A "bit" more similar to Arma 3 ??

phil.svphil.sv Posts: 19Player
edited February 3 in General Discussion
I get now statistic from gametrackers.com:

Arma3 (34.99 euros of cost) : 6,231 players in all the world, servers with 100 to 220 players
AAPG (free ==> 0.00 euros) : 248 players in all the world, servers with 24 players

I have Arma 3 but I don't play its multiplayer: imho maps so much enormous have sense only in a persistent world, like WWII Online. But evidently the idea is not so bad, if I see the numbers.

So why don't try with a BIG map (woodland with fields and farms, for example) that allows 50/60 players? Maybe with programmatically random objectives, so that any round is different from the previous. I LOVE AAPG but, seriously... it is dying. :angry:

Comments

  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,469Beta Tester
    One word: Twelve Year Old Game Engine.
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • -=}WoLvErInE{=--=}WoLvErInE{=- Posts: 1,116Beta Tester
    Keebler750 wrote: »
    One word: Twelve Year Old Game Engine.

    :p
  • OICURMT!OICURMT! Posts: 82Beta Tester
    Keebler750 wrote: »
    One word: Twelveyearoldgameengine.

    Fixed

    --

    In life, there is no respawn... why should there be in a game?
  • phil.svphil.sv Posts: 19Player
    edited February 3
    Keebler750 wrote: »
    One word: Twelve Year Old Game Engine.

    Imho the problem IS NOT the engine.

    CS 1.6 has a TWENTY YEARS old engine... and ATM has 227,236 players: 100 times AAPG !!! O.o

    Has to be revised somewhat in the gameplay (imho is good), in the maps (too much little, the current target for FPS online is the open world) or in the rewards (too many players play AAPG as deathmatch).

    Is really annoying to wait for a new match (since the few preferred servers are often full) and to play the firsts 2/3 rounds in 4+4 players since there are so few players that to fill the server requires some rounds.
  • Dct.F|LeventeDct.F|Levente Posts: 473Beta Tester
    phil.sv wrote: »
    Keebler750 wrote: »
    One word: Twelve Year Old Game Engine.

    Imho the problem IS NOT the engine.

    CS 1.6 has a TWENTY YEARS old engine... and ATM has 227,236 players: 100 times AAPG !!! O.o

    Has to be revised somewhat in the gameplay (imho is good), in the maps (too much little, the current target for FPS online is the open world) or in the rewards (too many players play AAPG as deathmatch).

    Is really annoying to wait for a new match (since the few preferred servers are often full) and to play the firsts 2/3 rounds in 4+4 players since there are so few players that to fill the server requires some rounds.

    CSGO is not doing 50 player large battles either... And if you think waiting for a 24 player server to be filled up is annoying, can you imagine this with a 50 player server? What would it be like to run around 4v4 on the 25v25 map?
    Theory and reality are not that different. In theory.
  • ={101st}=Whiplash27={101st}=Whiplash27 Posts: 2,033Player
    edited February 4
    CSGO =/= CS 1.6. CS GO is on a modernized version of the Source Engine. Not 20 years old. Outdated? Sure, 20 years old? No.

    https://steamcharts.com/app/730 - CS GO
    https://steamcharts.com/app/10 - CS 1.6

    That said, CS 1.6 still gets good numbers. It actually amazes me that the game averages something like 12K players at any given time considering its age.

    Of all of the games out there, Arma is not the game I'd want AA to emulate. The niche for games like Arma is so small that Arma is really the only game that can fit into that niche. I think the only other game that has tried to really fit in there is Squad and that averages what, 2K people?

    It's not something that would hit on the mainstream. Don't listen to all of the hardcore mil sim people who come on here talking about how America's Army should be a mil sim... yeah that'll really get tons of people playing.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,469Beta Tester
    The OP started his discussion talking about the need for big maps, not what games having staying power. When we look at other factors, it's true this free game doesn't have the same numbers as other franchises that have much more consistent revenue streams and investment on the development side. In other words, we're comparing apples to oranges and wondering what that weird taste is....
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • KodenKoden Posts: 279Player
    edited February 4
    phil.sv wrote: »
    I get now statistic from gametrackers.com:

    Arma3 (34.99 euros of cost) : 6,231 players in all the world, servers with 100 to 220 players
    AAPG (free ==> 0.00 euros) : 248 players in all the world, servers with 24 players

    I have Arma 3 but I don't play its multiplayer: imho maps so much enormous have sense only in a persistent world, like WWII Online. But evidently the idea is not so bad, if I see the numbers.

