DUST Search - is it time for 32 vs 32 ?

All Channels

General Discussions

is it time for 32 vs 32 ?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
HowDidThatTaste Imperfects Negative-Feedback 2242	Posted - 2013.01.17 20:27:00 - [1] - Quote I love the 5 point skirmish maps. But they feel so empty I believe these are set up for many more players per side perhaps 32 vs 32 these would be epic then these choke points and organized squads would have some real purpose. As of right now at 16 vs 16 the map are so huge you hardly see anyone until you see the blinking objective and by the time you get there they have moved to another objective.
KryptixX Imperfects Negative-Feedback 320	Posted - 2013.01.17 20:28:00 - [2] - Quote I'd be happy with 24 v 24. Either 4 or 6 man squads.
Sentient Archon Red Star. 690	Posted - 2013.01.17 20:33:00 - [3] - Quote More people for me to snipe . I hope they increase the max clone count though.
DEADPOOL5241 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 231	Posted - 2013.01.17 20:35:00 - [4] - Quote Agree with both of you. 24's or 32's would be awesome. I would not be surprised if next update we see these added.
Tbone322 D3ath D3alers RISE of LEGION 124	Posted - 2013.01.17 20:36:00 - [5] - Quote I doubt they'll increase size for the Open beta due to possible lag issues. That being said, I want 32v32 with 8 man squads. Those maps would be awesome to organize larger squads...
Noraa Anderson Nox Aeterna Security 184	Posted - 2013.01.17 20:37:00 - [6] - Quote Time for 256+1 vs 256+1, make it happen!
Free Beers Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 1029	Posted - 2013.01.17 20:40:00 - [7] - Quote Noraa Anderson wrote: Time for 256+1 vs 256+1, make it happen! Sorry but dust is tatical fps not zerg **** game so best not count on it being more then 32 as side. Ever.
Cyn Bruin Imperfects Negative-Feedback 651	Posted - 2013.01.17 20:44:00 - [8] - Quote Tbone322 wrote: I doubt they'll increase size for the Open beta due to possible lag issues. That being said, I want 32v32 with 8 man squads. Those maps would be awesome to organize larger squads... Winner.
BMSTUBBY KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 95	Posted - 2013.01.17 20:46:00 - [9] - Quote Sentient Archon wrote: More people for me to snipe . I hope they increase the max clone count though. Ahhhhh this explains everything. Sit on a hill with your epeen in your hand, pew pewin. LOL you pay to win you trihard.
Noraa Anderson Nox Aeterna Security 184	Posted - 2013.01.17 21:27:00 - [10] - Quote Free Beers wrote: Noraa Anderson wrote: Time for 256+1 vs 256+1, make it happen! Sorry but dust is tatical fps not zerg **** game so best not count on it being more then 32 as side. Ever. You can have a high number of players and keep the gameplay tactical. Zerging already happens anyway just look at any pub match.

