40 Players Online Confirmed - Page 2

Evil_Paladin · 25-04-2009, 12:53 AM

If they get everything down and the netcode is good, no lag or little lag every once in a while. Have faith people!

M0t0rBreath89 · 25-04-2009, 01:06 AM

What would help the game not to lag? Better servers?

Evil_Paladin · 25-04-2009, 01:12 AM

I would say better servers and network coding but I am by far no expert.

rich7733 · 25-04-2009, 01:14 AM

yeah better servers will help

Shrapnellistic · 25-04-2009, 01:53 AM

Region specific servers for matchmaking would be the ideal solution.

M0t0rBreath89 · 25-04-2009, 01:55 AM

Thats the downside of consoles, you cant really choose what servers are good or bad. On PC, the good thing is that you can choose the servers closest to you with low pings, quality servers and forms tons of squads.

ScifiSpartan · 25-04-2009, 02:01 AM

I am just going to trust DICE, they know their consumers and they have barely failed me before.

M0D3RN_REPRR · 25-04-2009, 04:48 AM

40 players will be the Best thing to happen to this games multiplayer, if theres no lag of course, and theyll have to up the map sizes, ohh man i cant w8

Shrapnellistic · 25-04-2009, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M0t0rBreath89

Thats the downside of consoles, you cant really choose what servers are good or bad. On PC, the good thing is that you can choose the servers closest to you with low pings, quality servers and forms tons of squads.

All of that can be replicated on consoles. Counter-Strike on Xbox had a server list with pings (could turn one's own Xbox into a dedicated server), but most video games want to clone Halo 2's matchmaking and it's an easy decision for publishers/developers to choose that route since Microsoft provides Quick Skill matchmaking for X360 (which is fine in its own right). There's nothing wrong with the Quick Skill matchmaking, though a lot of you Europeans are hung up on latency issues so if I was a European I would be pestering DICE for a region lock matchmaking service that would identify each ISP information and throw you into European only rooms (I very much doubt that Bf:BC2 will have a server list service on consoles). I'm just fortunate enough to be living in North America where I can't relate to European's constant worry of lag issues (97% of my games on Bf:BC were lag free). If they did that then Peer 2 Peer for 40 players online would be lag free even without dedicated servers.

TheGoldenAce · 25-04-2009, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M0t0rBreath89

Thats the downside of consoles, you cant really choose what servers are good or bad. On PC, the good thing is that you can choose the servers closest to you with low pings, quality servers and forms tons of squads.

Yeah I don't know what you're talking about that's not a restriction to the PS3 or the 360.

ODA525 · 25-04-2009, 08:29 AM

exactly Modern combat 2 let you choose a room and it showed a connection strength to a specific server. That system was so much better than BC1's of just throwing you in a room and see what you get...... Lag fest

ODA525 · 25-04-2009, 08:34 AM

40 players on a map is alot for Gold rush but not for conquest style games. Conquest doesn't funnel everyone down 1 direction straight to a 20 man enemy dug in etc like gold rush did.

ebevan91 · 25-04-2009, 02:14 PM

Wait... if there is 40 for consoles, then how many for the PC?

Cowwie60 · 25-04-2009, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebevan91

Wait... if there is 40 for consoles, then how many for the PC?

Probably 40 unless that rumour about the pc version being able to handle 96 is true(which sounds doubtful).

DeroZero · 25-04-2009, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M0D3RN_REPRR

same here man 20v 20 ohh man if consoles dont get that and PCs do ill start having seroius 2nd thoughts about getting it.

Same here too. I'm not buying it for PC (If I don't get a new processor, my old is 1,8GHz) and if DICE puts PC players over console players... That'd suck.

jonneymendoza · 25-04-2009, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeroZero

Same here too. I'm not buying it for PC (If I don't get a new processor, my old is 1,8GHz) and if DICE puts PC players over console players... That'd suck.

no it wont suck. most console fans where fine with 24 players. now ask most pc fans if tehre happy with 24 players in a battlefield game and they will just laugh at you.

You lot dont realize who MADE dice popular and succesful. it wasnt you lot, it was PC users supporting and buying there pc games from back in the day THAT SUPPORTED 64 PLAYERS lag free.

dont cry at a potential bid to please pc users more then console users, they already pleased u more by NOT releasing bad company 1 on the pc in the first place.

About freaking time companies started paying more attention to there pc customers WHO made them who they are today

seriously this game is best played with 50+ players. get use to it, consoles are not as powerful as pc's. O and P2P is still the norm for console users while dedicated servers are used for most pc multiplayer games. THATS the issue here.

You will NEVER see a true battlefield game on the console because of the limited hardware and online infastructure has been implemented. Get use to it lads.

Shrapnellistic · 25-04-2009, 07:12 PM

I hate PC elitism so much.

FFigh · 25-04-2009, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shrapnellistic

I hate PC elitism so much.

Yup...

If they're going to use the same servers, then 40 is a no go. If the servers are new and/or the coding is better, bring it. I think 24 was good though, 64 on the PCs is great also...

