Size of Multiplayer maps?

[Shockwave]

Has anything been said about the size of the multiplayer maps. Since half life2 multiplayer will still be 32 players(could be scaled to 64 later they said if they wanted to) I think that they should at the most only double the size of the current max size of the maps in HL1.

 

[FalconNinja]

Somewhere I heard that the maps are going to be big and you can drive stuff too.So this means the maps are going to be decent size so you can control cars.

 

[simmo]

kewl, imagine the sniper spots in a massive map, gonna be hard to avoid gettin shot

 

[Apos]

For some maps I'd guess so. But they still are going to need some smaller maps. Too big and it gets REAL boring when you don't see anyone else for five minutes. Even 32 pushes the upper limit of what's fun and what's just pure chaos, even on a large map. I mean, it doesn't make it more FUN to have 64 people instead of 32 unless there's some real gametype that requires it. When it's just DM, all it adds is more chaos in a larger area.

Of course, we have no idea what kind of crazy MP options they are going to have, and whatever it is might require particular sorts of maps.

 

[Vertigo]

I'd imagine there would be a fairly large freedom in the size of maps. If you look at certain mods on Half Life, the small size of the maps, even for 16 players, can be quite restricting. So I'd say the max size of the map would be fairly large, just not Tribes 2-sized.

-Vert

 

[Robert]

Maybe you can be a strider, prowler or any other " enemy " you are meeting in the Single Player mod.

In that case you will learn more about the enemies in the MP function :> Would be nice yo know how you can kil lthe bloody strider And, it would be great beeing a strider


I almost 100% sure that it will be " human versus combine " or something like that

 

[Stigmata]

I'm pretty sure that Gabe said there's no arbitrary limits to the map sizes. Generally speaking, this means the maps have to be just small enough to be contained in your computer's RAM or virtual memory.
As for the "total chaos" with 64-player DM, this would most definitely occur in smaller-size maps. However, in larger maps the action will likely be more spread-out, and would probably end up as a bunch of small battles happening instead of one huge mob of people.

 

[SidewinderX]

Asked a simialr question, and thwey haven't decided weather or not they will support more than 32 players.

 

[Apos]

But what's the point? Why have so much aciton going on in one server when each player can only be a part of a very small amount of it and nothing affects anything else? It's so much better when there are a few players that you get to know and can try to take down, as opposed to a fragfest where bullets are just flying everywhere and every battle is just a bunch of random encounters with people you've never seen before and aren't likely to see again on the same map.

 

[Anthraxxx]

Originally posted by stigmata
I'm pretty sure that Gabe said there's no arbitrary limits to the map sizes. Generally speaking, this means the maps have to be just small enough to be contained in your computer's RAM or virtual memory.
As for the "total chaos" with 64-player DM, this would most definitely occur in smaller-size maps. However, in larger maps the action will likely be more spread-out, and would probably end up as a bunch of small battles happening instead of one huge mob of people.

That would be cool!! If it is possible to have a Battlefield/Desert Combat style map that's open and has vehicles and lots of people in it.......... :cheese: :cheese:

 

[Apos]

However, in larger maps the action will likely be more spread-out, and would probably end up as a bunch of small battles happening instead of one huge mob of people.

I should clarify that what I mean is that for this to have any point it needs to be part of a more complex game than vanilla DM. These random battles have to have consequences in some sort of larger scale: such as a team game where the battles are to hold key points on the map for your side. A huge 64player Natural Selection type game could be fun because you could have lots and lots of key points to defend all over the map.

 

[Axyon]

Originally posted by Apos
But what's the point? Why have so much aciton going on in one server when each player can only be a part of a very small amount of it and nothing affects anything else? It's so much better when there are a few players that you get to know and can try to take down, as opposed to a fragfest where bullets are just flying everywhere and every battle is just a bunch of random encounters with people you've never seen before and aren't likely to see again on the same map.

Well call me weird, but I like that kind of gameplay... it may not appeal to you, but to others it may.

