.

[meatfestival]

...

The game looks like a damn BF2 mod. Everything i've seen works the same, even down to the animations of the engineers repairing - they just switched a spanner to a pair of pliers. Not greatly impressed. :rolleyes:


You'd have a point if it were not for:

1) BF2 directly lifting several concepts from Wolf ET/RTCW, like engineer pliers/wrench, medic revives etc.
2) Quake Wars being in development since 2003, long before BF2 was conceived.

Plus, BF2 is little more than a remake of the Desert Combat mod... but class-based multiplayer games are all rip-offs of team fortress anyway, so who cares who copied who... Quake Wars will be immensely fun to play. BF2 isn't, and BF2142 probably won't be.

[alphaone]

I really think I will like it. Having less players and the push gameplay creates more teamwork. You have to work together to get the objective. This is no bf2. The engine is much better and has been tailored to multiplayer gameplay. I think splash damage gives cares where EA really doesn't care as long as they make money.

[Pulsar]

24 is fine for me. Remember that in QW, youll be fighting over a common objective, rather than the flag hopping in BF2. So those 24 players are almost always going to be concentrated into 1 area rather than 64 players spread out all over the map. > 32 players on a game like QW would be too chaotic I think, same with Wolf:ET

[Risiko]

24 players is perfect. ET: QW is going to have linear-style objectives. For example, the attacking team will have to fix the bridge to get to the power plant to disable the enemy shield to be able to shoot a missile at the enemy defense to get in close to plant a charge on the power core (hypothetical). This linear format for objectives centers the action on a front line that moves forward as each objective is completed. So, although we have an entire map to work with, only one chunk of it will be 'in action' for all practical purposes at one moment in time. So we have virtually all of the 24 players focused in on this constantly shifting front line.

Because of this, I think the battles will be a lot more intense than any 64 player bf2 game, while simultaneously being more intimate and more teamplay-oriented.

[Wally]

You'd have a point if it were not for:

1) BF2 directly lifting several concepts from Wolf ET/RTCW, like engineer pliers/wrench, medic revives etc.
2) Quake Wars being in development since 2003, long before BF2 was conceived.

Plus, BF2 is little more than a remake of the Desert Combat mod... but class-based multiplayer games are all rip-offs of team fortress anyway, so who cares who copied who... Quake Wars will be immensely fun to play. BF2 isn't, and BF2142 probably won't be.


Oh right, fair enough. Only ever played ET at a LAN once, and that didn't last long as there were about 3 people who played regularly dominating the other 17 of us who'd never touched it before :D

[dotK]

I think a 24 player limit will be good considering the game's design. I bet 24 player QW will have a feel similar to 64 player BF2 (at least once the game gets going, in the beginning BF2 will always have bigger fire fights from time to time and map to map).

[Nomikal]

I generally like playing in the 16-20 player max range in most online fps...I occassionaly go to a 64 server on bf2 and css just for fun...and the choas...

[GORANKAR]

24 players seems a good limit.. How many players can your cpu/gpu/internet connection handle on screen at the same time?? How many can a slightly older computer with only a 1.5 mb cable connection handle.. They do these things for a reason..
Plus, when you get too many players on a map, it gets frustrating.. Ever die 5 times in 30 seconds? All within a second or 2 of spawning, killed by a different person each time?? They were not all spawn camping, there were just two many people on the map..
If they are mapping for 24 players, and designed the netcode around 24 players, then 24 players will be fine..

[K600]

Limits exist because the strategy of firefights decreases as the number of players increases. Surviving becomes more about luck than skill because even great players can't fight off a few average players when they're all laying down fire on him.

This was my biggest complaint with huge BF matches...skill flew out the window and cheap tactics came into play.

[krameriffic]

Let's just say I was dead set on preordering ET until i heard of their 24 player limit.

god damnit :mad:

I don't know much about competitive play in the Battlefield series, nor in the RTCW:ET scene, but I sincerely doubt if there is much need for more than 24 players. You can't judge just based on the player limit--you need to see the maps, the gameplay, the objectives and how they all come together to make it work. Perhaps they will released a multiplayer demo sometime in the future in order to display how their innovation works out.

[Daishiknyte]

I didnt think BF at first. The first thing I said is that it seemed like Tribes a bit.

