| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Traxis Prime
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
1
   |
Posted - 2012.08.26 12:25:00 -
[1] - Quote
I really hope this game gets a very large Player Count per match. I mean it's called a MMOFPS and it's only small in the beta, but it would be great for a equal or larger player count the the PS3 Game MAG by zipper interactive. |
Lazarus Solo
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
66
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 12:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
I seriously doubt they could pull off 256 players in a game like this, but ofcourse it would be great if they could. I'm hoping for at least 64. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 12:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
they said they interanlly tested 64 to 64 the slight problem is they havent designed a game to account for 64 players, I mean cmon what if one team have 5 sagaris? You wouldnt wnat that then again 20 forge gunners would make those 5 sagaris useless.
This would also signiticantly raise the cost of the big picture game expotentiallly.
Current estimates are placing 4 billion per planetary invasion that is with 100% win rate. you double that to 64 players and that becomes 8 billion a deployment 128 ect ect you get the idea. 256 would be 32 billion in deployment thus it becomes of war of who has the fattest wallet. |
theschizogenious
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
167
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 14:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
if one team worked better and did enough rezzing and the such they would be able to pull it off with far less of a cost to their corp wallet plus the high cost if it gets to be that high would mean that you would need to make some good money off a planet in order fo the invasion to be worth it.
and theyve already succesfully tested a 64v64 match ups and for the size of the maps that they want to bring to life anything smaller than that would cause huge lulls in the fighting which wouldnt be really realistic or fun if you wanted to join a huge fight with plenty of vehicles and infantry causing all kinds of mayhem with explosions and all manners o fun happening everywhere you look. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 23:48:00 -
[5] - Quote
These estimates where based off 0.5 year progress results of 4x multiplier exp and isk helping out supply the massive amount of gear to simulate two well fitted armies duking it out.
Then refactored with new prices on market currently vs the estimated price projection arc.
If two allaince armies of near equal skill where to smash each other the bare minium cost of an invasion with current sizes would be around 4 billion. This includes the estimated cost of the warbarge and MCCs. Remember in null sec game players have to provide all the resources, players are not 'automatically' paid like they are now in contracts provided by NPCs. So there is no 'buffering' the costs down paying the soliders, thier lost equipment, thier new bodies and the new facilities is expected to be high per map. |
Encharrion
L.O.T.I.S.
Legacy Rising
104
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 00:13:00 -
[6] - Quote
I'm pretty sure they are going for at least 128 players as the maps will be 5km x 5km, 64 players would just be too few for the map. |
TiMeSpLiT--TeR
Planetary Response Organisation
Test Friends Please Ignore
326
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 00:28:00 -
[7] - Quote
I heard that all battles are actually happening in planet. It might be 16 vs 16, but you can actually see other battles of 16 vs 16 on overview map. For what I understand on the fan fest. |
Mavado V Noriega
SyNergy Gaming
2283
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 00:57:00 -
[8] - Quote
Traxis Prime wrote:I really hope this game gets a very large Player Count per match. I mean it's called a MMOFPS and it's only small in the beta, but it would be great for a equal or larger player count the the PS3 Game MAG by zipper interactive.
i hope it doesnt go over 64v64 for alliance type wars tbh
some districts that really important on the planet like the SCC and SKyfire battery districts could be like 64v64 and the other districts be 32v32
i rather the game not just get dumbed down to giant zerg rushes cuz idc what anyone says but the bigger the numbers get the less tactics actually take place and the more bs chaos and just piling a zerg rush to an objective comes into play
would rather the game take tactics and skill let the numbers game be decided on who can occupy more districts simulataneously |
Saiibot
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
142
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 03:32:00 -
[9] - Quote
Traxis Prime wrote:I really hope this game gets a very large Player Count per match. I mean it's called a MMOFPS and it's only small in the beta, but it would be great for a equal or larger player count the the PS3 Game MAG by zipper interactive.
I think they meant the mmo portion will only be with EvE integration and interaction. They'll be no massive multiplayer count as far as dust 514 the fps is concerned. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
1216
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 04:03:00 -
[10] - Quote
Mavado V Noriega wrote:Traxis Prime wrote:I really hope this game gets a very large Player Count per match. I mean it's called a MMOFPS and it's only small in the beta, but it would be great for a equal or larger player count the the PS3 Game MAG by zipper interactive. i hope it doesnt go over 64v64 for alliance type wars tbh some districts that really important on the planet like the SCC and SKyfire battery districts could be like 64v64 and the other districts be 32v32 i rather the game not just get dumbed down to giant zerg rushes cuz idc what anyone says but the bigger the numbers get the less tactics actually take place and the more bs chaos and just piling a zerg rush to an objective comes into play would rather the game take tactics and skill let the numbers game be decided on who can occupy more districts simulataneously
I really don't understand why this opinion of large player counts removing tactics is so prevalent. |
|
|
Mavado V Noriega
SyNergy Gaming
2283
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 04:12:00 -
[11] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Mavado V Noriega wrote:Traxis Prime wrote:I really hope this game gets a very large Player Count per match. I mean it's called a MMOFPS and it's only small in the beta, but it would be great for a equal or larger player count the the PS3 Game MAG by zipper interactive. i hope it doesnt go over 64v64 for alliance type wars tbh some districts that really important on the planet like the SCC and SKyfire battery districts could be like 64v64 and the other districts be 32v32 i rather the game not just get dumbed down to giant zerg rushes cuz idc what anyone says but the bigger the numbers get the less tactics actually take place and the more bs chaos and just piling a zerg rush to an objective comes into play would rather the game take tactics and skill let the numbers game be decided on who can occupy more districts simulataneously I really don't understand why this opinion of large player counts removing tactics is so prevalent.
1. console players
2. organising large grps in a fps
3. whats easier to do? ask urself this....play "tactically" and have strats or just zerg an objective and over run it with numbers?
MAG was all zerg rushing little actual tactical play, came down to which team had the better killers and thats poor
Ive done BF3 clan matches and we have beaten teams that had better "killers" than us but because of how maps and player count are tactics > zerg rushing
u can already see in the pub games here on DUST that zergin will already be a big tactic and with MAG clans all flockin to it they mainly zerg anyway |
TiMeSpLiT--TeR
Planetary Response Organisation
Test Friends Please Ignore
326
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 04:27:00 -
[12] - Quote
The game is lacking of consistent confrontation. The maps are way big for 32 players. Also, sometimes there are 5 objectives in a battlefield which spreads the players more.
MAG was well balance for 64 players. Two obejctives: A and B. 16 vs 16 on A, 16 vs 16 on B. 32 vs 32 for Final showdown on C if it's unlock .
In Dust 514, B and C objectives are at the middle. A, D, and E objectives are around A and B objectives. This causes to break the group, instead of staying together. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |