Ganepark32 Posted April 5, 2009 Posted April 5, 2009 I know Sony have said on all occasions that the title will support up to 256 players but is anyone else a bit pessimistic over that number and being unable to achieve it on a console? I mean even if it's server based and all you're sending back and forth is character data then it means that environments are going to be inanimate and the game'll have lag problems. It'll be amazing to see how it turns out but I don't honestly see it being able to support up to 256 players in a single game at a decent playable speed. But I'm hoping to be proven wrong as it'd be one hell of a feat for them to do it and would be awesome to play.
Daft Posted April 5, 2009 Posted April 5, 2009 Well Eve Online has concentrated battles with over 1400 people involved. There was massive lag, unsurprisingly, but I don't see 256 players being too big a problem for MAG.
Ganepark32 Posted April 5, 2009 Posted April 5, 2009 But isn't EVE Online a PC title? Servers for PC titles are more robust than those for console games, that's what I've found from my experience of online on both fronts.
Daft Posted April 5, 2009 Posted April 5, 2009 Yeah, but scale things down from 1400 people to 256, add in the fact that MAG is being specifically developed with these massive battles in mind, and it seems pretty reasonable imo. I have no idea about the technical stuff, but it doesn't seem totally out of this world. I could be talking crap though.
Domstercool Posted April 5, 2009 Posted April 5, 2009 And it is on a system that allows server based hosting too, not just console hosting.
dwarf Posted April 5, 2009 Posted April 5, 2009 Do you think Sony haven't thought about it though? All of the people involved in the project would have definetly cottoned on to the fact that they'd need a powerful server so they will do exactly that. They won't release the game if it doesn't work.
Choze Posted April 5, 2009 Author Posted April 5, 2009 Could even be subscriber based. First month free, rest pay. No idea yet. Here are more details and screens: They are hinting at an online faction campaign system which updates constantly. Will have long term goals. Also every day is new. No computer players, all 256 are human for those who have doubts. Squads are 8 players. There will be lots of squads and a chain of command(someone at top). 3 seperate factions. There are classes or abilites. Commandos can add medic ability for example. Charcter ability tree, lots of fine tuning for your soldier. Seems like you can go prone and crouch. Lots of weapons. Halo insertions, Large scale airborne drops, lots of options for assault. Alot of unanswered questions but i am sure this e3 will shed much more light. This one game that shouldnt be rushed imo. Factions: 3rd missing. Artwork: Thats all of them.
dwarf Posted April 5, 2009 Posted April 5, 2009 Not too easy to distinguish the last two factions, but it really does look like it will be a great shooter.
McPhee Posted April 5, 2009 Posted April 5, 2009 If Joint Ops could manage 164 players five years ago i can't see why 256 can't be done today. Not got a lot of confidence in the game though, the more players the more confusing and free-for-all these games become...
dwarf Posted April 5, 2009 Posted April 5, 2009 ^ It would recreate what an actual battle would be like though, don't you think?
Choze Posted April 5, 2009 Author Posted April 5, 2009 They are aiming for a heavy tactical aspect of small games in a big game(their words). Its up to the players ultimately but recent games have shown a mixture of ideas work well. The large size makes it feel like a war. Stuff happening in the distance is by others(explosions, shots etc.) Gives you a real buzz when you take over a base. Fortify it and then attack the next hotzone.
LegoMan1031 Posted April 5, 2009 Posted April 5, 2009 Nice screen shots. I do have a slight feeling this could be a subscription game what with the server power needed but shall have to wait and see!
Choze Posted April 7, 2009 Author Posted April 7, 2009 Nice screen shots. I do have a slight feeling this could be a subscription game what with the server power needed but shall have to wait and see! Lets hope they have a good solution! I am wondering if they will let pc's be used? ala BF2 pc. Sony take a cut on official ranked servers basically rather than charge asubscription. That way the clans and hardcore essentially pay for everyone else.