RAMBO1stBL00D · 25-04-2009, 07:56 PM

If it is true that his will have 40 on a console then I really can't wait.

muzza18 · 25-04-2009, 09:50 PM

40 players on console will be quality and now its guarenteed im very happy. They must have sorted the servers out or else they wouldnt have said 40. People can say it wont work etc but you know fu** all.

jonneymendoza · 25-04-2009, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muzza18

40 players on console will be quality and now its guarenteed im very happy. They must have sorted the servers out or else they wouldnt have said 40. People can say it wont work etc but you know fu** all.

60 players works fine on resistance 2 but then again thats a PS3 ONLY game

M0D3RN_REPRR · 25-04-2009, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonneymendoza

no it wont suck. most console fans where fine with 24 players. now ask most pc fans if tehre happy with 24 players in a battlefield game and they will just laugh at you.

You lot dont realize who MADE dice popular and succesful. it wasnt you lot, it was PC users supporting and buying there pc games from back in the day THAT SUPPORTED 64 PLAYERS lag free.

dont cry at a potential bid to please pc users more then console users, they already pleased u more by NOT releasing bad company 1 on the pc in the first place.

About freaking time companies started paying more attention to there pc customers WHO made them who they are today

seriously this game is best played with 50+ players. get use to it, consoles are not as powerful as pc's. O and P2P is still the norm for console users while dedicated servers are used for most pc multiplayer games. THATS the issue here.

You will NEVER see a true battlefield game on the console because of the limited hardware and online infastructure has been implemented. Get use to it lads.

aww gawd here we go again, i went thru this EXACT same thing on the 1943 forums.

go look at 1943 Full game on the 1943 forums and ull see what i have to say back to all of u PC elietists that think the BF is only for PC.

but u all fail to relize ur nopt the only Big gamers any more

MA5T3RM1N3 · 25-04-2009, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonneymendoza

60 players works fine on resistance 2 but then again thats a ps3 only game

ps3, 360.
360, ps3.

KylieDog · 26-04-2009, 02:09 AM

40 players? Good. 24 isn't enough for Battlefield games with the large open maps and such.

For smaller infantry maps a lower number is ok.

ChiInFlames · 26-04-2009, 04:04 AM

now we only need more info on the vehicles and maps that come with 40 player matches.

25-04-2009, 01:14 AM	#29 (permalink)
rich7733 Forum Regular Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: USA, Southern California Age: 26 Posts: 946	yeah better servers will help __________________

25-04-2009, 08:29 AM	#36 (permalink)
ODA525 Rookie Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Ohio Age: 35 Posts: 431	exactly Modern combat 2 let you choose a room and it showed a connection strength to a specific server. That system was so much better than BC1's of just throwing you in a room and see what you get...... Lag fest __________________

25-04-2009, 08:34 AM	#37 (permalink)
ODA525 Rookie Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Ohio Age: 35 Posts: 431	40 players on a map is alot for Gold rush but not for conquest style games. Conquest doesn't funnel everyone down 1 direction straight to a 20 man enemy dug in etc like gold rush did. __________________

25-04-2009, 09:50 PM	#45 (permalink)
muzza18 Forum Guru Join Date: Jan 2009 Age: 20 Posts: 1,069	40 players on console will be quality and now its guarenteed im very happy. They must have sorted the servers out or else they wouldnt have said 40. People can say it wont work etc but you know fu** all. __________________ Play up Pompey

25-04-2009, 12:53 AM	#26 (permalink)
Evil_Paladin Forum Guru Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 1,137	If they get everything down and the netcode is good, no lag or little lag every once in a while. Have faith people!

25-04-2009, 01:06 AM	#27 (permalink)
M0t0rBreath89 Forum Guru Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,549	What would help the game not to lag? Better servers?

25-04-2009, 01:12 AM	#28 (permalink)
Evil_Paladin Forum Guru Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 1,137	I would say better servers and network coding but I am by far no expert.

25-04-2009, 01:53 AM	#30 (permalink)
Shrapnellistic Rookie Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 39	Region specific servers for matchmaking would be the ideal solution.

25-04-2009, 01:55 AM	#31 (permalink)
M0t0rBreath89 Forum Guru Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,549	Thats the downside of consoles, you cant really choose what servers are good or bad. On PC, the good thing is that you can choose the servers closest to you with low pings, quality servers and forms tons of squads.

25-04-2009, 02:01 AM	#32 (permalink)
ScifiSpartan Forum Guru Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: I am a gnome in your closet...fear me! / The States Age: 15 Posts: 1,017	I am just going to trust DICE, they know their consumers and they have barely failed me before.

25-04-2009, 02:14 PM	#38 (permalink)
ebevan91 Forum Regular Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Mississippi, USA Age: 19 Posts: 731	Wait... if there is 40 for consoles, then how many for the PC?

25-04-2009, 07:12 PM	#42 (permalink)
Shrapnellistic Rookie Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 39	I hate PC elitism so much.

26-04-2009, 02:09 AM	#49 (permalink)
KylieDog Forum Guru Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 1,041	40 players? Good. 24 isn't enough for Battlefield games with the large open maps and such. For smaller infantry maps a lower number is ok.

26-04-2009, 04:04 AM	#50 (permalink)
ChiInFlames Rookie Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The Great White North Posts: 123	now we only need more info on the vehicles and maps that come with 40 player matches.