[Wildace]

I don't know much about competitive play in the Battlefield series, nor in the RTCW:ET scene, but I sincerely doubt if there is much need for more than 24 players. You can't judge just based on the player limit--you need to see the maps, the gameplay, the objectives and how they all come together to make it work. Perhaps they will released a multiplayer demo sometime in the future in order to display how their innovation works out.

for the bf series 12v12 is the limit for most teams being able to field enough players, but 8v8 is even more played because its easier to field 8.

my team, Team Warchild has 2 8v8 teams and a 12v12 for bf2

so a 24 player limit wouldnt hinder any bf2 clans switching to QW. but i still think QW is going to suck :) but im entitled to my own opinion. the more i see of QW the more i start liking how BF2142 will be. ill know soon how 2142 plays :cool: ;)

[shaggymcp]

64 players at one objective point would be far too catastrophic. You very rarely see ten people even in 64-player BF2 because the capture points are so spread out and nonrequiring of any collaboration.


QFT, I never liked playing 64 player maps, its always to hectic on certain maps, and then some maps it was like finding a needle in a hay stack to find another player.

[recursive]

for the bf series 12v12 is the limit for most teams being able to field enough players, but 8v8 is even more played because its easier to field 8.

my team, Team Warchild has 2 8v8 teams and a 12v12 for bf2

so a 24 player limit wouldnt hinder any bf2 clans switching to QW. but i still think QW is going to suck :) but im entitled to my own opinion. the more i see of QW the more i start liking how BF2142 will be. ill know soon how 2142 plays :cool: ;)

in ET, 6v6s were the most common, as well as the most balanced. There were 8v8 ladders, but those were far too spammy (believe it or not). With that said, A 6v6 ET match was far more exciting and faster paced while requiring more teamwork than any 8v8 or 12v12 BF2 match I've ever played in.

That just goes to show how horrible BF2 is. But everyone's entitled to their own opinion :)

[fallguy]

That just goes to show how horrible BF2 is. But everyone's entitled to their own opinion :)

Yep.. just like most disagree with your statement (opinion) that BF is horrible. Reviews, rankings, people playing.. etc.

[jaguax]

I don't know how anyone can say that BF2 is horrible. You don't like it, fine. But a horrible game? Far from it.

[K600]

BF2 is a horrible, bug-riddled mess that suffers from several game crippling decisions (Grid-aiming for the MFL).

The only aspect of BF2 that is better than Desert Combat Final is the teamplay aspect (Which is rarely utilized anyways).

[Mr. Miyagi]

I think Joint Ops was the only FPS w/ 100+ players per server that was a lot of fun and action packed. :)

[ray4389]

So when is this game coming out?

[Tazman2]

Battlefield 2 was always too open for my tastes and never got into it when playing on my friends computer. 24 players sounds like a good number, I know even in a lot of games that I have played, 24 can be a huge number and is just a spam fest.

Play on smaller servers problem solved! ;) In this case its hardcoded to 24 players so it sucks for the rest of us that don't like camp fests because of low player #s! :rolleyes:

[shaggymcp]

Yep.. just like most disagree with your statement (opinion) that BF is horrible. Reviews, rankings, people playing.. etc.

i agree with him BF2 is a horrid game due to bugs, glitchs, balancing. If it was not for those things, BF2 could have been a awesome game. Same reason I am not gonna support them in getting BF2142, I love the BF series have had everyone up to the BF2 expansion, but I will not buy in to it again, until after at least 6 months after its release, and i don't see any complaints of glitchs, balancing issues, or bugs. And also there method of getting the little packs like Armored fury and the other one, is lame having to have that little EA program installed on your machine and running just to play it is dumb, it just seems so sloppy like.

Until then Quake Wars is where its gonna be for me :cool:

[Big Fat Duck]

i think its 24 players max, because of the doom 3 engine

[arentol]

For those that are interested and looking for other FPS fixes before ET:QW drops here is a quick list of FPS games/expansions currently scheduled for release before ET:QW (though I am guessing 6 to 8 of these will be pushed back past ET:QW).

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
Battlefield 2142
UT 2k7
Crysis
Hellgate: London
Huxley
Splinter Cell: Double Agent
Duke Nukem Forever (hehe, Will believe it when it's in my hand, and not a moment before!)
F.E.A.R.: Extraction Point
First Battalion
Front Lines: Fuel of War
Interstellar Marines
Haze
Shadowrun
Timeshift
The Ship
World War II Online: Battleground Europe
Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway
Cell Factor: Combat Training

[Puterguru]

Is there a release date on this yet? Their website reads "Fall 06".

[arentol]

Is there a release date on this yet? Their website reads "Fall 06".

