512 Multiplayer FPS?

P

PCunicorn

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2013
Messages
1,638
I am wondering if there is any 256 v 256 multiplayer FPS. Or any other game type besides MMOs or similar. And if there isn't 512, what's the biggest besides BF2?
 
There's planet side 2 - I'm not sure exactly how big those battles are but I do remember them being enormous. They didn't really flow very well.. looked more like trench warfare from ww1 ish.
 
2004's Joint Operations had a maximum of 128 (64 vs 64). Never knew about it until recently. Looks like I am still not going to try it because they are charging people $40 for it on steam despite being a decade old.
 
topslop1 said:
There's planet side 2 - I'm not sure exactly how big those battles are but I do remember them being enormous. They didn't really flow very well.. looked more like trench warfare from ww1 ish.
Click to expand...

I have tried Planetside 2, I didn't really get it.

DedEmbryonicCe11 said:
http://fsegames.eu/about.html

It's been a couple years since I played, but Warband itself can support around 220(?) players in game with a beefy server. I'm not sure what engine these guys are using that they plan to push it over 500.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll look I to that.
 
Tribes 2 could do 256 players. But its kinda funny that games have never really made any progress in this area. Seems they have actually gone backwards. In 1998 seems like every game had 32 or 64 player limits. In 2013.... Seems the same, lol
 
Considering servers do significantly more today than they did in the Tribes days, it's understandable that player counts have gone down.

I don't think they've gone down on average, however. Exceptional cases on opposite spectrums don't really portray anything meaningful.
 
rudy said:
Tribes 2 could do 256 players. But its kinda funny that games have never really made any progress in this area. Seems they have actually gone backwards. In 1998 seems like every game had 32 or 64 player limits. In 2013.... Seems the same, lol
Click to expand...

There's a limit to the point where more players = a better game. I played the fuck out of Tribes and large player count matches were a gimmick. The servers were full of the worst of the worst, new players, and the games sucked.

Along the same lines both Quake and Unreal supported gobs and gobs of players (IIRC 32 for UT2004). However 1v1 duel, 3v3/4v4 TDM, and 4v4/5v5 CTF was what everyone played. Sure there were some high player count servers, but again it was the home of crappy gamers. The regulars, competitive crowd, and vast majority of players simply weren't playing that.

Not every shooter lends itself to having rack tons of players. It's certainly possible to do, but it's not always fun. Without insanely good mapping and the resources to do it one of two things happens. It either turns into a complete cluster fuck where all skill flies out the window, or you get bogged down in "the battle line that will not move" type trench warfare.

Large player counts in older games were funny because you could fire a shock combo and always hit something, or pretend you were good at mid air disk shoots because there were so many people in the air you couldn't miss. Once you got past that though, it sucked.
 
acerbic said:
There's a limit to the point where more players = a better game. I played the fuck out of Tribes and large player count matches were a gimmick. The servers were full of the worst of the worst, new players, and the games sucked.

Along the same lines both Quake and Unreal supported gobs and gobs of players (IIRC 32 for UT2004). However 1v1 duel, 3v3/4v4 TDM, and 4v4/5v5 CTF was what everyone played. Sure there were some high player count servers, but again it was the home of crappy gamers. The regulars, competitive crowd, and vast majority of players simply weren't playing that.

Not every shooter lends itself to having rack tons of players. It's certainly possible to do, but it's not always fun. Without insanely good mapping and the resources to do it one of two things happens. It either turns into a complete cluster fuck where all skill flies out the window, or you get bogged down in "the battle line that will not move" type trench warfare.

Large player counts in older games were funny because you could fire a shock combo and always hit something, or pretend you were good at mid air disk shoots because there were so many people in the air you couldn't miss. Once you got past that though, it sucked.
Click to expand...

Are you saying BF is for noobs? I hope you are.
 
rudy said:
Tribes 2 could do 256 players. But its kinda funny that games have never really made any progress in this area. Seems they have actually gone backwards. In 1998 seems like every game had 32 or 64 player limits. In 2013.... Seems the same, lol
Click to expand...

I don't think its technological limitation, but a "whats fun" limitation.

in some games, more is not better, when it comes to players. Tribes was one of those games that IMO you could always add more because of how well that game went with the different classes and different roles yet everyone together..

but games like BF4 or COD or things like that, more is definately not better.



also when getting too many players, you lose that sense of a single player being able to make a difference.