 

[Apos]

The point is that "that kind of gameplay" would be EXACTLY THE SAME whether it was 64 people in a big map, or 32 people in a slightly smaller map. Except it wouldn't run as well.

 

[Vertigo]

Maybe for you...but not for me, personally. I mean, what made Operation Flashpoint a great game for me was the disgustingly huge size of the maps. They were great fun. Eh, just my opinion.

-Vert

 

[Axyon]

Originally posted by Apos
The point is that "that kind of gameplay" would be EXACTLY THE SAME whether it was 64 people in a big map, or 32 people in a slightly smaller map. Except it wouldn't run as well.

Ah, but merely having the ability for 64 players opens doors to many other things - imagine the modding capabilities; combine the source engine and the 64 player servers, you could successfully recreate a part of the D-Day landings or something. (Just an example).

Hope you see where I'm going... if initially the 64 player capability may not be useful for HL2 Multiplayer, without a doubt it could have a plethora of uses for other projects.

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

I have to aggree, Huge maps and Loadsa people would rule in certain situations. I mean just imagine for a second. 64 Player support for DOD on halflife2. Can you imagine it yet, the carzieness of war in all its glory. (Personaly i think war is bad, but war games are all gud! )

 

[SidewinderX]

Thats pretty much the whole Concept behind BF1942.....
Massive WWII battles...

 

[Axyon]

Originally posted by SidewinderX143
Thats pretty much the whole Concept behind BF1942.....
Massive WWII battles...

Shame it was pulled off so badly. If the DoD team decides to make a mod for HL2, I'd hope it would be a lot more "realistic" than BF1942 - it's an infantry mod for starters, so there shouldn't be an excessive amount of vehicles in it. Naturally, other things like one or two shots can kill would hopefully be in. Slower paced games would be utter heaven for me - having to actually think through tactics and plans for situations would be fantastic, I'll have to express my opinions to them somehow. Heh heh.

 

[SidewinderX]

I perosnally didn't like BF1942 that muich for that reason. the game salways seem to turn into "camp for tank/plane" then have the tank/plane destroyed right when you get it and a teammate's mad.

 

[Axyon]

Indeed. Don't get me wrong, I like fragfests and mindless deathmatches, well, I love them... but somehow it just didn't feel right incorporating something like that into a WW2 theme.

 

[xXSMGXx]

Guys remember the APC vehicle ? Imagine if you could drive it and people could get inside..just like in BF1942 but +HL2 graphics

And plus imagine that one of the maps would be City17 deathmatch...and 32 players! There will be total realism, snipers on roofs, machine guns battle on the ground..wowza

 

[82ross]

We can never tell what mods and game types are going to come out in the future. But for me, now, i cant stand games with more than 16 players. 8 a-side.

I tried BF1942 on more than one occasion and i just didnt like it. I think i was too accustomed to CS and DoD. First of all it took me about 10 minutes to get from a ship to an island. Then it just seemed like everyone was doing a thousand different things at once. There wasnt much team play involved, headless chickens comes to mind. How anyone succeeded in air-to-air combat ill never now.

I like games where it is essential you have a rough idea where all your team mates and oppenents are situated on a map. Only then can you come up with tactics that you have to think about, not just make up on the fly.

Basically, for any current game types that may be reincarnated in the sourse engine, i cant see there being any need for 64 players. But its good to know it should be there if and when it is needed in the future.

EDIT: 1942 sorry i was tired

 

[xXSMGXx]

Originally posted by 82ross
We can never tell what mods and game types are going to come out in the future. But for me, now, i cant stand games with more than 16 players. 8 a-side.

I tried BF1948 on more than one occasion and i just didnt like it. I think i was too accustomed to CS and DoD. First of all it took me about 10 minutes to get from a ship to an island. Then it just seemed like everyone was doing a thousand different things at once. There wasnt much team play involved, headless chickens comes to mind. How anyone succeeded in air-to-air combat ill never now.

I like games where it is essential you have a rough idea where all your team mates and oppenents are situated on a map. Only then can you come up with tactics that you have to think about, not just make up on the fly.

