BFH as MMO?

[PAT3NT]

Just saw this article. The most interesting bit is how video game companies can make "Matrix-style games through parallel processing, allowing millions of objects to be tracked in real-time. We’re talking about the ability to create a game with thousands of players and untold number of aliens and battleships shooting nuclear missiles and green rays."

Imagine a BFH round with up to thousands of players per faction all playing on a huge map, rather than the current limit of 16 players. What do you think? It would certainly change the game's dynamics, but for better or worse?

[hotshow]

Sounds interesting, but that's all I have to say.

[Stormy-StrayWolf]

(10-07-2012 03:21 AM)hotshow Wrote:  Sounds interesting, but that's all I have to say.

This.

From what I heard, MAG was a let down. And that had online capabilities for 100+ people in 1 session. As far as I know, the problem isn't anything to do with games themselves not supporting "X" number of people in one session, it's that the servers can't handle it.

[Richy_Greenback]

I'd rather see the Meta Game

[Scarth]

It would be terrible because of all the crying 12 year olds and no communication.

[AlphaDawg]

(10-07-2012 03:50 AM)Scarth Wrote:  It would be terrible because of all the crying 12 year olds and no communication.

Don't we kind of already have that?

[Salvenius.]

It would be interesting but it wouldn't work in Heroes.

Look at our current perspective, now before anyone shouts...this is what I have observed

• We currently have issues with people hating on Commandos due to the way they play. Some players can't even handle more than 2 commandos per team...can you imagine those people handling 20+ depending on how many players per server can be made?
• In continuation of that point...any class in excess can change the game...
• Teamwork is non-existent in some random/match made games
• The community feels there are issues that need to be resolved in the current system, let alone a new one that will no doubt bring new issues
  

Now that's just a few things but they are the main ones that are always brought up. Plus I don't always get this need for "bigger battles"...personally I find 16-32 players...at most 64 players more than enough...I don't fancy any more than that purely because 64 players is more than enough to annoy when you are against a good team that can keep you pinned down

Would Heroes work as 32-64 players? Sure and the current engine can certainly support those numbers but I find the attraction of Heroes is the fact that it is a small player count on servers with maps large enough to provide work-a-rounds to attack the enemy

[wlak]

BFH in 32 player... CHAOS!!!

[Tomonor]

Unless there is squad support, it's a dead idea.

[B.Randt-Stiffter]

(10-07-2012 03:32 AM)Stormy-StrayWolf Wrote:  From what I heard, MAG was a let down. And that had online capabilities for 100+ people in 1 session.

256 Players in one battle. But MAG is really a crappy game.

[StupidGranny]

500 persons using bs. GF nub

[IPaTrIoT]

It could work but the virtual world has to be very huge so you won't meet 500 soldiers together in one place

[piai55]

16 players at one map aint enough indeed. But BFH can be super chaotic so maybe this limit is the only way of how to make BFH a (more or less) enjoyable game. <3