Currently it is scheduled for March 1st, which really just means they aren't going to make Christmas so they pushed the date back to around the end of the next quarter.

[I'm the Dude, man]

The thing I read on Gamespy yesterday said that most battles will be set attacker vs. set defender, which seems kinda limiting in some ways. At least in BF2 you're basically doing both most of the time. If I have any will to game left in me, I'll be checking this game out anyways.

[Frosteh]

24 players on maps of that scale?

Every single person will be in some kind of vehicle by the looks of things, can't imagine that being much fun...

I think i'll go ahead and say it now, if this game is limited to 24 players I wont bother getting it. People compare it to BF2 because of the size of the maps and quite rightly so, if you're going to make maps THAT large you need the player count to support it.

[theNoid]

*cough* played it at E3... :drool:

[recursive]

24 players on maps of that scale?

Every single person will be in some kind of vehicle by the looks of things, can't imagine that being much fun...

I think i'll go ahead and say it now, if this game is limited to 24 players I wont bother getting it. People compare it to BF2 because of the size of the maps and quite rightly so, if you're going to make maps THAT large you need the player count to support it.

The map size to player count ratio is irrelevant because everyone will be focused at one main objective point, rather than 20 flags across a map.

[Bop]

i agree with him BF2 is a horrid game due to bugs, glitchs, balancing. If it was not for those things, BF2 could have been a awesome game. Same reason I am not gonna support them in getting BF2142, I love the BF series have had everyone up to the BF2 expansion, but I will not buy in to it again, until after at least 6 months after its release, and i don't see any complaints of glitchs, balancing issues, or bugs. And also there method of getting the little packs like Armored fury and the other one, is lame having to have that little EA program installed on your machine and running just to play it is dumb, it just seems so sloppy like.

Until then Quake Wars is where its gonna be for me :cool:

QFMFT.

My airsoft guns are more accurate than the weapons in BF2.(I do have high end airsoftguns though :)... but still!) Also, I don't think the J10 is a super duper invincible jet IRL, and even if it is the balance for air combat is TOTALLY ruined... and they aren't doing JACK about it.

The balancing in BF2 just pushed me over the edge. No more BF ever.

DC > BF2

[Frosteh]

The map size to player count ratio is irrelevant because everyone will be focused at one main objective point, rather than 20 flags across a map.

It's certainly not irrelevant, and it is unlikely people will only be focused on one point, just because you can't capture other points doesn't mean you can't spawn rape the enemy team at one location knowing you'll have access to capture it within x many minutes.

[Pulsar]

It's certainly not irrelevant, and it is unlikely people will only be focused on one point, just because you can't capture other points doesn't mean you can't spawn rape the enemy team at one location knowing you'll have access to capture it within x many minutes.

That didnt work too well in a game like Wolf:ET. QW will be very similar to that. I guess I just prefer that style of gameplay to the BF2 free for alls. Not saying any one of em is bad, thats just my preference.

[recursive]

That didnt work too well in a game like Wolf:ET. QW will be very similar to that. I guess I just prefer that style of gameplay to the BF2 free for alls. Not saying any one of em is bad, thats just my preference.

I personally couldn't stand BF2 for that reason. Roaming around a map for 5 minutes until I finally see someone who's 500 yards from me wasn't too much fun, dispite such a large player count. I guess I'd much rather have constant enemy contact like in ET.

[Stereophile]

The thing I read on Gamespy yesterday said that most battles will be set attacker vs. set defender, which seems kinda limiting in some ways.

That's just the nature of Enemy Territory.
Hopefully they will achieve a 50/50 balance out of the box.
Wolf ET maps were tilted so Allies = offense and Axis = defense.
Although the community shook things up a bit.
Hopefully QW map scenarios allow human and strogg teams equal
opportunity to play offense and defense.

[Pulsar]

I personally couldn't stand BF2 for that reason. Roaming around a map for 5 minutes until I finally see someone who's 500 yards from me wasn't too much fun, dispite such a large player count. I guess I'd much rather have constant enemy contact like in ET.

Exactly. Although BF2 does have its moments, the majority of the time theres very few people working together and the rest are just roaming around doing their own thing. I definately prefer the Wolf:ET style gaming where theres always a moving front and objectives EVERYONE needs to complete rather than just flag hopping.

[gurgle]

there is no 24 person limit to the maps.

[Pulsar]

As I understand, the maps will be optimized for 24 players, but it isnt a hard set limit. Just like Wolf:ET, there will be servers running 32 - 64 players although 64 players will be overly chaotic with that gametype.