Basically, for any current game types that may be reincarnated in the sourse engine, i cant see there being any need for 64 players. But its good to know it should be there if and when it is needed in the future.

Well first of all its not 1948 its 1942..second of all public servers have chaos but what are clans for ? I play scrims with clans and the teamwork is obvious

 

[TheWart]

Originally posted by 82ross
We can never tell what mods and game types are going to come out in the future. But for me, now, i cant stand games with more than 16 players. 8 a-side.

I tried BF1948 on more than one occasion and i just didnt like it. I think i was too accustomed to CS and DoD. First of all it took me about 10 minutes to get from a ship to an island. Then it just seemed like everyone was doing a thousand different things at once. There wasnt much team play involved, headless chickens comes to mind. How anyone succeeded in air-to-air combat ill never now.

I like games where it is essential you have a rough idea where all your team mates and oppenents are situated on a map. Only then can you come up with tactics that you have to think about, not just make up on the fly.

Basically, for any current game types that may be reincarnated in the sourse engine, i cant see there being any need for 64 players. But its good to know it should be there if and when it is needed in the future.

I personally do not think that no teamwork is more of a problem in BF than in DoD/CS. Granted, I have not played CS since just after 1.0, but in BF there are plenty of public servers that have people who play as a team. I remember in CS, one could not say the same thing many times.

BF and CS are each fun in their own ways.....CS just seems really old now to me.

 

[deepers]

cs is awesome, it would rock if 64-player servers were possible. 128 would be even sweeter.

 

[Direwolf]

BF1942 is my current addiction until HL2. In a good game the teamwork can be glorious and put other things to shame. Nothing like having a Mustang pull a Deus Ex Machina for your little engineer against a Tiger.

 

[mouse recoil]

I'm looking at making a mod for hl2 actually (I was intending on making a game myself, engine with realistic physics and loads of freedom, but hl2 already HAS physics...so just make a mod and port the other code over:afro: ), so map size and player amount is important. If they dun put any HARD-CODED limits in (and I really hope not), then I might be able to set up some interesting stuff if I manage to get this done...imagine entire worlds on a phat server.:cheers:

 

[Shockwave]

it will be coded for only 32 players at the initiall release newell said..he said it is possible though that they could change that if they feel the need later through the HL2 patches

 

[Gojin]

Funny, I asked about how big MP maps would be in IRC and got laughed at and told "the map maker decides that". Now I see this! Bah It's all a conspiracy against me. Btw NS on BF1942 size would be nuts. The small battles etc. Then again it detracts from the whole, "Small marine band in an abandoned spaceship/building against aliens taking over" feel.

 

[Wesisapie]

from one interview with gabe, he said it's a design limitation, not an engine limitation.

 

[jasonh1234]

I think 32-64 players in this area would be comfortable.

 

[Apos]

imagine entire worlds on a phat server.

Like the 300,000 MMPORGS either out or in development?

 

[Shockwave]

that looks the same as hl1 size maps

 

[jhero]

Originally posted by jasonh1234
I think 32-64 players in this area would be comfortable.

I don't think that is suppose to be a map, but a sort of "warehouse" where HL2 developpers can get buildings and so forth to put in outdoor scenes so they dont have to redo and redo.

 

[TheWart]

I would love to see DoD placed in a realistically scaled section of a city. Source would probably allow most of the buildings to be entered into...maybe even on multiple floors.

 

[Shockwave]

all buildings can be made accessible in hl1, they just dont do it

 

[impakt]

Someone could email them and ask what the maximum mapsizes will be.

HL has 4096 in each direction.
Which means : x axis = 4096/-4096
y axis = 4096/-4096
z axis = 4096/-4096

A player is 8 units if I remember correctly(probably dont though )

 

[impakt]

And btw. I managed to exceed those limits in my first TFC map.

 

[Apos]

I'm sure they're bigger than that: the desert area looks HUGE.

 

[jhero]

I heard somewhere that maps in HL2 could go like 15 km by 15 km! That would make for a huge map.