MATtheHAT Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 Is'nt this getting released around the same time as Modern Warfare 2? Two modern FPS games coming out at roughly the same time......I will probably give this a miss.
Choze Posted April 7, 2009 Author Posted April 7, 2009 (edited) Is'nt this getting released around the same time as Modern Warfare 2? Two modern FPS games coming out at roughly the same time......I will probably give this a miss. All hail Activision, the new EA. I have a feeling COD7.8 or whatever will be thier MOH clone self as usual. I doubt COD is going to add 256 players online, use a fictional real world setting and cut out offline single player to replace MAG. No date yet. Dont worry about MAG, its not competing with anything on the market. 256 players is quite exciting. So i await with with impatience Edited April 7, 2009 by Choze
MATtheHAT Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 All hail Activision, the new EA. I have a feeling COD7.8 or whatever will be thier MOH clone self as usual. I doubt COD is going to add 256 players online, use a fictional real world setting and cut out offline single player to replace MAG. No date yet. Dont worry about MAG, its not competing with anything on the market. 256 players is quite exciting. So i await with with impatience Meh, Resistance 2 has what, 60 online at the moment? I much prefer small tactical games than massive respawn melee's. But each to their own I suppose. Btw, its Modern Warfare 2 not COD7.8 or MOH.
Choze Posted April 7, 2009 Author Posted April 7, 2009 Meh, Resistance 2 has what, 60 online at the moment? I much prefer small tactical games than massive respawn melee's. But each to their own I suppose. The tactics remain in large scale games as in small games. If anything strategic elements play a bigger part because of the large amount of players. Btw, its Modern Warfare 2 not COD7.8 or MOH. I am just joking. COD is a MOH clone and there have been countless COD and games like MOH. : peace:
dwarf Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 Resistance 2 is better in the smaller matches, although the occasional biggy is a good change.
Choze Posted April 7, 2009 Author Posted April 7, 2009 Resistance 2 is better in the smaller matches, although the occasional biggy is a good change. Yeah R2 is inferior to R1 in that respect. Couldnt get into multiplayer VS at all. Wanna do some Socom today? Me and Cooky did some large matches. They were loads of fun. The small ones were too much hide and seek.
dwarf Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 I prefer the Resistance 2 multiplayer. The first was arcadey but I just didn't enjoy the whole weapon pickup thing - seems a bit of a backward style to FPS now - too many weapons to handle. Now I'm good at R2 I am thinking of borrowing the first again to see if I can do well at that.
Choze Posted April 7, 2009 Author Posted April 7, 2009 I prefer the Resistance 2 multiplayer. The first was arcadey but I just didn't enjoy the whole weapon pickup thing - seems a bit of a backward style to FPS now - too many weapons to handle.Now I'm good at R2 I am thinking of borrowing the first again to see if I can do well at that. R2 is hardcore for me. ts really fast at times. I cant understand how so many do headshots running around miles away! Is there some hidden mechanic i am missing? Aside from skills :p
Choze Posted April 7, 2009 Author Posted April 7, 2009 Seems like pay to play is likely for MAG. It will be a persistent online game. So nothing like whats on the market right now for shooters.
dwarf Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 I won't pay for it monthly or whatever. I only do one-off fees tbh, for games anyway. Would feel too pressured too play it. Why I don't like XB Live.
Choze Posted April 7, 2009 Author Posted April 7, 2009 I won't pay for it monthly or whatever. I only do one-off fees tbh, for games anyway. Would feel too pressured too play it. Why I don't like XB Live. Well if its fun. I will go for it. I have played WOW heck of alot. Lets see what the game is like and if/what fees are really involved. I dont think 256 players are possible otherwise. The game is not offline at all. If fps can break into the MMO mold than this will be something special. Also the whole persistant element sounds interesting. Almost like a PVE element but with full players. Some are suggesting you fight across a full map and that there battles you have to deploy to etc. I would wait for official stuff. This game would a great experiment for alot of new ideas. I hope i get in the beta
Recommended Posts