Can this game render hundreds against hundreds ??

[PredatorFour]

There was talk of combat possibly even between thousands but until they sort out the render issue it's false advertising. It seems to of got worse with the latest patch too, i can fly over a hill and suddenly 30 enemies appear and start shooting me from 15m away.

This is a game breaker and anyone who is new that comes to a game which offers massive warfare is going to be put off by this surely.

Just wanna know if they are working to fix this ?? Or more so, if they can fix this ??

[Ironside]

from what i read and watched they can't fix it and its the reason there's so many bases/installations to spread out the population and why the lattice will never return

[Phantomdestiny]

the last update removed the rendering issue for me

[Ironside]

Originally Posted by Phantomdestiny

the last update removed the rendering issue for me

so you alone don't have dynamic rendering in game??
lucky boy

[PredatorFour]

Originally Posted by Phantomdestiny

the last update removed the rendering issue for me

Really ?? in crowded hexes its badder than ever for me, notably when the enemy cluster together.

[bpostal]

Originally Posted by PredatorFour

There was talk of combat possibly even between thousands but until they sort out the render issue it's false advertising. It seems to of got worse with the latest patch too, i can fly over a hill and suddenly 30 enemies appear and start shooting me from 15m away.

This is a game breaker and anyone who is new that comes to a game which offers massive warfare is going to be put off by this surely.

Just wanna know if they are working to fix this ?? Or more so, if they can fix this ??

Correct. There is no way to properly render everyone if the entire continent is at the crown. Planetside had this same problem but as far as I remember it was less pronounced (with the notable exception of warping)
I know, I am disappointed as well. I was hoping this technical hurdle had been jumped like a shark.
Not to mention that a really clusterfuck fight would be hundreds vs hundreds vs hundreds.

Size always matters is just a marketing gimmick.

[Tatwi]

As much as people like to hate DICE, at least DICE did their research and made their game around the optimal player and area sizes (from what I have read on the subject). Any more than 64 players and the battle is just too full of "death by random", which isn't fun, so they found. I have not played any of the "modern fps games", but from playing PS2 I have to agree with DICE in principle. 30 to 80 players total is plenty, even in a large base like an amp station.

[VaderShake]

Originally Posted by Tatwi

As much as people like to hate DICE, at least DICE did their research and made their game around the optimal player and area sizes (from what I have read on the subject). Any more than 64 players and the battle is just too full of "death by random", which isn't fun, so they found. I have not played any of the "modern fps games", but from playing PS2 I have to agree with DICE in principle. 30 to 80 players total is plenty, even in a large base like an amp station.

This is kind of rediculous considering some Project Reality Servers for BF2 were running 128 people and it was great. Not to mention other Battlefield Mods that achived 128 player battles and how fun they were esspecially Nations at War mod.

As far as "death by random" not being fun.....well those were some of the most emotional moments "battlefield moments" that would happen in the pre-BFBC2 & BF3 world of battlefield that brought laughs from teamspeak and kept you coming back for more.

BF3 is ultra predictable and nearly on rails the way they force repetative action by limiting the maps and controlling choke point after choke point. BF3 is reduced to run'n gun action and shooting fish in a barrel scenerios.

Again I played the BF series for 10 years logging over 10,000 hours into the franchise.....mods and all. DICE lost the majority of it's vets with the release of BF3/

[Revanmug]

Originally Posted by Tatwi

As much as people like to hate DICE, at least DICE did their research and made their game around the optimal player and area sizes (from what I have read on the subject). Any more than 64 players and the battle is just too full of "death by random", which isn't fun, so they found. I have not played any of the "modern fps games", but from playing PS2 I have to agree with DICE in principle. 30 to 80 players total is plenty, even in a large base like an amp station.

You have no clue what you are talking about. BF3 maps were made for 32 players, not 64. The reason behind this was to make maps small enough to console since they decide the limit of players was of 24. Making the maps larger with objectif more spread out with more vehicule would have been good for PC player (since more people) but awful for console (since lower pop/too spread out).

Result? Cramp up maps with 3-5 objectif all in the center with the possibility of "64" players for PC servers. Usually ends up as meatgrinders of random people popping everywhere in the center because all objectif are there.

