Instead of 64 players 80 players



  • do you think that the divelepers of the game can make a map for 80 players?
    It would be cool if they could because it would make the game more realistic because in medieval times they had about 100 people or more but i wish they could as least make it posible for 80 players without lag.



  • There aren’t even any 64 player servers, that don’t crash or mysteriously disappear anyway.



  • The larger amount of players on a map = the more resources your system requires, the more chance the server will lag up, and more possible bugs / glitches. Start with 64 first and see how that goes before getting too crazy.

    Also once the player count gets to a certain amount, you will quickly notice many maps suddenly become tight, small and you can’t do much without having someone right there to kill you. For 80 players, many of the current maps would need some drastic modifications, or new maps that support 80.



  • 80 person games would just be more of a clusterfuck than they already are on large pop servers. I would vote a huge no for this. Chivalry is best under 20 players imo.



  • @Slaughtervomit:

    80 person games would just be more of a clusterfuck than they already are on large pop servers. I would vote a huge no for this. Chivalry is best under 20 players imo.

    This.



  • @Slaughtervomit:

    80 person games would just be more of a clusterfuck than they already are on large pop servers. I would vote a huge no for this. Chivalry is best under 20 players imo.

    32 is fine for TO and TDM. LTS and KOTH I would say 24 is the maximum and for FFA all sizes are fine.

    64 is fine for FFA if you want instant madness. Though many people’s ping increases and people from other parts of the world see a 64 player server and join.

    They are aiming to make 64 size more playable. And on some game modes having a big cluster duck is fun.



  • Would be better if we had bigger maps/ siege maps before we even think about pushing the population cap in this game.



  • I’ve generally found that even 32 is a bit too many for most current TO maps.

    Personally I find 24 player is plenty without being too congested.

    But I would like to see some bigger TO maps with more multiple/simultaneous objectives, that would spread players out more and make space for the higher numbers.



  • Yeah, 64 players is the max for the current maps. I don’t think 64 players is too many for any of them at this point, but any more and it would start getting out of control. I like playing 64 players because there tends to be more combat and less running from point A to point B. Or if you are running, you usually get the chance to cut through a few guys. It also helps you get more skilled at engaging multiple enemies.

    I would love to see this or another game get some more resources to refine the code so that large player battles were workable though. This gameplay would only get better with more and more players (and bigger maps of course). A Chivalry style Planetside 2-type game would be just about the greatest thing of all time.



  • tthat would be good for madness but this game truly shines in 1v1 and very small battles so its pretty useless in the end



  • The ability to set it to 80 (or whatever you like, not capped at 64, if it is), should be there. Let people do whatever they want D:



  • Even if the developers do make a 64+ player cap, they’d need to make awesome objective/siege maps to accommodate the huge numbers evenly on the battlefield. Other than making a small map, turning it into a gigantic cluster fuck.



  • @lemonater47:

    @Slaughtervomit:

    80 person games would just be more of a clusterfuck than they already are on large pop servers. I would vote a huge no for this. Chivalry is best under 20 players imo.

    32 is fine for TO and TDM. LTS and KOTH I would say 24 is the maximum and for FFA all sizes are fine.

    64 is fine for FFA if you want instant madness. Though many people’s ping increases and people from other parts of the world see a 64 player server and join.

    They are aiming to make 64 size more playable. And on some game modes having a big cluster duck is fun.

    Team objective and KOTH have the lowest potential for population sizes.

    Front lines form, and this kill any notion of individuals mattering when this front line has 30 people in 10 M space swinging 3 meter polarms horizontally at random.

    Both should stay under 20.

    LTS can handle up to 30, as people who dislike frontlines can sit back and ambush the enemy teams victors and reach high levels of personal accomplishment despite them probability of them being able to change the course of the battle being shockingly low.

    FFA has by far the highest potential population, and the smallest servers availible.

    TDM is something I simply avoid in all games.



  • tthat would be good for madness but this game truly shines in 1v1

    Man I hate this misconception rofl.



  • @MUSASHI:

    tthat would be good for madness but this game truly shines in 1v1

    Man I hate this misconception rofl.

    Hmm… you mad bro?

    its just his opinion… its not like that its a fact… Besides… I saw in further posts that you are quiet negative… Just sayin’… :|

    -Mr. Sharpshooter-



  • @MUSASHI:

    tthat would be good for madness but this game truly shines in 1v1

    Man I hate this misconception rofl.

    tell me a better 1v1 competitive mp fps that confronts you so much with actual 1v1 duels like chivalry in the last 5 years

    btw ql doesnt count


Log in to reply