Tribes In 1998 Supported 128 Players

[BuzzCutPsycho]

Why are we limited to only 12v12? This looks like Ascend. Are you going to be chasing the esports/streamer crowd that you'll never steal from the already popular titles that have them, or are you trying to make a genuine Tribes game, which would, if made similarly to the original, be a unique shooter title.

[ManCannon]

Didn't Vengeance also only support a small amount of players?

I've always preferred more intimate games myself but I can understand how the folks who are diehard Tribes 1 and 2 guys would be bummed.

I played and enjoyed both Vengeance and Ascend so I feel right at home with this one. Of course, the question then becomes: what is different enough about this one that's not going to see it meeting the same fate as T:V and T:A? The landscape has changed, but it hasn't changed so much that this style of game isn't extremely niche.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

1 and 2 were the pinnacle of the franchise. Large scale combined arms warfare. Everything else was painfully generic. It is as if the only thing from Tribes they remember or care about is skiing and spin fusors. How silly.

[Jorkkeli]

There aren't enough people interested in Tribes to fill a 128 player server.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

If it was made for it there sure would be. Scale has an appeal all of it's own. Battlebit did it and it looks like ♥♥♥♥.

[ManCannon]

You're wrong. Tribes does not have the cache to garner that kind of interest.

Battlebit capitalized off the failure of recent Battlefield games and it's also a modern military shooter which is all the rage.

Tribes is a sci-fi IP only known by oldheads with advanced movement mechanics. It doesn't have instant appeal at all.

The devs are targeting the player count that might actually achieve. And even that they're going to have to get really lucky and the game will have to be firing on all cylinders when it launches.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

I'm right. Enjoy your dead game masquerading as Tribes.

But from one "old head" to another.

You're gay.

[DustyMachine]

Dec to now with T3 playtests.
Dec.8th peak 1491 players.
Dec.15th peak 683 players.
Jan.5th peak 843 players.
Jan.12th peak 674 players.
Jan.19th peak 654 players, bonus read of players post patch 455 players as of 23:00 UTC.

This doesn't mean much but the point.. they have had enough this whole time to really get some idea on server usage and player number to do large scale warfare.
So right there.. "there isn't enough players to fill 128 matches" is completely debunked.. I wonder how many people come from the old days expect the minimum of 16vs16 or at least the 32vs32 and are met with disappointment. Again chaos sells. Battlebit fine example but that game is just ugly and they play it. All I see is Ascend 2.0 and the falling margins that went through.
So why with the small scale and low player 5v5, 7v7 even 12vs12

[m]

Originally posted by BuzzCutPsycho:

1 and 2 were the pinnacle of the franchise. Large scale combined arms warfare. Everything else was painfully generic. It is as if the only thing from Tribes they remember or care about is skiing and spin fusors. How silly.

I think Planetside 1 and 2 fulfill the legacy of Tribes. Combined arms massive sci-fi battles.

This is almost a spinoff genre where the most important part of the game is deemed to be the jetpack and speed, rather than the combined arms team battle nature of what was originally built.

What's crazier is we played those 128 player servers hosted by some guy who was just spending the bandiwdth cost for free because there was no way to monetize private servers in Tribes and people just thought it was fun and wanted to host their own.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

I am very familiar with PS1 and the abortion known as PS2 I assure you. But you nailed it, they forgot combined arms totally and only focused on the most banal base level ♥♥♥♥ like spin fusors and speed.

[A Full Cup Of Coffee]

Originally posted by ManCannon:

You're wrong. Tribes does not have the cache to garner that kind of interest.

Battlebit capitalized off the failure of recent Battlefield games and it's also a modern military shooter which is all the rage.

Tribes is a sci-fi IP only known by oldheads with advanced movement mechanics. It doesn't have instant appeal at all.

The devs are targeting the player count that might actually achieve. And even that they're going to have to get really lucky and the game will have to be firing on all cylinders when it launches.

Don't be so eager to set the bar for what Tribes can achieve so low. There's nothing a game could do 20 years ago that couldn't be done now. The most important factor for a game is if it's fun in it's own right. Not which games coattails you think it's riding. If you think it's impossible to fill a 128 player server you effectively think the game is DOA.