Everyone wants to be the hero, and in a 128v128 match - 1 player dies and who cares..

but in 8 v 8, one player dies and you feel it.
 
also when getting too many players, you lose that sense of a single player being able to make a difference.
Click to expand...

NOt if the world is ever changing like Planetsides granted 1 was way better then 2 imo but it made me feel like i was affecting the battlefield itself when wins or losses. It is so much fun to be in big battles that last over and hour back and forth with hundreds of players at the sametime. No other game on PC or Console has ever come close to that feeling I have had with Planetside. Also if game developers would focus on great netcode first and not top notch graphics in there games I dont see this meing a limitation for consoles just look at how good Defiance was on the console when you had Arkfalls with everyone having fun together.
 
GearChoices said:
2004's Joint Operations had a maximum of 128 (64 vs 64). Never knew about it until recently. Looks like I am still not going to try it because they are charging people $40 for it on steam despite being a decade old.
Click to expand...

Joint Operations BEST GAME EVER!
 
I can't remember how many you could have in Battlefront 2 but I always like there was more players than there really was.
 
PCunicorn said:
Im pretty sure its 64v64. And I actually do own the game, but been a while since I played.
Click to expand...

at the largest the battles allowed for 128 vs 128 on one map. I used to play it all the time for the first couple months after it launched.
 
dgz said:
Are you saying BF is for noobs? I hope you are.
Click to expand...

I'd say it is compared to several other games by leaps and bounds. However it's not compared to some other games. Oh well.

The issue is that most games with large player counts as an option, aren't created for them. Nor are most of the maps in those games. But that's never stopped idiots from maxing out the players all the time.
 
Saying that the latest BF games aren't meant to be played with high player counts is clear evidence that they have completely ruined what made the series so good.

The big, huge, chaotic battles that felt like a war was going on (movie war, not real war) was the biggest draw.

UT2004 depended on the game mode, a full server doing Onslaught was far better than an 8v8 match. The mechanics simply didn't work without a big team with multiple roles (and strategy!).

I think it just comes back to the biggest problem with videogames these days, instant gratification. The same thing that has turned wow (all mmo's) into crap. Yeah, I might not have the time for it anymore, but I'd rather be bad at a deep game than good at a shallow one. The difficulty and challenge is the fun. Organizing the chaos of a 64 player match was awesome. Having a squad or a couple buddies that were the better of those 60ish other players, after an hour long match, that was satisfying. Go ahead, say its *all* nostalgia.
 
Problem is with more people it requires strategy to be fun. Few people play with that kind of strategy. It typically requires cohesion and order to orchestrate an effective assault. Good luck organizing 64-128 people without some real discipline.... random people? will never happen outside of sims like Arma2/3 etc.

Think about it like this... in real life you have 3-4 friends you play with.. figure out how to assault a building.. you probably will come up with a decent plan given you are reasonable with communication.

Now advance that to 64 or more.. odds are few groups of friends/clans even have that many on at the same time.. so random people... who will likely never listen to your strategy but be like LOLOLOLTARGETS SHOOT ROCKETS BOOM HEADSHOT.

Now it's not fun anymore. If you could capture the essence of command w/ platoon leaders in an well organized match it would be great fun, but... not what most people are looking for. It would still require a good deal of effort.. and there wouldn't be any lolcodsuperkillratiolol times. It would mimic real warfare, which means covering zones..being careful.. organization... Stuff most people don't want to do, don't have the time to do, or are too young/stupid to execute.
 
Having a squad or a couple buddies that were the better of those 60ish other players
Click to expand...

Thats why any big multiplayer game with a ton of people can still be fun find a couple people you click with and team up, and just go to town. whether its 128 vs 128 of a game like Planetside. Just 3d scan a city like rockstar and develope a game around the enviroment you play in not the other way around.
 
I know quake 2 supported atleast 64 players.. There was a couple maps realeased that was basically 3 or 4 single player maps put togeither to make room for all the players.

Quake 3 supported atleast 128 and i think was only limited by ram installed. I seem to recall them doing a crash the ahtlon (700mhz athlon) at one of the quake cons, getting atleast 100+ on the map and standing in the middle.. at the end, the guy grabbed and quad with a rocket launcher and blew most of them up.
 
