What about 30+ people per side?

^AWA^-=Poo=-aloced · May 2016

Yeah, I know another topic that has been asked way back in the day but imagine playing hospital ext with 28, 30, 34...40 people!! In my opinion that would be a blast.

Just a thought to add a little life into this game.

But I would feel bad for the admins, checking all those pings. lol.

=IK=Doba= · May 2016

Servers might take the load, but the performance wont be the best.. man thats a lot of campers

[ENG]Uni-Sol · May 2016

I WANT 32 PLAYER.

Not sorry for caps.

^AWA^-=Poo=-aloced · May 2016

[Gen]Adzic wrote: »

I WANT 32 PLAYER.

Not sorry for caps.

One can only dream.

I'll even one up this....How about the ability NOT to reset the game after each match. In AA3 you could play for days without a game or even a server reset. This kept players on the same side for hours. The fun I had with the same group of players for hours on end. Then AAPG came alone like a school principal; killing a lot of the fun.

Root-Access · May 2016

I would be so stoked to see 32 players, though some of the maps would feel a bit too small at that point.

Dct.F|Levente · May 2016

30+ per side?! That is 60+ people in total! Even ignoring the fact that most servers can't handle this, the game is hard coded to max 12 per side...
Imagine 60 players on the current maps. Imagine that this 60 players all have nades. Imagine this on the current maps... (Maybe RockRoad could handle it, but I highly doubt it...) I don't want to continue, or I'll have nightmares.
It would be absolute madness, in a wrong way.

To be honest most FLO maps are a bit too small for 24 players IMO. Don't get me wrong, more player could be awesome on the right maps, but I don't really see the current game viable for it.

-=}WoLvErInE{=- · May 2016

Personally I think 32 would be perfect for the way the game is set up. I just don't see this ever happening, since it hasn't happen by now. Best chance we had was while the game was in beta.

Root-Access · May 2016

Dct.F|Levente wrote: »

30+ per side?! That is 60+ people in total! Even ignoring the fact that most servers can't handle this, the game is hard coded to max 12 per side...
Imagine 60 players on the current maps. Imagine that this 60 players all have nades. Imagine this on the current maps... (Maybe RockRoad could handle it, but I highly doubt it...) I don't want to continue, or I'll have nightmares.
It would be absolute madness, in a wrong way.

To be honest most FLO maps are a bit too small for 24 players IMO. Don't get me wrong, more player could be awesome on the right maps, but I don't really see the current game viable for it.

No, no, not 30 on each side, that would be a disaster. 32 total would be cool if most of the maps weren't too small.

.dcG-Colts^ · May 2016

32 on maps like Overload would be good.

But personally IMO I think Inner Hospital should be max 8v8, Harbor Assault 8v8, Downtown 8v8, Stone Ruins 8v8. At very least there should be some 8v8 servers with capable 8v8 maps in the rotation. Example of capable map rotation on an Official 8v8 Server could be:

InnerHospital
Downtown
Stone Ruins
Harbor Assault
Checkout
Breach
Watchdog
Spring Street
Red Line
Cabin Fever
Intercept
ShadowStep

Possible Other 8v8 maps could be Siege, overall all the maps above would need to be tested. But an 8v8 mode could revive this game for a lot of players maybe even make some who have left return. Something to seriously consider. IMO I think its definitely worth it and would up my time spent in public servers a ton.

Slums, Cold Front, Overload, Full Hospital could support 26-32 players. Would in fact make some of these maps more playable. Overload is huge and 32 players on this map would be a good thing to make it more popular same with Full Hospital. But what you want to prevent is servers running 32 players on Inner Hospital, Downtown maps that don't support it.

^AWA^-=Poo=-aloced · May 2016

I guess my point is more people, whatever that means. Let the server owners decide. Maybe have the ability to set 13x13, 14x14, 15x15..etc... then players can settle in on what they like.

But the fact may be the game architecture coupled with the old UE3 engine can't handle lots of players and 12x12 is already pushing the upper limits.

-=}WoLvErInE{=- · May 2016

Nah, the engine can easily Handel 32 players. Shouldn't be an issue at all. Plenty of games out there with 64 slots with even an older version of the engine.

But I agree, don't limit it per map. Just cap it at 32 slots and let server admins decide.

=IK=Doba= · May 2016

It's gonna be an issue... right now for example testing the new maps my fps is 160 locked solo .. full server I see lows of 110s.. Double the players and on my rig I start seeing 60s.. good luck to the average gamer

EJtheK · May 2016

There's plenty of maps, especially UMMs, that have space to accommodate more players. Pings and network traffic complications aside, the major issue with more players is the fundamental gameplay of AAPG. There is only one spawn per round, with limited revives. The more players to kill, the longer the rounds last and the more dead players get bored and/or frustrated. Comms (when used) may also get more chaotic, unless sub-groups or fire team channels are added.

I think it could also put a strain on the current objective setup, unless some additional robustness and flexibility was exposed to allow for more creative/complicated scenarios.

.dcG-Colts^ · May 2016

=IK=Doba= wrote: »

It's gonna be an issue... right now for example testing the new maps my fps is 160 locked solo .. full server I see lows of 110s.. Double the players and on my rig I start seeing 60s.. good luck to the average gamer

your godly 970 sees lows of 110's double the players you expect 60's jeez.

PhantomBuliT · May 2016

What is seriously disappointing is that with my rig i see excess of 300 fps (steady fps i might add) on stone ruins and on inner hospital i see frame rates max of about 129 and drops into low 90s. And this is regardless of the number of players, map full or empty i still see the same numbers.
Still waiting for optimizations on the maps and stuff before i start asking for more slots. But i seriously would like some 20v20 action or something more than 12v12 at least because it could add a huge playability factor to the game.

=IK=Doba= · May 2016

I think we need to borrow Colt's gtx760

[ENG]Uni-Sol · May 2016

[Gen]Adzic wrote: »

I WANT 32 PLAYER.

Not sorry for caps.

Oopsie it looks like I quoted my own post, Oh well.. still not sorry.

.dcG-Colts^ · May 2016

=IK=Doba= wrote: »

I think we need to borrow Colt's gtx760

670. https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_670_Power_Edition/ Basically a Stock 680

because I know how to buy gpu's.

Sr.Gatilho · May 2016

I'm with Colts on this one,8v8 is something that should be tested,I don't think the community is big enough to 30 per side([TOS Violation] that's a lot,imagine all the revive screams),but maybe Lockdown wouid be fun with 60 players(!).(still bealive this map has potential with some changes)

(Beer_me)lobo · May 2016

army
squad 8-12
section/patrol 12-24
platoon 26-55
company 80-250

RedBaron64(ITA) · May 2016

Probably 16 vs 16 could be also good but i think this is not the problem. The problem is that we need more contents. New weapons, laser aim, attached torch, grenade launcher, smoke, suppressor and so on. More or less all the equipments of the special forces. And why not to introduce some outdated weapons?? I think that all sf equipments could be introduced in the game as 'prestige levels' or similar and not available to all but only for who gained some targets like an amount of hours played, hours in UMMs played (giving a boost to the UMMs) and so on. And not to forget more gamemode like VIP.

What about 30+ people per side?

Comments

Greetings!

Categories

Latest Discussions