16 people to start a private match!?

spacefox00 · 13-06-2009, 11:57 PM

Battlefield 1943 (OfficialBF1943) on Twitter

.......WHAT???

Quote:

Detail: Private Matches reserve a dedicated server for you & friends (or enemies) to play on, you must have 16 friends to start the server.

I understand them not wanting people boosting for trophies, BUT 16? That's 8 per team. C'mon! That just sucks...

Ronin0ni · 13-06-2009, 11:59 PM

thats to prevent people from sucking up a private server for just 4-8 people...

The private matches are basically for clan support.

Besides, have you ever played Conquest on BFBC with only 8 people? it's stupid boring.

16 is probably what they find as the minimum for fun factor

MA5T3RM1N3 · 14-06-2009, 12:00 AM

Clan matches...

Anyway maybe all of us (on the fourms) can start one and play together!!! (Xbox 360)

TheKl3an3r · 14-06-2009, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MA5T3RM1N3

Clan matches...

Anyway maybe all of us (on the fourms) can start one and play together!!! (Xbox 360)

Yeah and we should start allstar kamikaze pilot group. Want to join mastermine!

spacefox00 · 14-06-2009, 12:09 AM

*sigh*

Guess I won't be using Private Matches then. What a waste... Killzone 2 lets anybody start their own server with a maximum of 32 people, and a minimum of 2, with no lag whatsoever.

In 1943 the minimum should at LEAST be 10, or maybe even 8. Seems like 8 would be the perfect number. I can see it making it much more difficult for clans to hold clan matches, when each clan would need 8 people to agree to be on at that time for the match.

Oh, and I'm in no way saying KZ2 is better. After only 2 weeks of playing KZ2 online, I got bored and came back to BFBC. It just sucks that we need at least 16 people to start a private match. That'd be near impossible to organize.

TheKl3an3r · 14-06-2009, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacefox00

*sigh*

Guess I won't be using Private Matches then. What a waste... Killzone 2 lets anybody start their own server with a maximum of 32 people, and a minimum of 2, with no lag whatsoever.

In 1943 the minimum should at LEAST be 10, or maybe even 8. Seems like 8 would be the perfect number. I can see it making it much more difficult for clans to hold clan matches, when each clan would need 8 people to agree to be on at that time for the match.

Oh, and I'm in no way saying KZ2 is better. After only 2 weeks of playing KZ2 online, I got bored and came back to BFBC. It just sucks that we need at least 16 people to start a private match. That'd be near impossible to organize.

Yeah atleast they can make the maximum 12! 8 on 8 will get boring.

spacefox00 · 14-06-2009, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheKl3an3r

Yeah atleast they can make the maximum 12! 8 on 8 will get boring.

.....No comment... -_-

Leow5263 · 14-06-2009, 12:54 AM

they could of just made it so you could be host if you wanted to be, cos all i want to do on private servers is pretty much stuff arround, flying ect.

Ronin0ni · 14-06-2009, 01:08 AM

No... they couldn't You think they could fit the server hosting software into the 550mb download?

(psst the answer is no, they couldn't)

Also, peer 2 peer is limited to 16 players max, so I hear on 360 anyways.

Anyways, why do you need private matches? That's what I want to know....

they aren't going to tie up one of their servers so you and 1 friend can play sniper battle

vijx · 14-06-2009, 01:27 AM

I guess I have to remind you guys again....

ARCADE GAME!

MySights · 14-06-2009, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vijx

I guess I have to remind you guys again....

ARCADE GAME!

Don't know why but this made me LOL a fair bit

TheKl3an3r · 14-06-2009, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacefox00

.....No comment... -_-

No comment? I am saying 12 vs 12 would be better.

spacefox00 · 14-06-2009, 01:53 AM

*sigh*

It'd be nice to at least have it 4 vs 4. 8 vs 8 would be pretty hard to set up, no? Of course it'd be more fun with 8 vs 8, but it just seems like 8 minimum is the magic number. Maybe it's just me...

TheKl3an3r · 14-06-2009, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacefox00

*sigh*

It'd be nice to at least have it 4 vs 4. 8 vs 8 would be pretty hard to set up, no? Of course it'd be more fun with 8 vs 8, but it just seems like 8 minimum is the magic number. Maybe it's just me...

