Public opinion

[ValorousBob]

Excuse me for being dumb here but I assume everyone will all be on the same server at the same time just like Eve but in a COD/BF style correct? So where as you could have a 32vs32 match in BF3 in Dust you may have 10k people online and have fights of 1000 vs 1000 or does it not work like that?

Naw it'll be just like BF basically. In one of the Fanfest videos they mentioned that they would have caps on the number of players per battle, but I'm not 100% sure what the cap was. I'm pretty sure it was lower than 32v32 though. What they haven't mentioned AT ALL is what happens when you can't find enough people to attack/defend for you. If I have 32 loyal Dust players working for my corp, and the enemy that I attack has 10 random dudes, how is that battle going to be structured? If you let corps with organized Dust groups steamroll anyone that can't match their numbers at their time of attack, some people are bound to get irritated. At the same time, making people wait for the defenders to rally before they can attack is fucking absurd in a sandbox game.

[Mike deVoid]

I asked about this and the response was that as a corp you will able to setup contracts for defense with whatever filters you like. So maybe you only let yourself and blues fight for you. Or maybe random pubbies too.

Also applies to out of TZ defense for places that you own.

I got the impression that this aspect of owning and defending/attacking them isn't built in yet, though hopefully is a requirement before commercial release.

[Traxio Nacho]

Excuse me for being dumb here but I assume everyone will all be on the same server at the same time just like Eve but in a COD/BF style correct? So where as you could have a 32vs32 match in BF3 in Dust you may have 10k people online and have fights of 1000 vs 1000 or does it not work like that?

Naw it'll be just like BF basically. In one of the Fanfest videos they mentioned that they would have caps on the number of players per battle, but I'm not 100% sure what the cap was. I'm pretty sure it was lower than 32v32 though. What they haven't mentioned AT ALL is what happens when you can't find enough people to attack/defend for you. If I have 32 loyal Dust players working for my corp, and the enemy that I attack has 10 random dudes, how is that battle going to be structured? If you let corps with organized Dust groups steamroll anyone that can't match their numbers at their time of attack, some people are bound to get irritated. At the same time, making people wait for the defenders to rally before they can attack is fucking absurd in a sandbox game.

I see, I was thinking if you could have 100 vs 100 knowing CCP the second someone went to fire lag would kick in and it would be like bullet time on May Payne I think most FPSer would get very irritated if they had to wait around for defenders to rally, can't really see them sitting around like in Eve for a POS for 4 hours waiting for something to happen

[Nax]

I think most FPSer would get very irritated if they had to wait around for defenders to rally, can't really see them sitting around like in Eve for a POS for 4 hours waiting for something to happen

It's going to be interesting to see what happens if a large eve alliance schedules 1000 simultaneous planet invasions at low peak hours in the hopes of not enough possible defenders being around to defend most of the battles.

[Sponk]

It's going to be interesting to see what happens if a large eve alliance schedules 1000 simultaneous planet invasions at low peak hours in the hopes of not enough possible defenders being around to defend most of the battles.

Just like Eve now? Everything gets reinforced.

[Nax]

It's going to be interesting to see what happens if a large eve alliance schedules 1000 simultaneous planet invasions at low peak hours in the hopes of not enough possible defenders being around to defend most of the battles.

Just like Eve now? Everything gets reinforced.

There's a reinforced mechanism for Dust? Do they have to fight the same battle twice to capture the planet then?

[Sponk]

Well, the devs said there would be 'something' that would stop timezone warfare.

[Mike deVoid]

I asked about this and the response was that as a corp you will able to setup contracts for defense with whatever filters you like. So maybe you only let yourself and blues fight for you. Or maybe random pubbies too.

Also applies to out of TZ defense for places that you own.

I got the impression that this aspect of owning and defending/attacking them isn't built in yet, though hopefully is a requirement before commercial release.

[Rakshasa The Cat]

What we know is that the current limit is 32v32 but is going to be aiming for up to 256v256. Optimization is not something they would focus on at this stage and with a few years of constant work they should be able to reach that target.

They've said that battles will be scheduled in order for the defender to muster a defense, and multiple battles will be possible simultaneously on a planet iirc. So taking over a planet is not just a reinforcement timer, it's will be a continuous process.

[ValorousBob]

What we know is that the current limit is 32v32 but is going to be aiming for up to 256v256. Optimization is not something they would focus on at this stage and with a few years of constant work they should be able to reach that target.

They've said that battles will be scheduled in order for the defender to muster a defense, and multiple battles will be possible simultaneously on a planet iirc. So taking over a planet is not just a reinforcement timer, it's will be a continuous process.

Yeah the second part I definitely remember being mentioned at Fanfest. Each battle is only for ownership of a "District" (or whatever objective you want I suppose) and they want each planet to have like 20 districts or something. I'd imagine you have to fight battles in at least 5 or more of the districts to take the whole planet. Having to take every single one would be a bit ridiculous, but it has to require more than one.

[Jack bubu]

What we know is that the current limit is 32v32 but is going to be aiming for up to 256v256. Optimization is not something they would focus on at this stage and with a few years of constant work they should be able to reach that target.