A match that large in any game sounds like it could be too chaotic for any fun, though I can imagine large scale Warband battles being a bit of a blast. When I first played BF3 I started to avoid the 64 player servers because there was so many people you would constantly die any time you were near a flag, no matter how 'good' you were (far as I'm concerned most of the maps were designed for 32 player console matches, and 64 players was an afterthought for the PC crowd.) And let's not get started on Metro.
 
Wasn't there a PS3 game that supported a very large number of players and was pvp only? I do wish there would be a large-scale game like this, although PlanetSide 2 does come pretty close.
 
Zohar78 said:
I know quake 2 supported atleast 64 players.. There was a couple maps realeased that was basically 3 or 4 single player maps put togeither to make room for all the players.

Quake 3 supported atleast 128 and i think was only limited by ram installed. I seem to recall them doing a crash the ahtlon (700mhz athlon) at one of the quake cons, getting atleast 100+ on the map and standing in the middle.. at the end, the guy grabbed and quad with a rocket launcher and blew most of them up.
Click to expand...

I don't think unmodded Quake 2 supported more than 16 players, let at alone "at least 64".

As for Quake 3, I don't think sv_maxclients ever accepted more than double digit values, though Rocket Arena 3 allowed one server to server multiple arenas crammed into single maps. It was amazing :)
 
acerbic said:
There's a limit to the point where more players = a better game. I played the fuck out of Tribes and large player count matches were a gimmick. The servers were full of the worst of the worst, new players, and the games sucked.

Along the same lines both Quake and Unreal supported gobs and gobs of players (IIRC 32 for UT2004). However 1v1 duel, 3v3/4v4 TDM, and 4v4/5v5 CTF was what everyone played. Sure there were some high player count servers, but again it was the home of crappy gamers. The regulars, competitive crowd, and vast majority of players simply weren't playing that.

Not every shooter lends itself to having rack tons of players. It's certainly possible to do, but it's not always fun. Without insanely good mapping and the resources to do it one of two things happens. It either turns into a complete cluster fuck where all skill flies out the window, or you get bogged down in "the battle line that will not move" type trench warfare.

Large player counts in older games were funny because you could fire a shock combo and always hit something, or pretend you were good at mid air disk shoots because there were so many people in the air you couldn't miss. Once you got past that though, it sucked.
Click to expand...

So what if its a gimmick if its fun, the point is tribes could do anything from 1v1 to 128vs128 each. I grow tired of the purest who think that a certain game has to be played with a certain number of players. Back then you could make your own maps with games so if you wanted you could fashion maps for different numbers of players. I thought back then that in the "future" games would get even more dynamic, I experimented with maps that would open up new areas if more players joined the server. But instead we got the opposite.

Also your definition of everyone is simply false. Competitive players played 1v1 everyone, as in the majority of pubbing players did not, never have, never will. And this is one of the great weaknesses of the old games was the vets who had the loudest mouths were always trying to force everything into a defined game for competition, in doing so they alienated the game from the casual players, sales slipped because of this and all those games pretty much died.

Casual players make a video game, period. And this comes from someone who played competitive in many games and even ran leagues for CAL, but no matter what I did, 1v1, 5v5, etc.... I still always recognized that the real money and support comes from the pubbers and casual players. They were always most important they are the ones who a small portion of players graduate from to become competitive. They are the ones who took games like CS which were not high skilled or anything and through shear volume turned those games into the competitive game to play. And yes CS players still love to pub over crowded games.
 
dgz said:
I don't think unmodded Quake 2 supported more than 16 players, let at alone "at least 64".

As for Quake 3, I don't think sv_maxclients ever accepted more than double digit values, though Rocket Arena 3 allowed one server to server multiple arenas crammed into single maps. It was amazing :)
Click to expand...

Im pretty sure q3 engine can handle 128 or more.. Now what the engine could do doenst mean the game did it. As mentioned, that crash the server was at quakecon on Lan on the top of the line amd processor (athlon 700 or so) . While quake 3 had amazing netcode for its time, to handle more than 16 players on net would require greater then a t1, plus not counting processors, and ram.. Which all limit the max you can have at once. Most peoples internet wasnt even that fast then!

quake 2 had official 64player maps from id software..


64 Player Deathmatch Pack Notes (Feb.23.1998)
---------------------------------------------

Here are three large deathmatch maps that we've cooked up for Quake II.
It is recommended that, as a client, you have at least 32 megs of RAM
to use these maps. As a server, you should get the beefiest processor
and as much memory as you can get your hands on if you wish to run a 64
player server. In tests that we ran here at id, a PPro200 peaks at about
50 clients, and our 400mhz Alpha started sweating at about 64 players.