See 4 vs 4 minimum would work if you're not in a clan. 8 vs 8 wouldn't be hard if are in a clan to setup or have a lot of people on your buddy list that play everyday.

From a Clan standpoint it should be 12 vs 12 and keep the 8 vs 8 minimum.

spacefox00 · 14-06-2009, 05:37 AM

Exactly. Not everyone is in a clan. Sometimes people just enjoy playing with their buddies, but gathering 15 other friends to join you in a private match sounds kind of difficult, doesnt it?

And that's a great sig btw!

TheKl3an3r · 14-06-2009, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacefox00

Exactly. Not everyone is in a clan. Sometimes people just enjoy playing with their buddies, but gathering 15 other friends to join you in a private match sounds kind of difficult, doesnt it?

And that's a great sig btw!

Thanks on the sig! Yeah I get your point it would be a pain in the butt to gather that many people. You're right with the first post, they should make it smaller to allow people who want to get a friendly private match with friends going.

spacefox00 · 14-06-2009, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheKl3an3r

Thanks on the sig! Yeah I get your point it would be a pain in the butt to gather that many people. You're right with the first post, they should make it smaller to allow people who want to get a friendly private match with friends going.

No prob. Vector style right...?

And yessss. Thanks for agreeing. Thankfully someone sees my point, that for them common folk out there, it'd be near impossible to gather 15 friends at a single time to play a match. Plus, what if you managed to, but one of them had to leave? Would the match just end? I know that in BFBC people get kicked out of matches all the time, cause there's some sort of time limit that kicks you off if you don't do anything for a few minutes.

ARightTouch · 14-06-2009, 06:27 AM

Thats pretty gutting for me, if 8vs8 is the minimum i cant see the clan scene kicking off

Especially gutting for me i as i play in small clan normally just the 3 of us...obviously i werent expecting to be able to play a 3v3, but 4v4, 5v5 or even 6v6 as a minimum would have been ok.

I can see DICES reasons for this, to save resources and its understandable. Just a bit gutting

Stammy · 14-06-2009, 07:16 AM

The game would suck with smaller team numbers. No one would play it 4 vs. 4 or something anyway. Game's just 15 bucks and DICE have to pay all those servers with that money.

1Bryce1 · 14-06-2009, 07:39 AM

A 4v4 or even a 6v6 would be ridiculous and you would struggle to find each other on the map. Imagine 6v6 on Crossing Over in BC. Hopefully they set it up so that we can each easily invite friends to join, in order to reach the minimum requirement. The squad invite for BC is total lala for PS3 and a lot of invites fail, not to mention you have to exit a game to join or send a request. And only one person can invite friends to a squad.

davyg19788 · 14-06-2009, 01:59 PM

unlucky to the 15 people who play the ps3 online

Symonator · 14-06-2009, 02:31 PM

question answered,

DeusNK · 14-06-2009, 02:54 PM

actually it's more than I expected, I was surprised to hear that private matches were allowed. It's a good idea for clan games.
BUT I do see the other side too, why not have 4v4, 2142 used to resize the map for smaller numbers, so why not 1943?

DJSy Is right, people like us want to record stuff, and it'd be great having fan video's all over the net, great for viewers, great advertising for DICE.
The LEAST they (YOU DICE) could do, is release unranked server software to run on a pc/ps3/xbox, that the 1943 universe could connect to, and not have to worry about lag or number of players, all for closed matches/general fun.
KZ2 Has the ability BUILT in, and look at the success of that.
Very graphical game with brilliant network code.
Stop with the half hearted attepts DICE, and give us what we want for a change.
Also,allow us to run our own dedicated servers, ranked or unranked, takes the stress off EA servers and saves you money.

GordonVanDyke · 14-06-2009, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djsy2008

In light of this new evidence i might hold off to the pc game, i know alot of Ps3 gamers who also play PC are doing the same.

It seems they [DICE] go backwards, 16 players - what about people who just want to mess around with mates, record videos, generally not having to worry about the silly little people that ruin that sort of atmosphere because they don't know what your doing.

