TheGroundsKeeper Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 The game is up and running and so far it has been a blast. Today you guys capped the games at 40players wich i feel has crippled the fun slightly. So.. How far are you guys from realizing the old 100+ player games? Quote
greanthai420 Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 (edited) The more the merrier, I agree there should be a way to make server with more than default number of players. EDIT: Also there should be a server option to adjust credit income so we wont be seeing 10 mammoths for eternity. Edited February 27, 2014 by Guest Quote
SFJake Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 I personally don't care for THAT much, but I just want 64 back, I hope they can fix it soon enough. 64 is actually necessary for Lakeside and Goldrush IMO. Quote
DoctorB0NG Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 64 vs 64 on Field sounds like an absolute nightmare. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot (3.048 meter) pole. Quote
TheGroundsKeeper Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 Dont diss it before you try it, i loved the 127 player games in the old ren But if you dont like it ofc you can just join a smaller server, i totalllyrespect that That is the beauty of choice.! Quote
Noodlesocks Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 I imagine this is more an issue for server hardware and networking than it is about the game itself. Personally I find 7v7 - 12v12 to be the sweet spot though =) Quote
Soldieroffate Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 64 vs 64 on Field sounds like an absolute nightmare. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot (3.048 meter) pole. I welcome it. Plenty of things to shoot at both in the field and tunnels...but I can't say the same thing about the horrendous lag that may come with it... Quote
TotemAatz Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 64 vs 64 on Field sounds like an absolute nightmare. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot (3.048 meter) pole. Imagine that airstrike kill kill point kill kill point kill kill point kill kill point kill kill point kill kill point kill kill point kill kill point kill kill point kill kill point Quote
Alkaline Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 unless they can get the dedicated server to use more than 1 cpu core this isn't going to happen, on my Dual Quad 3.06 ghz Xeon server I'm only using 1 core and its maxing out already... So we need to figure out how to get more CPU cores running, then yeah a Stupid big map with Tripple Obelisks dual power plants e.t.c. than maybe you can have a 64 vs 64 game Quote
Evono Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 unless they can get the dedicated server to use more than 1 cpu core this isn't going to happen, on my Dual Quad 3.06 ghz Xeon server I'm only using 1 core and its maxing out already...So we need to figure out how to get more CPU cores running, then yeah a Stupid big map with Tripple Obelisks dual power plants e.t.c. than maybe you can have a 64 vs 64 game it could be that you cant add more as 1 core to the server Programm... saw this already at other games ( Natural selection 2 named ) Because of Software and source Boundaries Quote
Sgt_Jack Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 theclash150 wrote:64 vs 64 on Field sounds like an absolute nightmare. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot (3.048 meter) pole.Imagine that airstrike kill kill point kill kill point kill kill point kill kill point kill kill point kill kill point kill kill point kill kill point kill kill point kill kill point Dude I totally get you. 64 player was already a lot for that dynamic game. And it streached out in game players list behind the borders of my resolution x D (1366x768) I found 40 players game just perfect. 42 looks nice : ) Quote
TheGroundsKeeper Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 Well i asked it because the old renegade supported it, and i knew alot of people who found it awesome(Me included). I hope they get the last bits sorted out so the big games can become a reality again, in was yet another thing that made renegade stand out from the crowds Quote
CrimsonTemplar Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 I am afraid to have to tell you GroundsKeeper but since Renegade X was built in UDK, then it's unlikely we'll see 128 player matches as UDK has a hard-cap of 64 'human' players. You can go up to as far as 256 with bots but the hard-limit of human players is at 64. Attempting to circumvent it, I have heard (not with Renegade x but with other games using Unreal 3), results in net-coding and latency issues . But I do agree with you, it would be sight to behold. Quote
TheGroundsKeeper Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 I am afraid to have to tell you GroundsKeeper but since Renegade X was built in UDK, then it's unlikely we'll see 128 player matches as UDK has a hard-cap of 64 'human' players. You can go up to as far as 256 with bots but the hard-limit of human players is at 64. Attempting to circumvent it, I have heard (not with Renegade x but with other games using Unreal 3), results in net-coding and latency issues .But I do agree with you, it would be sight to behold. Yea i heard the devs talking about that, but a man can dream Quote
Cyridius Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Unreal probably can't support a 128 player game with any form of stability or reasonable performance for the average player. It's possible to implement, but ultimately would not be worth it. Not to mention most of these maps probably wouldn't be able to handle it anyways. It just wouldn't be efficient use of dev time to work on it. Quote
CrimsonTemplar Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 I am afraid to have to tell you GroundsKeeper but since Renegade X was built in UDK, then it's unlikely we'll see 128 player matches as UDK has a hard-cap of 64 'human' players. You can go up to as far as 256 with bots but the hard-limit of human players is at 64. Attempting to circumvent it, I have heard (not with Renegade x but with other games using Unreal 3), results in net-coding and latency issues .But I do agree with you, it would be sight to behold. Yea i heard the devs talking about that, but a man can dream Oh believe me kind sir, I have no desire to rob you of that dream . Quote
TheGroundsKeeper Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 Unreal probably can't support a 128 player game with any form of stability or reasonable performance for the average player. It's possible to implement, but ultimately would not be worth it. Not to mention most of these maps probably wouldn't be able to handle it anyways. It just wouldn't be efficient use of dev time to work on it. Well i dissagree on that, it was the best games for me and the core of my renegade experience, but if it is not possible it is not possible. But if it is possible it should be looked into when all the bugs has been sorted out. And i can agree on that balancing out airstrikes and fixing rubberbanding tanks it a tad more important as of now, since this is gamebreaking issues that needs to be adressed first. Quote
AkillerNXC Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 Fuck 64 players is way to much as it is. Performance of the game turns to shit at that many players Quote
TheGroundsKeeper Posted February 28, 2014 Author Posted February 28, 2014 Fuck 64 players is way to much as it is. Performance of the game turns to shit at that many players Well i have a flat 62 frames at all times, no one says you should join a big server if you dont like it, but for people with no fps issues and who like bigger the challanges the big games gives, it would be nice, as of now you can choose to join a small game, but i cannot choose to join a big one. Quote
delta78 Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 Wouldn't it be too overcrowded? I mean the maps are not big enough to support 64, in my opinion, but 128? Darn! There needs to be space for maneuvering, or it will be just a meat grinder, which I'm not a fan of. Quote
TheGroundsKeeper Posted February 28, 2014 Author Posted February 28, 2014 Wouldn't it be too overcrowded? I mean the maps are not big enough to support 64, in my opinion, but 128? Darn! There needs to be space for maneuvering, or it will be just a meat grinder, which I'm not a fan of. Depends on what type of game you fancy, the infantry fights on maps like island goes to epic proporsions in the tunnels. Ive seen the best coordinated attacks and teamplay ever in any game ever in theese games, 5x Sbh nukes at the same time on top of a 15x flamerush? -->128player games. 7x APC rush full of hotwires= --> 128player games again. 30-40x infantry rush on the obelisk of light --> 128players... Insane gunner rushes. The massive games has been by far the most fun i ever had in any fps. <3 Quote
Afevis Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 Imagine all the tracers... oh god yes. Quote
wolfrikku Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 Imagine all the tracers...oh god yes. Better yet all the boinks. Quote
goztow Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 Imagine all the airstrikes... i prefer not to. Quote
wolfrikku Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 Imagine all the airstrikes... i prefer not to. It would still be better then the beacons... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.