As someone who got into Tribes with Ascend, larger servers than even Battlefield is the biggest feature I think I missed out on. I would hope for a return of that feature for something titled Tribes 3. But I imagine it's difficult engineering to get 128 player servers to be smooth. I'm not sure this small Hi-Rez side project is going to do more than what can be done with the Unreal engine editor UI.

[m]

Originally posted by BuzzCutPsycho:

I am very familiar with PS1 and the abortion known as PS2 I assure you. But you nailed it, they forgot combined arms totally and only focused on the most banal base level ♥♥♥♥ like spin fusors and speed.

I debated qualifying PS2, but I think the light assault jetpack actually brings it back toward Tribes compared to just having Vanu MAX be able to fly. With that said, VS max emerald player, PS1 was clearly the better game. We even got the full Starsiege crossover with BFR HERCs at the end :)

Edit: I'm actually suddenly remembering I know you. You were TR! I was a nobody, but I remember you. I think you were early in the beta too right?

[ManCannon]

Originally posted by DustyMachine:

Jan.19th peak 654 players

The hilarious thing is you think this is proving your point but you're actually proving mine.

If you request access to this playtest you get in right away; this is not some exclusive thing. They're barely able to get 1000 people playing despite that.

650 players in this current playtest? That's enough to fill what, five games with 128 players maximum at peak hours?

Do you know what you call a multiplayer shooter that has less than 1,000 players during peak hours and a paltry five games going at one time?

Dead on Arrival.

Yeah, they might get a core group of diehards who will play and play and play in those five 128 player matches at peak hours, but to get a multiplayer shooter off the ground these days you need engagement from all regions and all timezones.

How many people were playing this at say, 4 AM EST this morning? Hell, let me go check.

132.

Guess how many were playing a couple hours later?

103. Not even enough to fill your one 128 player server.

But hey, at 12v12 that's probably five games being played. More games being played means more engagement.

Like, I'm sorry, I know you guys like Tribes and I like it too, but it just doesn't have the juice to do a 128 player game these days.

[Xzeno]

Originally posted by ManCannon:

Originally posted by DustyMachine:

Jan.19th peak 654 players

The hilarious thing is you think this is proving your point but you're actually proving mine.

If you request access to this playtest you get in right away; this is not some exclusive thing. They're barely able to get 1000 people playing despite that.

650 players in this current playtest? That's enough to fill what, five games with 128 players maximum at peak hours?

Do you know what you call a multiplayer shooter that has less than 1,000 players during peak hours and a paltry five games going at one time?

Dead on Arrival.

Yeah, they might get a core group of diehards who will play and play and play in those five 128 player matches at peak hours, but to get a multiplayer shooter off the ground these days you need engagement from all regions and all timezones.

How many people were playing this at say, 4 AM EST this morning? Hell, let me go check.

132.

Guess how many were playing a couple hours later?

103. Not even enough to fill your one 128 player server.

But hey, at 12v12 that's probably five games being played. More games being played means more engagement.

Like, I'm sorry, I know you guys like Tribes and I like it too, but it just doesn't have the juice to do a 128 player game these days.

And pray tell what's wrong with having 1-5 big servers where people can talk about a shared experience of combat vs 100 tiny eSports servers where people are just grinding or streaming to 7 people on Twitch?

My dude sitting here thinking that the game can't grow beyond current pop after marketing starts to kick in.

[Mr. Pain™]

Oh boy, another ♥♥♥♥♥♥, modern developer "rehash" that'll be dead by the end of the year. Go big or go home, esports are ♥♥♥♥ and so will this game become if the player count is to remain that small.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

Originally posted by m:

Originally posted by BuzzCutPsycho:

I am very familiar with PS1 and the abortion known as PS2 I assure you. But you nailed it, they forgot combined arms totally and only focused on the most banal base level ♥♥♥♥ like spin fusors and speed.

I debated qualifying PS2, but I think the light assault jetpack actually brings it back toward Tribes compared to just having Vanu MAX be able to fly. With that said, VS max emerald player, PS1 was clearly the better game. We even got the full Starsiege crossover with BFR HERCs at the end :)

Edit: I'm actually suddenly remembering I know you. You were TR! I was a nobody, but I remember you. I think you were early in the beta too right?

Yes. I was TR on both Konried and Emerald. I ran, and still run The Enclave. I also bombed a funeral before I quit.