I mean what happens if 100 sets of 16 people all play private matches - what happens to the rest of the traffic? all get put on the remaining servers/instances - which i would assume is going to create lag from hell with limited servers.

I duno man, seems a very very very strange idea.. after all of the consoles complaining about the lack of friends options, i think u kinda didn't listen.

Guna have to debate console or pc now, might just get console to pass the time until PC release now, i could easily get 16 friends on a pc, but it be hard getting 16 all in the same timezone on a console.

You should of gone with p2p for friends matches so they can setup 2-16 players for fun.

I just don;t understand these limitations - this is why i debate "why do devs f-up console games" on my website

after 5 months of waiting - i am not looking forward to it as much now.

Arcade game or not, DICE knows this game is bigger than they imagined.. hmm.. i do feel dissapointed, can you tell!?
boooooooo.!

I expected a more knowledgeable post from you on this djsy. You of all people know what it takes from a tech side, Frostbite is not a simple fly by night engine that can P2P the kinda of data going on in the background. Name one P2P game out there doing what BFBC1 does! You can't because no other game does.

Now so everyone understands why we set a limit, these are DEDICATED SERVERS on the highest end hardware available that DICE pays for at no cost to YOU for a $15 game! Because WE PAY for them we have a budget and with that Budget can only rent so many servers giving us a set limit on the total (Business 101). That means each Trial server, Full Game Server, Coral Sea Server, and Private Match Server will take one of these servers from the grand total. A private match will use a 24 player no matter how many join it. So you better believe we're going to require a minimum amount of players using the server and not letting a few wasting it to muck about. That is the truth and facts.

FootFingers · 14-06-2009, 04:56 PM

i <3 you gordon. im glad that there is a minimum on these privite matches.

13-06-2009, 11:59 PM	#2 (permalink)
Ronin0ni Elite Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Cali. In the United States of No More Rights Posts: 8,960	thats to prevent people from sucking up a private server for just 4-8 people... The private matches are basically for clan support. Besides, have you ever played Conquest on BFBC with only 8 people? it's stupid boring. 16 is probably what they find as the minimum for fun factor __________________ In refute to almost EVERY complaint (save 2-3 maybe) about BFBC2: Adapt and overcome "The road to peace is paved in blood"

14-06-2009, 12:00 AM	#3 (permalink)
MA5T3RM1N3 Forum Guru Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Florida Gender: Male Posts: 1,283	Clan matches... Anyway maybe all of us (on the fourms) can start one and play together!!! (Xbox 360) __________________ Evil Voice Yes,yes, MW2 is out, bye,bye, little BFBC, see you when you mature to BFBC2. Evil Voice I'm the REAL Maniac, anyone else are imposters mwhahaha!

14-06-2009, 12:09 AM	#5 (permalink)
spacefox00 Forum Guru Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Sunshine State, US Age: 15 Gender: Male Posts: 1,209	sigh Guess I won't be using Private Matches then. What a waste... Killzone 2 lets anybody start their own server with a maximum of 32 people, and a minimum of 2, with no lag whatsoever. In 1943 the minimum should at LEAST be 10, or maybe even 8. Seems like 8 would be the perfect number. I can see it making it much more difficult for clans to hold clan matches, when each clan would need 8 people to agree to be on at that time for the match. Oh, and I'm in no way saying KZ2 is better. After only 2 weeks of playing KZ2 online, I got bored and came back to BFBC. It just sucks that we need at least 16 people to start a private match. That'd be near impossible to organize. __________________

14-06-2009, 01:08 AM	#9 (permalink)
Ronin0ni Elite Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Cali. In the United States of No More Rights Posts: 8,960	No... they couldn't You think they could fit the server hosting software into the 550mb download? (psst the answer is no, they couldn't) Also, peer 2 peer is limited to 16 players max, so I hear on 360 anyways. Anyways, why do you need private matches? That's what I want to know.... they aren't going to tie up one of their servers so you and 1 friend can play sniper battle __________________ In refute to almost EVERY complaint (save 2-3 maybe) about BFBC2: Adapt and overcome "The road to peace is paved in blood"

14-06-2009, 01:27 AM	#10 (permalink)
vijx Forum Guru Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: A post-apocolyptic underground command center Gender: Male Posts: 1,521	I guess I have to remind you guys again.... ARCADE GAME! __________________ Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time

14-06-2009, 12:54 AM	#8 (permalink)
Leow5263 Rookie Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 112	they could of just made it so you could be host if you wanted to be, cos all i want to do on private servers is pretty much stuff arround, flying ect.

