Joint Ops 222 Player games!

[Beer]

FYI,

If you are on the beta or media test of Joint Ops, we ran a 222 player game last night over NovaWorld. The general feedback was positive, with only some of the more distant connections (Australia etc) encountering lag problems. We are trying for 250 players at 7pm PST tonight. If you are part of the media test, please feel free to log on and let me know your feedback.

Also, we ran a 100 player LAN game on Tuesday at the Nvidia GeForce event in San Francisco. Everyone was connected to the updated demo and it ran with no lag and no problems on all the machines. Our next step is to try 150 and 200 player LAN games on some specially created maps over the next few months.

[Ibbz]

I've connected to 100 player servers in the past, and had a bit of lag. But that isn't real surprising considering I'm on 56k and live in Australia. I noticed there was a 150 player server running last time I was playing, but everytime I tried to ping it, it timed out.

[Jafisob]

FYI,

If you are on the beta or media test of Joint Ops, we ran a 222 player game last night over NovaWorld. The general feedback was positive, with only some of the more distant connections (Australia etc) encountering lag problems. We are trying for 250 players at 7pm PST tonight. If you are part of the media test, please feel free to log on and let me know your feedback.

Also, we ran a 100 player LAN game on Tuesday at the Nvidia GeForce event in San Francisco. Everyone was connected to the updated demo and it ran with no lag and no problems on all the machines. Our next step is to try 150 and 200 player LAN games on some specially created maps over the next few months.

So when are you going to make mmo shooter like planetside? LOL. I actually prefer the more realistic shooters to sci fi shooters.

[Derek Meister]

But where did you find enough buildings to fit all the humvees into?

[mtkafka]

Lemee just say this game rocks. All naysayers can bite my ass. I play 100 player games regularly on Novaworld and they play SWELL!

etc

[Derek Meister]

I'd be content to stop makeing light of the game if so many of its fanboys would stop spamming IRC channels I'm in about how "realistic" the game is compared to every other shoot 'em up out there that involves real world weapons, historical or modern.

It's anything but realistic. Others may have fun, but the serious deficiencies in the world physics ruins the game for me, personally, along with the growing number of tactical advantages I've devised using exploited physics.

I do have to wonder about these 200+ player servers, simply because I tend to see more "deathmatch" action going on than large scale tactical combat on servers I've tried with anything approaching sixty or more players. At that point, the large numbers of soldiers just completely breaks down the illusion, for me anyway, simply because there's no real command and control.

Of course, you'll get that in any combat game that has no method of military rank and command with large teams.

[Beer]

I do have to wonder about these 200+ player servers, simply because I tend to see more "deathmatch" action going on than large scale tactical combat on servers I've tried with anything approaching sixty or more players. At that point, the large numbers of soldiers just completely breaks down the illusion, for me anyway, simply because there's no real command and control.

Of course, you'll get that in any combat game that has no method of military rank and command with large teams.

I think one of our real challenges is to get the general gamer away from 'lone wolf' style of gaming that is common in other titles such as BF and Unreal. We are trying to do something different with the fps genre and in this industry, trying something different aint always easy:)

One of the things we have in the game is a Commander screen (press V in game) that allows squads to elect a commander and for that commander to divide players into fireteams and give them orders. When this is combined with the squad features we are implementing on NovaWorld.com for the final game, I think you will begin to see more cohesive, tactical squad battles.

[Derek Meister]

Obviously I haven't seen the implementation of this in action, but I've always been kind of skeptical about games that include an "elect a commander" option, mostly because unlike real world promotions in rank, there really isn't any method of determining merit for that position other than a quick "eh, what the hell?" gut feeling and a quick push of the button.

What I mean by this is that unless you played with the person who's seeking the position enough to know whether they're competant, it's pretty much a dice toss as to whether the person is going to be a help or hindrance to the team. With small teams this isn't as bad as it could be, but with teams the size that a 200+ person server would allow, an inexperienced commander would do as much harm as having none at all, and the time to test out the worth of a commander may too long. At least, my patience would be tested, though that's hardly indicitive of other players.

What would be neat, though probably impossible to code in, would be some kind of stats tracker that would supply some kind of "gameplay effectiveness" that a player has had over their many game sessions that could be displayed during a voting period to help decide whether someone is a good choice for commander. Maybe even a "leadership" skill number based on previous experience as a commander based against how well his teams did under his command in all previous games.

Again, without having seen exactly how the actual implementation you guys have taken with this, I'm merely tossing out thoughts without basis here.

[mtkafka]

You can add as many RTS command and control interfaces and whatnut, but like always with the team fps games, people will play ad hoc. Derek's looking for something like Savage, where most players don't listen to the commander. Good luck finding that dream game Derek.

etc

[Derek Meister]

Actually, that was my original point: That players, in general, tend towards their own directions, and while this is okay during smaller matches, once you get into 200+ player territory, it quickly becomes random deathmatch instagib as bullets fly in every direction.

If you have 100 people on your team, your ability as an individual to accomplish any goal tends to be less as there are 99 other guys potentially accomplishing any task before you even get there. If bases keep getting captured prior to me even reaching them, I'm reduced to simply trying to take out enemy players, rather than doing that plus having a more direct impact on gameplay objectives.

Without any kind of directed tactics, too many players seems to be just as bad as too few, at least in my experience.

I agree with you that a complex tactical system really isn't a perfect fix for this, as it can quickly overwhelm an average player, who was voted in to the position for any number of random reasons, and will end up being just as useless as had there not been someone "in charge".

[mtkafka]

I'd love to play a methodical squad tactic oriented fps game that depended on intelligence and realism... but players are so far from that mentality... its like asking for real roleplayers in an mmrpg... a fantasy!

I do believe some developer somewhere (maybe Russia?!?) will make this game possible someday. As is, all you can hope is that these games support maps that funnel team oriented gameplay.

etc

[Pie4Foo]

I played in the early 100+ people tests, but missed the past few nights of 200+.

There is one dynamic in the game that may encourage team behavior. Transportation is a must in these large games, and there are plenty of helos to be found. In the beta (and in the demo), I've noticed players will happily board a large transport helo to skirt across the map and assault a large base. It's quite an experience to have 10 people onboard a chopper as it lands at an enemy base, miniguns blazing - it almost reminded me of PlanetSide's ten-man squads and the galaxy transports.

That may encourage team play more than any other factor can in this game.

[Derek Meister]

As people who've played multiplayer Battlefield 1942 will tell you, aircraft can be just as much a cause of team stress as they are of team unity, due to wannabe pilots fighting for who gets control and the team griefing that can result from it.

If anything, the helicopters as a requirement to reach other islands is more of a chokepoint dressed in a different form, rather than a teamplay enabler. It's more advanced that a long, narrow bridge with numerous sniper points that overlook it and which would require team players to provide cover and security while crossing, but it's still somewhat related.

Additionally, merely having a team together in one place is merely adequate tactics, whereas good tactical planning involves having a team together in the proper place at the proper time. That would require having a skilled pilot, though in a system where pilotage is determined by who gets to the aircraft first, you face the very same challenge as you do in picking a commander in that you simply won't know if someone's going to be effective in a position where they have some sense of control over you until a period of time after which things may have already been too screwed up to fix.