    So why don't try with a BIG map (woodland with fields and farms, for example) that allows 50/60 players? Maybe with programmatically random objectives, so that any round is different from the previous. I LOVE AAPG but, seriously... it is dying. :angry:

    You don't really want a 50 to 60 players session going on this game. There are several things that tend to fall apart way sooner than you could reach 50 players.
    Also, by the time you start using bigger maps, lets say 3 o 4 times the size of Overload, you might need vehicles as well in order to be able to *actually* move across within the rightful amount of time. If you check out Snakeplain back in AA2 it was the perfect example of why you'd need vehicles (moving by foot through the entire map would require easily 10 to 15 minutes). So, it's something that changes gameplay dramatically and you might want to think twice before introducing a slower mechanic - which isn't necessarily bad - in a game with relatively smaller maps. There has to be a consistency through the whole mission, as i would rather call the "map".

    Keebler750 wrote: »
    One word: Twelve Year Old Game Engine.

    Although some older Unreal 2.5 games were able to support up to 64 or more players but in a completely different scenario and a different gameplay, specifically i'm talking about Killing Floor (and of course it wasn't free from issues at all). That game didn't really need an anticheat system, being a cooperative game. That probably lets you have a good chunk of bandwidth free for other purposes, in KF case having more players or running more code between server and client.

    Derob6.jpg
  • ={101st}=Whiplash27={101st}=Whiplash27 Posts: 2,033Player
    edited February 5
    BTW, SF Recon is all I need to say regarding this topic. That map was HUGE and everyone avoided it like the plague. Like the post above me says, large maps without vehicles would not work.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,469Beta Tester
    Everyone = you and people you know.

    I know people played SF Recon... I DID! That map had flares, didn't it?
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • ={101st}=Whiplash27={101st}=Whiplash27 Posts: 2,033Player
    Keebler750 wrote: »
    Everyone = you and people you know.

    I know people played SF Recon... I DID! That map had flares, didn't it?

    Yeah, it had flares. Well, I certainly never met anyone who liked it and I think the amount of populated servers on the map was pretty much 1 or 2.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,469Beta Tester
    Yeah, can't say I remember there being a ton of full servers for it...! :D
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • jgvn11jgvn11 Posts: 48Player
    SF Recon was one of the few maps I never learned, never did any competitive matches on it either.
  • frankoffrankof Posts: 961Moderator
    Bring SF Recon back!!!
    I actually enjoyed that map, but getting a good game going was hard.
    ss_4_frankof.png
  • ={101st}=Whiplash27={101st}=Whiplash27 Posts: 2,033Player
    jgvn11 wrote: »
    SF Recon was one of the few maps I never learned, never did any competitive matches on it either.

    I definitely got stuck in a TWL match on it once or twice. It was brutal. That was the only time I ever remember spending extended periods of time in that map. Trying to practice for a crappy TWL match. Not like there's a ton of strategy you can employ on a huge dark map either.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • Hey.I.Have.A.GunHey.I.Have.A.Gun Posts: 631Player
    jgvn11 wrote: »
    SF Recon was one of the few maps I never learned, never did any competitive matches on it either.

    I definitely got stuck in a TWL match on it once or twice. It was brutal. That was the only time I ever remember spending extended periods of time in that map. Trying to practice for a crappy TWL match. Not like there's a ton of strategy you can employ on a huge dark map either.

    I'm definitely with you. I played at least one match on it, but otherwise never played it.

    Radio Tower was another big-ish map, but at least in comp play, most of the action was confined to the B tunnels, making it largely CQB. I never really pubbed that one either.

    River Basin was another map I wasn't a fan of. Lots of big open spaces and lots of fog.
  • ={101st}=Whiplash27={101st}=Whiplash27 Posts: 2,033Player
    edited February 5
    River Basin was awful. Too many people using exploits to see beyond the fog. I remember matches where you'd be getting shot by guys that you couldn't even see. A lot of those big outdoorsy type maps were never good for competitive play. Honestly, most of AA2's maps weren't great for competition. We certainly made it work, but attack vs. defend maps where you can sit and hold one for the entire match is not good for competition, especially when you get two evenly matched teams. It becomes a test of who can break though in a single round.

    I remember half of the time I spent preparing for Weapons Cache matches was trying to figure out new nade throws that could successfully flush out defenders in primary and then matches were 90% sitting in primary with maybe one guy going out to try to soften up the attack team in advance.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • KodenKoden Posts: 279Player
    edited February 5
    BTW, SF Recon is all I need to say regarding this topic. That map was HUGE and everyone avoided it like the plague. Like the post above me says, large maps without vehicles would not work.

    SF Recon and River Basin didnt have a lot of them other than sheer tactics. If you want a somewhat bigger map played by most people even during the latest days back in 2011, look at Border.

    P.s.

    I enjoyed the Javelin on Snakeplain the most. But as a whole the mission had quite few bugs & issues (also vehicles related).
    Derob6.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.