Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
As such, I believe that your assumption that it can handle a larger population is correct.
Thing is, during development the game got broken up into smaller maps for various reasons.
I suspect that the developers didn't want three to four hundred people crowded onto one of the smaller maps, and capped the population.
No you are incorrect. The one gigantic map you are talking about is the world conquest mode where players fight on the different maps to win the war. They are still tied to the player limit for each map though. This was pretty clearly communicated a few times. I asked the devs before as well because it was always unclear on how the world conquest mode is going to work. It's still devided in different maps although you will be able to "travel" between the maps which means loading times and the limit will still be 140 per map (unless they increase the limit again).
OK, in that case I guess that the developers just don't meet your standards of proficiency.
I suppose that we (or me anyway) will just have to muddle along as best we can.
I thought the original poster was who I was writing.
Anyways, the maps are incredibly big enough to hold well over 200 people. Often they feel TOO big, with long empty roads and only a few people passing- the fact that the servers are capped is stupid enough- why can't the server host decide what the player limit for their server is?
The only two reasons games have player caps is because either, one, the game isn't able to process that many players at a time itself on a server- or two, it would ruin an aspect of the game (like CSGO competitive balance of small 5v5)
The whole point of this game however is to have massive battles and teamfights, it's trying to simulate a sort of "warlike" atmosphere, and personally, a warlike atmosphere is much more active relative to its size.
Besides all of this, like I said before, like 20 or so people will be waiting in a queue at a time. Not fun.
Expecting it will happen in free weekend and will be happening on few chosen servers.
A wild guess is that beta is gonna be timezone for that kind of work.
Thanks, it just seems like the game should have more people in it.
They'd have to institute some kind of formal hierachy and chat protocol.. i.e. officers have special coloured text, QM is voted in (like Arma with Commander rank), Squad leaders and officers have their own chat channel for coordinating activities, etc. Add to that, the highest ranked officer may get a command bonus that they can doll out to squads on a needs basis - the bonus may be the ability to respawn with less shirts (for assault squads), scrap/build faster, see further for recon/raider squads. (would incentivise forming and joining squads which seems to be lacking at the moment). or it could just be that the high commander can see the location of each squad leader on the map for better coordination and send squad specific map messages.. overall, worth checking in on ARMA for some ideas with its commander functionality.
No it is all of you that stand incorrected, mere mortals. I am always correct and mighty.