The maps should be extracted to your \quake2\baseq2\maps directory and
they are named as follows;

base64.bsp - Tim Willits
city64.bsp - Paul Jaquays
sewer64.bsp - Christian Antkow

These three maps run in a loop.

Enjoy,

-Xian
 
Zohar78 said:
Im pretty sure q3 engine can handle 128 or more.. Now what the engine could do doenst mean the game did it. As mentioned, that crash the server was at quakecon on Lan on the top of the line amd processor (athlon 700 or so) . While quake 3 had amazing netcode for its time, to handle more than 16 players on net would require greater then a t1, plus not counting processors, and ram.. Which all limit the max you can have at once. Most peoples internet wasnt even that fast then!

quake 2 had official 64player maps from id software..


64 Player Deathmatch Pack Notes (Feb.23.1998)
---------------------------------------------

Here are three large deathmatch maps that we've cooked up for Quake II.
It is recommended that, as a client, you have at least 32 megs of RAM
to use these maps. As a server, you should get the beefiest processor
and as much memory as you can get your hands on if you wish to run a 64
player server. In tests that we ran here at id, a PPro200 peaks at about
50 clients, and our 400mhz Alpha started sweating at about 64 players.

The maps should be extracted to your \quake2\baseq2\maps directory and
they are named as follows;

base64.bsp - Tim Willits
city64.bsp - Paul Jaquays
sewer64.bsp - Christian Antkow

These three maps run in a loop.

Enjoy,

-Xian
Click to expand...

Didn't know about those q2 maps. Cool. My point about Q3 was entirely about the game. No doubt the engine can easily scale well above that. It was the best netcode, but I think these days it needs some more prediction. I miss CPMA's netcode.
 
Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (based on Q3 engine) had pretty big servers at the end of it's heyday. 32vs32 or so. Only the custom maps were designed open enough to allow the gameplay to work with that many people. Likewise, those custom maps sucked balls late at night when the server only had a dozen or so people on. Playing a siege map in M&B Warband with over 100 players is pretty intense as far as multiplayer goes. The quality/player goes down quite a bit as you have a lot of people with terrible PCs or connections lagging it up.
 
I'd like a game that looks like bf4 and have 64 players on large maps with a zombie infestation.
Helicopters, jeeps, atv's, and dirt bikes would be the only vehicles.

When you talk, only people near you can hear you unless you have a Walkie talkie and then others with radios can communicate with you. There would be limited walkies on the map and if someone has one when they die, it stays on the ground till someone picks it up.

Vehicles will have limited fuel and ammo and would need to be gassed up and reloaded when running low or depleted.
 
Zepher said:
I'd like a game that looks like bf4 and have 64 players on large maps with a zombie infestation.
Helicopters, jeeps, atv's, and dirt bikes would be the only vehicles.

When you talk, only people near you can hear you unless you have a Walkie talkie and then others with radios can communicate with you. There would be limited walkies on the map and if someone has one when they die, it stays on the ground till someone picks it up.

Vehicles will have limited fuel and ammo and would need to be gassed up and reloaded when running low or depleted.
Click to expand...

So basically, DayZ but with better graphics?
 
castun said:
So basically, DayZ but with better graphics?
Click to expand...

That's almost exactly what I was thinking only I didn't find the "graphics" limited on the game. The level of detail on the other hand was a little less than desirable.

My main concern with that game was the game play. Player movement just didn't seem smooth and it was buggy as all hell still. Getting stuck in door jams, getting killed behind walls, etc...

I haven't played in over a year though. :eek:
 
Skillz said:
That's almost exactly what I was thinking only I didn't find the "graphics" limited on the game. The level of detail on the other hand was a little less than desirable.

My main concern with that game was the game play. Player movement just didn't seem smooth and it was buggy as all hell still. Getting stuck in door jams, getting killed behind walls, etc...

I haven't played in over a year though. :eek:
Click to expand...

That weirdness of player movement and the other stuff is a side effect of the Bohemia engine. The newer one will probably address that, since BiS did focus a lot of the A3 engine on addressing those shortcomings.
 
The problem I see here is the first/second time people join a server with say 64 people in it, when its meant for 256, it would appear empty. There would be lots of complaints about how empty the game is and then many posts of how it sucks because you can never get a full server or something...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top