In the end, BF3 was better with 32 players because MAPS were design for low amount of people.

[Tatwi]

Originally Posted by Revanmug

You have no clue what you are talking about. BF3 maps were made for 32 players, not 64. The reason behind this was to make maps small enough to console since they decide the limit of players was of 24. Making the maps larger with objectif more spread out with more vehicule would have been good for PC player (since more people) but awful for console (since lower pop/too spread out).

Result? Cramp up maps with 3-5 objectif all in the center with the possibility of "64" players for PC servers. Usually ends up as meatgrinders of random people popping everywhere in the center because all objectif are there.

In the end, BF3 was better with 32 players because MAPS were design for low amount of people.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com...o-256-players/

"A lot of people ask us about 64 versus 128 or 256 players. Technically, we can go to 256, we've tried it," he told Atomic MPC.
"We play tested with 128. You've got to make a game that's fun to play and, arguably, we think that the most fun you can have is when it's between 32 and 40 players."

- the CEO of DICE

I am such a terrible person for incorrectly remembering a number I read months ago, in an article about a game I have never played. Wow, you really showed me who's boss there.

[VaderShake]

Originally Posted by Tatwi

http://www.computerandvideogames.com...o-256-players/



I am such a terrible person for incorrectly remembering a number I read months ago, in an article about a game I have never played. Wow, you really showed me who's boss there.

So Tatwi since Coke says they are the best I suppose you believe they are correct....but then what do you do when Pepsi says they are the best?

DICE can say whatever they want but the customers decide what product is right. What's DICE going to say 400 players is optimal but we don't have and engine that can do it and we don't want to support it (they can barely support BF3 as it is) so I guess other games will pass us by. DICE has lost touch and marketed the heck out of BF3 lying all the way.

And if you believe everything a developer tells you about their game then every game is a 10 and you have no right to complain about PS2.

Also I have a cousin who lives in Africa who recently inherited a large fortune but needs $10,000 wired to an account before he can recieve the payment. If you would wire him the money he will pay you $100,000 as a reward for helping him.

FYI: I preferr Dr. Pepper....

[Mox]

Ps1 could handle bigger crowds than ps2. Therefore, ps2 is a step backwards regarding its main feature. Massive fights yeah but please not too massive. Haha, that would be an honest slogan.

[VR Draco]

Originally Posted by Mox

Ps1 could handle bigger crowds than ps2. Therefore, ps2 is a step backwards regarding its main feature. Massive fights yeah but please not too massive. Haha, that would be an honest slogan.

It is not that easy...

It depends on the refresh-rate of positions. In PS1 it was MUCH longer, which results in quite "laggy" movement, today you can't do this. You have to present "smooth" movement, which requires a high refresh-rate, which results in heavier server-load.

This problem is not trivial and can't be fixed in weeks and not in a single step.

One problem is the exponential increase of the server load depending on the players who see each other. Means double players, four times more load for the server.


So I believe they were working hard on this topic, but it is not that easy as you think...

[Calisai]

Originally Posted by Mox

Ps1 could handle bigger crowds than ps2. Therefore, ps2 is a step backwards regarding its main feature. Massive fights yeah but please not too massive. Haha, that would be an honest slogan.

This was due to the client side hit detection, which had it's many drawbacks... the biggest issue was being killed after you turned a corner because you hadn't yet turned the corner on the other guys screen.

When they switched to server side detection, it places massive load on the servers. I had hoped that server power had increased to the point they could do it, but I think they got a little ambitious and added in a few too many objects to track (each bullet, shrapnel, grenade, etc... has to be tracked) As well as all the calculations for bullet drop, etc.

There is a reason the majority of games out there only have a set number of players... It's very ambitious to push the envelope.

[Assist]

I think why they seem unable to change the rendering distance doesn't matter. What matters is what a few people have already mentioned, it's game breaking as it is right now. It needs to be fixed, the game is based around large scale combat and the world is designed for massive numbers.

The worst part about it is I want them to fix it but at the same time I know it will ruin the balance of the game when they do.