They've said that battles will be scheduled in order for the defender to muster a defense, and multiple battles will be possible simultaneously on a planet iirc. So taking over a planet is not just a reinforcement timer, it's will be a continuous process.

current limit is 24v24 actually

[Varcaus]

What we know is that the current limit is 32v32 but is going to be aiming for up to 256v256. Optimization is not something they would focus on at this stage and with a few years of constant work they should be able to reach that target.

They've said that battles will be scheduled in order for the defender to muster a defense, and multiple battles will be possible simultaneously on a planet iirc. So taking over a planet is not just a reinforcement timer, it's will be a continuous process.

current limit is 24v24 actually

Rakshasa is currently troll actually.

[Jack bubu]

What we know is that the current limit is 32v32 but is going to be aiming for up to 256v256. Optimization is not something they would focus on at this stage and with a few years of constant work they should be able to reach that target.

They've said that battles will be scheduled in order for the defender to muster a defense, and multiple battles will be possible simultaneously on a planet iirc. So taking over a planet is not just a reinforcement timer, it's will be a continuous process.

current limit is 24v24 actually

Rakshasa is currently troll actually.

damnit

[Marlona Sky]

I did enjoy that 256 player fire fight in MAG.

[Sponk]

I still dont' get how 32v32 is so hard to do.

I used to play 32v32 matches in Tribes 2 on a fucking 56k modem fifteen years ago.

[AniX72]

Excuse me for being dumb here but I assume everyone will all be on the same server at the same time just like Eve but in a COD/BF style correct? So where as you could have a 32vs32 match in BF3 in Dust you may have 10k people online and have fights of 1000 vs 1000 or does it not work like that?

24vs24 is confirmed by CCP, with vague information that 128vs128 tests were successful and eventually even more could be possible. Maybe this will come with a PS4 client?

Biggest mode in MAG was 128vs128 domination mode, with virtually no lag at launch and awesome ingame-chat system with lots of different comms and proximity chat. However, Zipper did have troubles with more weapons, vehicles and stuff because of the limited memory of PS3. After many patches and with less servers the situation got worse and I've experienced severe lag in that mode.

On the other hand, Battlefield 3 on PS3 has only 12vs12 at most (not 32vs32 as on PC), and even this low number often comes with more lags than MAG's domination mode today. I think the reason is the huge number of different weapons, and the destruction data to be kept in memory and to be sent over network, eating up low bandwidths.

24vs24 is still a little low, but I would think it is already large enough to get some epic feeling and do tactical team play. While on BF3 on large maps the 12vs12 often makes it a boring and frustrating "Walking Simulation 2012", my hope is that in DUST the doubled numbers together with better spawn system, maps and game play will make it more fun to play already at launch.

[Grideris]

CCP's current issue with raising the player count is not "what can we handle" so much as "is the gameplay still fun/does the gameplay still work?". So my guess is they'll crank it up to somewhere near 48-64 people and leave it at that. Most of the Ex-MAG players have said to me that they though that going 256 meant that most games devolved into zerg rushes on each side (though adding "actual" vehicles into the equation with DUST 514 might change that).

[Jack bubu]

CCP's current issue with raising the player count is not "what can we handle" so much as "is the gameplay still fun/does the gameplay still work?". So my guess is they'll crank it up to somewhere near 48-64 people and leave it at that. Most of the Ex-MAG players have said to me that they though that going 256 meant that most games devolved into zerg rushes on each side (though adding "actual" vehicles into the equation with DUST 514 might change that).

No, it is "what the PS3 can handle" nothing else

[Grideris]

CCP's current issue with raising the player count is not "what can we handle" so much as "is the gameplay still fun/does the gameplay still work?". So my guess is they'll crank it up to somewhere near 48-64 people and leave it at that. Most of the Ex-MAG players have said to me that they though that going 256 meant that most games devolved into zerg rushes on each side (though adding "actual" vehicles into the equation with DUST 514 might change that).

No, it is "what the PS3 can handle" nothing else

It's a combination of both. But at the moment, the limiting factor is them making sure it's still fun to play. This I heard from the mouth of a dev at Fanfest when I asked them. But right now any thoughts of upping the player count are on the back burner while they work on the core mechanics, so it's irrelevant in the immediate future.

[Qwert]

CCP's current issue with raising the player count is not "what can we handle" so much as "is the gameplay still fun/does the gameplay still work?". So my guess is they'll crank it up to somewhere near 48-64 people and leave it at that. Most of the Ex-MAG players have said to me that they though that going 256 meant that most games devolved into zerg rushes on each side (though adding "actual" vehicles into the equation with DUST 514 might change that).

No, it is "what the PS3 can handle" nothing else

It's a combination of both. But at the moment, the limiting factor is them making sure it's still fun to play. This I heard from the mouth of a dev at Fanfest when I asked them. But right now any thoughts of upping the player count are on the back burner while they work on the core mechanics, so it's irrelevant in the immediate future.

Yeah, imagine 64 player Metro conquest, then multiply the people by four.