KalOfTheRathi CowTek 168	Posted - 2013.01.17 22:32:00 - [11] - Quote No. Because right now a 16v16 with a fire fight, vehicles moving about and Dog Nose what else the result is always lag, skips, clipping, choppy animations, missed shots, kills that don't register and (sometimes) getting booted from the game with no rewards. Let's get 16v16 with a tight complex map that has constant fighting for thirty minutes (even 15) and not turn into a Real Bad Experience first. Then let them get 24v24 solid and we can talk again.
fahrenheitM Pro Hic Immortalis RISE of LEGION 212	Posted - 2013.01.17 22:34:00 - [12] - Quote Free Beers wrote: Noraa Anderson wrote: Time for 256+1 vs 256+1, make it happen! Sorry but dust is tatical fps not zerg **** game so best not count on it being more then 32 as side. Ever. The more people, the more tactical it gets, IMO.
fahrenheitM Pro Hic Immortalis RISE of LEGION 212	Posted - 2013.01.17 22:36:00 - [13] - Quote KalOfTheRathi wrote: No. Because right now a 16v16 with a fire fight, vehicles moving about and Dog Nose what else the result is always lag, skips, clipping, choppy animations, missed shots, kills that don't register and (sometimes) getting booted from the game with no rewards. Let's get 16v16 with a tight complex map that has constant fighting for thirty minutes (even 15) and not turn into a Real Bad Experience first. Then let them get 24v24 solid and we can talk again. Actually, for the most part the lag has improved to where I barely see it except from specific individuals. It has come a Loooooong way from just 2 months ago.
Telcontar Dunedain Imperfects Negative-Feedback 328	Posted - 2013.01.17 22:40:00 - [14] - Quote fahrenheitM wrote: KalOfTheRathi wrote: No. Because right now a 16v16 with a fire fight, vehicles moving about and Dog Nose what else the result is always lag, skips, clipping, choppy animations, missed shots, kills that don't register and (sometimes) getting booted from the game with no rewards. Let's get 16v16 with a tight complex map that has constant fighting for thirty minutes (even 15) and not turn into a Real Bad Experience first. Then let them get 24v24 solid and we can talk again. Actually, for the most part the lag has improved to where I barely see it except from specific individuals. It has come a Loooooong way from just 2 months ago. Vehicles still seem to be a major source of lag. Until they fix that the battle sizes are going to have to stay small.
fahrenheitM Pro Hic Immortalis RISE of LEGION 212	Posted - 2013.01.17 22:44:00 - [15] - Quote Telcontar Dunedain wrote: fahrenheitM wrote: KalOfTheRathi wrote: No. Because right now a 16v16 with a fire fight, vehicles moving about and Dog Nose what else the result is always lag, skips, clipping, choppy animations, missed shots, kills that don't register and (sometimes) getting booted from the game with no rewards. Let's get 16v16 with a tight complex map that has constant fighting for thirty minutes (even 15) and not turn into a Real Bad Experience first. Then let them get 24v24 solid and we can talk again. Actually, for the most part the lag has improved to where I barely see it except from specific individuals. It has come a Loooooong way from just 2 months ago. Vehicles still seem to be a major source of lag. Until they fix that the battle sizes are going to have to stay small. Is it with vehicles on the field or when in the vehicles? I haven't really noticed it too much since the wipe, even with vehicles on the field... I've not been inside vehicles at all the past week, hence the question.
Forlorn Destrier ZionTCD Legacy Rising 914	Posted - 2013.01.17 23:21:00 - [16] - Quote Noraa Anderson wrote: Time for 256+1 vs 256+1, make it happen! I see what you did there.
Forlorn Destrier ZionTCD Legacy Rising 914	Posted - 2013.01.17 23:22:00 - [17] - Quote Free Beers wrote: Noraa Anderson wrote: Time for 256+1 vs 256+1, make it happen! Sorry but dust is tatical fps not zerg **** game so best not count on it being more then 32 as side. Ever. Bad news - CCP has stated in they past that their goal is 128v128, and there are rumors of of 256v256 as well. Also, this game is going to be more strategic than tactical - a pilot in your MCC dropping supply depots, CRU's, and turrets where it most fits is about strategically arranging your assets, and you then plan your tactics around these strategic placements.
Ydubbs81 RND Ahrendee Mercenaries Legacy Rising 886	Posted - 2013.01.18 00:15:00 - [18] - Quote Only confirmations that I've seen are 24v24. I can deal with those numbers...however, the more players, the more epic. Grabbing those 3 close ass letters with 32v32 would be ridiculous rage and endless gunfire.
Fivetimes Infinity Immobile Infantry 1086	Posted - 2013.01.18 00:23:00 - [19] - Quote They need to improve frame rate before they start adding more people and vehicles to the mix.
Sgt Kirk ZionTCD Legacy Rising 347	Posted - 2013.01.18 00:36:00 - [20] - Quote Dude while we are at it can we add in wildlife? I want to shoot a alien moose.

