What is the maximum number of players in a game?

[Tazor]

I saw someone mention 4v4 games in a thread. It is a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ medieval combat game. It NEEDS a lot of players. Please tell me it supports up to 64...at least 32. Chivalry supports 64 and it is so old. Mount&Blade Warband... I saw a 256 player server which was almost full.

[Girlyvader]

The maximum players is 4v4, probably because the game uses peer to peer network architecture. Please, trust me, with P2P this is a very good thing, you do not want to see a 64 player game where the lag is equal to the slowest link between any two of all 64 players, which is the expected lag in a peer to peer game [technically].

[ONISAIBOT]

You can't really compare a swing2win ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ with a game that heavily focuses on 1v1 combat. Don't get me wrong, Chivalry is a nice game, but strategy is pretty much redundant with that many players at once, whereas tactics and strategy indeed matter when you have to contribute the few resources across the map that are available to you.

To conclude, i would say that these games play differently enough to justify the difference in total players per lobby and you won't even notice it most of the time, because you are busy enough fighting for your life in For Honor.

[Paranochat]

Originally posted by Girlyvader:

The maximum players is 4v4, probably because the game uses peer to peer network architecture. Please, trust me, with P2P this is a very good thing, you do not want to see a 64 player game where the lag is equal to the slowest link between any two of all 64 players, which is the expected lag in a peer to peer game [technically].

That's not the reason no... 4v4 is more than enough. Just look at the combat system, it's not made for more than that. You really don't want more players...

Originally posted by Tazor:

I saw someone mention 4v4 games in a thread. It is a ♥♥♥♥ing medieval combat game. It NEEDS a lot of players. Please tell me it supports up to 64...at least 32. Chivalry supports 64 and it is so old. Mount&Blade Warband... I saw a 256 player server which was almost full.

This isn't Chivalry, this isn't a large scale battle game. Number of players doesn't make a game good or not. The background being medieval doesn't mean the game should have a ton of players. Try out the game during open beta before release, or at least look at some gameplay video, because the game is clearly not what you think it is.

[Tazor]

Originally posted by Girlyvader:

The maximum players is 4v4, probably because the game uses peer to peer network architecture. Please, trust me, with P2P this is a very good thing, you do not want to see a 64 player game where the lag is equal to the slowest link between any two of all 64 players, which is the expected lag in a peer to peer game [technically].

We wouldn't have this problem if ubi would have given us dedicated servers.

[Duck]

Originally posted by 〝ᏫℕᶖﮎᗗᶖᗲᏫT〞:

You can't really compare a swing2win ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ with a game that heavily focuses on 1v1 combat. Don't get me wrong, Chivalry is a nice game, but strategy is pretty much redundant with that many players at once, whereas tactics and strategy indeed matter when you have to contribute the few resources across the map that are available to you.

To conclude, i would say that these games play differently enough to justify the difference in total players per lobby and you won't even notice it most of the time, because you are busy enough fighting for your life in For Honor.

Yeah in this game, when fighting you wont look at your opponent. You look at an triangle thingy which turns red according to the attack of your enemy. And then you block to the direction the triangle tells you.

[Paranochat]

Originally posted by Tazor:

We wouldn't have this problem if ubi would have given us dedicated servers.

Please don't be silly... Yes we want dedicated servers, but it has nothing to do with the number of players in a match... This is a gameplay design.

[Girlyvader]

Originally posted by Paranochat:

Originally posted by Girlyvader:

The maximum players is 4v4, probably because the game uses peer to peer network architecture. Please, trust me, with P2P this is a very good thing, you do not want to see a 64 player game where the lag is equal to the slowest link between any two of all 64 players, which is the expected lag in a peer to peer game [technically].

That's not the reason no... 4v4 is more than enough. Just look at the combat system, it's not made for more than that. You really don't want more players...

