64 players?

[DW_WailofSuicide]

Maybe people are having ons mismatch errors like namu had. Also the fact the server has been going down for unknown reasons isnt helping much. I think we still have our player base its just the weather has been nice lately.

I dont see why ut 07 cant support 64 players (q3 supported 64, hl2 supports 128). Imo it probally going to be a limited to what the user can handle, not the server.

i have to disagree with you hornet because if you know much about UT then you would know how much of a cpu hog it is. a 32 man server on its own box can have issues and unless UE3 is a lot better at managing its resources then a 64 man server would be absolutely horrible.

As a amatuer programmer i dont see how ons in itself is so cpu bound for the server. The client should also be more gpu bound. Especially with the client server relationship that exsists. Maybe its the additions of vehicles that kills the performance, becuase the concept of nodes and the core should not become such an issue for the server. I guess we can test that out in vctf.

It's not ONS that hogs the CPU, it's the physics associated with 32 people + vehicles + projectiles.

I haven't heard anything about the maximum player count being raised for UT2007. Personally I think they should keep it at 32p -- All the stock maps work okay with smaller numbers of people (ie, 6v6), but very few (maybe Dawn) work well with 32p. The problem would only get worse with 64p. I think there are some basic constraints on how large competitive play can get (good luck trying to organize even a 32p clan match) and on power of footsoldiers vs. vehicles (How fun would it be to play on Spam Vikings if there were an extra 16 guys on each team sitting back and shocking and avrilling any attackers into oblivion?).

[DW_KarmaKat]

Don't worry about the player base, Tox. I've been seeing everybody around lately, but it's holiday season. People go on vacation this time of year, y'know? Most people on cruises aren't going to be playing Unreal; they'll be back. Don't worry. :)

Besides, I've seen all of the regulars around, so who's missing? The clan has changed a bit, but I really don't see it being for the worse, in general The new guys are very strong players. :)

I'm with Purity on this one, Toxic...it is summer...lots of vacationers. Although some of those cruise folks are coming home sooner than they expected! (gads...38 degree heel over to port!! I'd rather continue to paddle my own canoe, as it were!) So don't despair..us crazy SVAs will still be here.

Of course...down here in Tejas we've been baking! 107 yesterday!! Talk about melting your shoes to the sidewalk! But..it's a really good reason to stay inside with the A/C and a fan and play!! :cheers:

KKat

[kaeolian]

I dont see any reason why there wont be 64 player compatablility there are loads of games with more than that number of people playing on a single server. Ok UT2k7 is going to want a hell of a lot more resources than the current UT, but thats what happens when new games are released they push the boundarys.

The multiplayer will support up to 64 players per server, though care has been taken to ensure that smaller numbers of players can still have fun on a server.

http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=25598

Thats the whole article im not sure how reliable it is, but a quick search on google shows that the majority of the gaming community agrees the game will be 64 player.

As for our community I'd say iv seem more lately of the SVA and DW members online plus a lot of regs who dont wear any tags, but like ppl have said its summer I know we only get about 1 months worth of sun here so we have to make the most of it lol.

[zeus]

I have not seen anything confirmed. The closest thing I have found is on planetunreal saying that the "warfare" gameplay will have 8 teams with maps 2-3 times of onslaught maps. Given that, teams of 4 gives you 32 players. Teams of 8 gives you 64 players.

.

i would like to see a link for where you got this information because if i recall there has never been anything said about Warfare being 8 teams of 4.

I was speculating on the number of members of teammates. 2 does not make any sense. What kind of game play is that? That is more like some Tom Clancy game. So, the next obvious number would be 4. That gives you a total of 32 players (4*8=32). Go up another 4 and you get 8 players per team for a total of of 64 players (8*8=64). If you went up to 16 players a team you would get 128 players, but I cannot see Epic pulling something like that out of their butts. Hell, I can get UnrealEd to crash on me all the time. In fact, I can get it to blue screen my XPsp2 box.

http://www.beyondunreal.com/main/ut2007/about.php

Players will join one of the eight teams, each with its own unique armour, and wage war across huge territories which change depending on which team is in control.

If you check out the unreal wiki (which is very unofficial), they mention 64 players, but that could have been written initially. I would not be surprised if Epic has backed off of those types of statements.

http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/wiki/UT2007

Client-server model supporting up to 64 players as provided. Also supports non-dedicated server (peer-to-peer mode) with up to 16 players.

[SweetTooth]

i dont think they mean 8 teams will be in game at once. i think they mean there will be something more like 8 factions that you can play as. similar to the teams they have in UT now. but i could be wrong. i will say however if they want 8 teams oon the field at once then it will definately not be competitive because that is just retarded and too chaotic.

[Namu]

I dunno what is meant by 8 teams, but I hope that the overall picture is A v B. Maybe within A and B there are 4 teams that act as individual millitary like units so to speak. So you have 4 teams workign for the same cause, but b/c of the new structure of this game mode you need to have roles in a small team or something.

[SweetTooth]

I dunno what is meant by 8 teams, but I hope that the overall picture is A v B. Maybe within A and B there are 4 teams that act as individual millitary like units so to speak. So you have 4 teams workign for the same cause, but b/c of the new structure of this game mode you need to have roles in a small team or something.

if they try to have squads i will kill every single person that works at Epic. This aint no WW2 bs. NO SQUADS!

[zeus]

I dunno what is meant by 8 teams, but I hope that the overall picture is A v B. Maybe within A and B there are 4 teams that act as individual millitary like units so to speak. So you have 4 teams workign for the same cause, but b/c of the new structure of this game mode you need to have roles in a small team or something.

if they try to have squads i will kill every single person that works at Epic. This aint no WW2 bs. NO SQUADS!

Now that you metion it, that may be what they are referring to. What is that game.... With all of the different positions... Where each position had different abilties.. Crap, can't think of it right now. I only played it a couple of times, but I think it was pretty massive multiplayer back in the late 90s. FPS...

So, you have A vs. B with different types of people like medics, engineers, soldiers, etc.

That does not sound like fun to me.. :D

[SweetTooth]

you are thinking of XMP. it was fun but meh not the best IMO.

[DW_WailofSuicide]

The "teams" are just the different groups within the tournament. Malcom leads Thundercrash. Brock leads the Iron Guard (I think). Xan leads The Corrupt, etc. This is nothing new.