14-06-2009, 01:53 AM	#13 (permalink)
spacefox00 Forum Guru Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Sunshine State, US Age: 15 Gender: Male Posts: 1,209	sigh It'd be nice to at least have it 4 vs 4. 8 vs 8 would be pretty hard to set up, no? Of course it'd be more fun with 8 vs 8, but it just seems like 8 minimum is the magic number. Maybe it's just me... __________________

14-06-2009, 05:37 AM	#15 (permalink)
spacefox00 Forum Guru Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Sunshine State, US Age: 15 Gender: Male Posts: 1,209	Exactly. Not everyone is in a clan. Sometimes people just enjoy playing with their buddies, but gathering 15 other friends to join you in a private match sounds kind of difficult, doesnt it? And that's a great sig btw! __________________

14-06-2009, 06:27 AM	#18 (permalink)
ARightTouch Rookie Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 32	Thats pretty gutting for me, if 8vs8 is the minimum i cant see the clan scene kicking off Especially gutting for me i as i play in small clan normally just the 3 of us...obviously i werent expecting to be able to play a 3v3, but 4v4, 5v5 or even 6v6 as a minimum would have been ok. I can see DICES reasons for this, to save resources and its understandable. Just a bit gutting

14-06-2009, 07:16 AM	#19 (permalink)
Stammy Rookie Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 57	The game would suck with smaller team numbers. No one would play it 4 vs. 4 or something anyway. Game's just 15 bucks and DICE have to pay all those servers with that money.

14-06-2009, 07:39 AM	#20 (permalink)
1Bryce1 Forum Junkie Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: "SF Bay Area" San Jose, California Gender: Male Posts: 2,800	A 4v4 or even a 6v6 would be ridiculous and you would struggle to find each other on the map. Imagine 6v6 on Crossing Over in BC. Hopefully they set it up so that we can each easily invite friends to join, in order to reach the minimum requirement. The squad invite for BC is total lala for PS3 and a lot of invites fail, not to mention you have to exit a game to join or send a request. And only one person can invite friends to a squad. __________________ PSN: x1BrYcE1x Join PS3 Beta Group Last edited by 1Bryce1; 14-06-2009 at 07:46 AM..

14-06-2009, 01:59 PM	#21 (permalink)
davyg19788 Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 3,097	unlucky to the 15 people who play the ps3 online

14-06-2009, 02:31 PM	#22 (permalink)
Symonator Forum Guru Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: UK Gender: Male Posts: 1,661	question answered, __________________ XBL: Symon4tor \| PSN: Symonator \| Xfire: S0undd SCEE Closed Beta Tester Last edited by Symonator; 15-06-2009 at 05:52 PM..

14-06-2009, 02:54 PM	#23 (permalink)
DeusNK Rookie Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: In a House? Stupid Question. Gender: Male Posts: 196	actually it's more than I expected, I was surprised to hear that private matches were allowed. It's a good idea for clan games. BUT I do see the other side too, why not have 4v4, 2142 used to resize the map for smaller numbers, so why not 1943? DJSy Is right, people like us want to record stuff, and it'd be great having fan video's all over the net, great for viewers, great advertising for DICE. The LEAST they (YOU DICE) could do, is release unranked server software to run on a pc/ps3/xbox, that the 1943 universe could connect to, and not have to worry about lag or number of players, all for closed matches/general fun. KZ2 Has the ability BUILT in, and look at the success of that. Very graphical game with brilliant network code. Stop with the half hearted attepts DICE, and give us what we want for a change. Also,allow us to run our own dedicated servers, ranked or unranked, takes the stress off EA servers and saves you money. __________________ http://www.mess-hall.co.uk/forum/ My HD Youtube Collection

14-06-2009, 04:56 PM	#25 (permalink)
FootFingers Forum Junkie Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: In the Mountains. Age: 19 Gender: Female Posts: 3,915	i <3 you gordon. im glad that there is a minimum on these privite matches.