Christ0pher Blair Deep Space Republic 34	Posted - 2013.01.18 00:48:00 - [21] - Quote BMSTUBBY wrote: Sentient Archon wrote: More people for me to snipe . I hope they increase the max clone count though. Ahhhhh this explains everything. Sit on a hill with your epeen in your hand, pew pewin. LOL you pay to win you trihard. Hey, whatever makes you sleep at night. Bring on the fresh meat.
Washlee UnReaL. 131	Posted - 2013.01.18 03:59:00 - [22] - Quote I heard 64 vs 64
Gunner Nightingale Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 215	Posted - 2013.01.18 04:23:00 - [23] - Quote I dont think it should be a one size fits all for all maps. Some maps should stay 16v16 or 24v24 and others should be somewhere b/w 32v32 or 64v64. Also if they increase squad size they need to add 625 WP(2500/4) requirement per person in sqaud past 4 players to balance oribitals.
DON RODIE II Deep Space Republic 168	Posted - 2013.01.18 05:14:00 - [24] - Quote they really need to make it 48 players now
DUST Fiend Immobile Infantry 1899	Posted - 2013.01.18 07:05:00 - [25] - Quote More people the better, but I don't know if they can handle it, the game still lags quite a bit sometimes, and we haven't even seen the influx of players yet.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1155	Posted - 2013.01.18 08:19:00 - [26] - Quote Forlorn Destrier wrote: Free Beers wrote: Noraa Anderson wrote: Time for 256+1 vs 256+1, make it happen! Sorry but dust is tatical fps not zerg **** game so best not count on it being more then 32 as side. Ever. Bad news - CCP has stated in they past that their goal is 128v128, and there are rumors of of 256v256 as well. Also, this game is going to be more strategic than tactical - a pilot in your MCC dropping supply depots, CRU's, and turrets where it most fits is about strategically arranging your assets, and you then plan your tactics around these strategic placements. They NEVER said anything about 128 vs 128 being their goal.... Nor rumors about 256 v 256.... I love how people state stuff without any source to back them up.... Only confirmation is 24 vs 24 being the largest battle "at launch" (CF david reid interview video in a game show last year) And, that they made tests with 128 players (as in 64 vs 64). CF Q&A session after FF 2012 keynote. I know, i asked the question. So it'd be best if people could check before spreading informations around with no actual truth in it But i agree it is time to go 24vs24 (open beta is pretty much launch after all). Hell, even on every maps. But it would need a raise of clone tickets.
NORIC verIV DUST University Ivy League 34	Posted - 2013.01.18 23:19:00 - [27] - Quote We already had matches with higher player counts a few iterations back. The game didnt run so well. Hopefully they can fix the problems and allow higher player counts in the future.
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. 2866	Posted - 2013.01.19 03:49:00 - [28] - Quote Squads upped to 6 members.
Mavado V Noriega SyNergy Gaming 2282	Posted - 2013.01.19 05:11:00 - [29] - Quote KryptixX wrote: I'd be happy with 24 v 24. Either 4 or 6 man squads.
Th3rdSun L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising 323	Posted - 2013.01.19 14:45:00 - [30] - Quote Laurent Cazaderon wrote: Forlorn Destrier wrote: Free Beers wrote: Noraa Anderson wrote: Time for 256+1 vs 256+1, make it happen! Sorry but dust is tatical fps not zerg **** game so best not count on it being more then 32 as side. Ever. Bad news - CCP has stated in they past that their goal is 128v128, and there are rumors of of 256v256 as well. Also, this game is going to be more strategic than tactical - a pilot in your MCC dropping supply depots, CRU's, and turrets where it most fits is about strategically arranging your assets, and you then plan your tactics around these strategic placements. They NEVER said anything about 128 vs 128 being their goal.... Nor rumors about 256 v 256.... I love how people state stuff without any source to back them up.... . What are you talking about? They absolutely did.As a matter of fact,they mentioned that they would steadily increase the player count to hopefully get to 514,and then hopefully beyond that.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.