No need for the hostility and sarcasm. I still don't get what you are fighting about when my point is I said we should just try this instead of ignoring the suggestion immediately. I just read bits from your Paragraphs and decided you don't want this to be a thing. I never said building NetCode is easy, I just said it should not be that hard to add 12 more players in the player system. I have coded myself you know.KliPeH wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:47 pmEvilsack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:12 pmHow about the camera? How about the amount of cover available in a map? It'll literally be a fuckfest trying to get to a weapon and cover. 20 people in a server may actually do the opposite of what you hope it'll do. Chaos is fun in moderation. What happens to running and gunning? What happens to cqc? Yea, it's an option but why would someone pick such an option? What's appealing about having 20 people in a server other than "I can fit all my friends!" The unique gameplay that is sfd will simply be reduced to spray and pray.
but you dont underSTAAAAAANDDD
why not trYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY the change before we say "no"
So to summarize your point - "I have never seen a piece of code in my life and I think building netcode is easy".
I can only assume you really want this to be a thing, otherwise you wouldn't be chanting the same mantra over and over again about the game being unique or whatnot, as if it's a sound argument in favor of wasting precious dev time. All you've said so far is "I want chaos regardless of whether it's in good taste or not", and we've said "we honestly don't think chaos is even good at that point". You haven't tried to disprove that. I'm opposed to the idea of this becoming normalized - servers chock full of players up each others' asses on cramped maps otherwise fit and/or designed around 4-6 player play. That's not necessarily going to happen, but if it will it will influence me as a player myself; I don't want to see a list of dedicated servers hosting 20 player lobbies and those lobbies being the only places where players gather. This usually happens on other largely-multiplayer games; the first two servers in the list being nearly completely full, and the rest empty because people don't want to play alone, but don't want to be the ones to start a game either.
The community is already small and I wouldn't want to see it split that way. Just because the server I personally frequent doesn't use bad settings doesn't mean the others won't. I'd hate seeing server hosts do this simply because I don't think that's a good way to play the game. The official maps aren't designed to contain this many players and so are most of the custom ones. Same thing with melee-only servers, except those don't really influence the player counter on the other servers I don't feel. It's just another argument against this system - instead of having lots of different servers with different maps, themes, settings and gamemodes, with 4-8 players in each, we'll be having way less but with more players in them. You're essentially gathering players under the same few roofs which can potentially have an unfavorable setting. I know it would deter a player like me from joining multiplayer games and might deter others as well.
Then there's the counter argument - if the players do end up flocking to these servers, doesn't that means that's what the community really wants? That would be a fair point. That's just my 2 cents on the matter, though; if I think I can foresee something bad happen I'll probably go ahead and try to prevent it.
Well I think this post is gonna get us fighting so I suggest you lock it since you might do it anyways
-Morpheus