I'm commenting on the technical reasons, which can be fairly objectively established, not the design reasons, which cannot be without a direct statement from the developers. If you want to see how bad peer to peer can get with even a fairly small load, go grab the Torchlight 2 8 player mod and 8 friends and tell me how it goes. While advancements in the standard designs of peer to peer networks have reached the point were you could easily have stable games with as many as 12-14 players [as long as you have strict region restrictions], anything approaching Chivalry's team sizes would require proper servers.

[[b]Note-[/b] one exception to this is European "First World" countries; their more up-to-date network architecture (cheaper to update the network equipment of a Swedish ISP than, say, a Texas ISP) and shorter geographic distances would allow for, using standard Sweden-France connection as an example, about 20 player matches with nearly no difference. That would be because the network backbone that connection goes to is, oh, a little over a decade newer than the US standard due to just how expensive it is to upgrade a network in the US.]

[Girlyvader]

Originally posted by Paranochat:

Originally posted by Tazor:

We wouldn't have this problem if ubi would have given us dedicated servers.

Please don't be silly... Yes we want dedicated servers, but it has nothing to do with the number of players in a match... This is a gameplay design.

Having just finished renewing my CCNP for the third time so that I can keep my job at a consulting firm that designs corporate-sized networks [and I know you don't have a reason to believe me, but saying it makes me feel better about how much that exam costs], yes it does. No, I don't design games, I design networks. Many of the same principals have to be taken into account, however. [Information below is using US standards]

That [generally] black or white plastic box your internet service provider installed [not the cable box connected to your TV] that provides you with, depending on the model and setup, wired and/or wireless internet access? That's a router, and it's the real reason why LAN connections are faster. "No, LANs are faster because you're much closer to the other devices." That would be because they're both connected to the same router. The router assigns both devices an internal IP and any connection between the two goes to the router, which means it never has to go through multiple routers like a connection to any online game does [that's where lag comes from]. The router sees that the recipient IP address is an internal device and promptly forwards related communications ["packets"] to that device.

So, we've established that the router controls where packets between devices go, which makes the router's speed of communication a factor in connections between devices. How does this affect the difference between peer-to-peer and server-client network design? Simple, the amount of packets the router has to process. When a game is designed such that clients connect to a central server, each client connects to the server which is connected to all of the other clients. This means the router has to handle one connection. When a game is designed with a peer to peer architecture, however, each device connects to each other device, directly. This means each client's router has to handle a new simultaneous connection for each additional player in the game.

Now, a server is usually connected to a corporate-level network with networking gear that can, potentially, handle thousands of simultaneous connections per networking device, so it doesn't really care if the game has 24 players or 42 players. However, the average router you'll find in someone's house is much more basic; gear on that level really isn't designed to handle dozens of simultaneous connections. Routers like that just can't send and receive packets fast enough to keep up with, say, 32 simultaneous connections. This inherently limits how many players a peer to peer game can have while still maintaining a reasonably stable connection. There are other factors of course, among them game design and what your nation's internet backbone [the lines that run between cities and beyond that connect you to the rest of the world] can provide in terms of speed, but the simple fact is that software cannot trump hardware limitations without design changes, like adding a server. The day that changes is the day I actually get to download more RAM

Edit: If you actually finished my wall of text, have a cookie ^.^ *offers cookie*

[Spooky]

if this game even had 8v8 or 10v10 it would be a frustrating cluster ♥♥♥♥.

"im capturing C :D. Annnnnnnnnd..... i just got attacked by 6 people"

[VRock]

this game is totally different from Chivalry. This is more a FIGHTHING game like Tekken and Street Fighter! You need read your opponent, defend, counterattack, timming. 1vs1 is SO MUCH FUN! I really don't know if buy this or wait for tekken 7 (2nd June -_-)

[Mr Wildcard]

don't compare this game to chiv because its not trying to be like chiv at all. In fact its trying to stray away from the traditional hack and slash genre

[Ral]

This game just makes me more excited for Mount and Blade 2