60+players in RFOM 2 will be a MESS.

Why are lemmings spamming SW with this $***? So the PS3 got awesome online, deal with it. At least bash the game or something the crying of 60 online a mess makes you all look like jealous babies.

lol at $50/year and 16 player max.

posted 5 seconds ago on my myspace...

"I finally bought COD4 now i can whop ur*** ! Go Cowboys ! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA U **** let sucky ass ELI to the playoffs! UR WR"S look like the eagles WR's that game cant get open with single coverage crayton droped a potential TD pass! U r a sore loser uno playoff victory in 12 years what a bunch of scubs u say ur team is so good but to lose by a TD we lose by field goals! "

xTHExJUICEx

I'm a Skins fan so yeah we whooped that ass to HEHEHE.

It's already aimless clowns running around with no mics in a frag slaughter fest in RFOM1

So just imagine 2 with 60+ WOW can you say aimless slaughter fest.

By no means does 60+ translate into good online. In most cases it translates into frustration and team killing and just outright madness.

I was playing a 16+ player game of COD4 last night and we all had mics. And it was still a frag fest. Just an example.

Huge online player games have never been all that great. It's 99% of the time much funner with smaller managible groups with mics and using good stratigy.

So for 60+ ROFM 2 expect frustration and mindless chaos.

Fuzzy_Munch

THIS SHOULD CLEAR THINGS UP:

------------------------------------------

10: again... 60 players online. want sense of epic battle... dont want fast-furious gameplay to be focus, more focused on squad v squad.

11: will log into smaller four-to-eight man lobbies for each squad... encouraging communication and camaraderie, squad will be tasked witha particular objective. careful level design aims to deliver intense combat zones or small team conflicts that flow within arena of larger battle.

-----------------------------------------

I'm so excited to see once this works out. It will be an evolution of console multiplayer gaming.

It's already aimless clowns running around with no mics in a frag slaughter fest in RFOM1

So just imagine 2 with 60+ WOW can you say aimless slaughter fest.

By no means does 60+ translate into good online. In most cases it translates into frustration and team killing and just outright madness.

I was playing a 16+ player game of COD4 last night and we all had mics. And it was still a frag fest. Just an example.

Huge online player games have never been all that great. It's 99% of the time much funner with smaller managible groups with mics and using good stratigy.

So for 60+ ROFM 2 expect frustration and mindless chaos.

Fuzzy_Munch

I remember what I thought before I played some of the huge battle types on PC and there is no way anyone could have convinced me that huge battles are not as fun as smaller ones.

It's just human nature to believe bigger is better until they try it for themselves.

Look at World of Warcraft, they took the emphisis away from the huge raid groups for a reason and huge online fragfests were the big trend in PC gaming a few years ago until everyone figured out it was a drag.

So, while it's nice of you to warn people about the huge battle types don't expect anyone to listen unless they were one of the tons of people that went back to playing 8 on 8 Counterstrike after experencing them.

[QUOTE="Fuzzy_Munch"]

It's already aimless clowns running around with no mics in a frag slaughter fest in RFOM1

So just imagine 2 with 60+ WOW can you say aimless slaughter fest.

By no means does 60+ translate into good online. In most cases it translates into frustration and team killing and just outright madness.

I was playing a 16+ player game of COD4 last night and we all had mics. And it was still a frag fest. Just an example.

Huge online player games have never been all that great. It's 99% of the time much funner with smaller managible groups with mics and using good stratigy.

So for 60+ ROFM 2 expect frustration and mindless chaos.

TREAL_Since

THIS SHOULD CLEAR THINGS UP:

------------------------------------------

10: again... 60 players online. want sense of epic battle... dont want fast-furious gameplay to be focus, more focused on squad v squad.

11: will log into smaller four-to-eight man lobbies for each squad... encouraging communication and camaraderie, squad will be tasked witha particular objective. careful level design aims to deliver intense combat zones or small team conflicts that flow within arena of larger battle.

-----------------------------------------

I'm so excited to see once this works out. It will be an evolution of console multiplayer gaming.

Great, I was trying to look for this info :). Insomniac certainly knows what they are doing. The best PS3 devs by far (so far).

it's amazing how lemmings try and forget that 30 vs 30 is simply an OPTION.. you can just as easily party up with your buddies (with mics) in a 4 vs 4 battle with scaled down maps...

Anyone here ever play BF? I think that'd be a perfect way to set it up, with squads of 6-10 people, and a "commander," with large maps based on capping flags and stuff...and they support 64 players and the game isn't exactly chaotic (it is, but there's a lot of space to fight).

gasmaskman

BF maps are WAY bigger than RFOM maps were. Unless they increase the size of the maps and maybe put in vehicles, I don't think it'll work that well.

Battlefield disagrees with you. It's all about the size of the map.RK-Mara

Battlefield is different though. The gameplay just makes everything come together nicely.

[QUOTE="gasmaskman"]

Anyone here ever play BF? I think that'd be a perfect way to set it up, with squads of 6-10 people, and a "commander," with large maps based on capping flags and stuff...and they support 64 players and the game isn't exactly chaotic (it is, but there's a lot of space to fight).

james28893

BF maps are WAY bigger than RFOM maps were. Unless they increase the size of the maps and maybe put in vehicles, I don't think it'll work that well.

Well, that's because this is RFOM:2, not RFOM.

[QUOTE="james28893"][QUOTE="gasmaskman"]

Anyone here ever play BF? I think that'd be a perfect way to set it up, with squads of 6-10 people, and a "commander," with large maps based on capping flags and stuff...and they support 64 players and the game isn't exactly chaotic (it is, but there's a lot of space to fight).

comstrikeiscool

BF maps are WAY bigger than RFOM maps were. Unless they increase the size of the maps and maybe put in vehicles, I don't think it'll work that well.

Well, that's because this is RFOM:2, not RFOM.

In most frachises I've seen they've kept the level size pretty similar. But yeah, it'll be great with BF2/2142 sized maps. Hope they introduce vehicles as well.

So your attacking this game because its unique?

Battlefield disagrees with you. It's all about the size of the map.RK-Mara

Exactly. If they can make some pretty decent size maps. Then it should fun. Also atleast you have the option to play with that many players unlike other games where they cap you off at 16.

[QUOTE="RK-Mara"]Battlefield disagrees with you. It's all about the size of the map.Killfox

Exactly. If they can make some pretty decent size maps. Then it should fun. Also atleast you have the option to play with that many players unlike other games where they cap you off at 16.

I think Warhawk is a great example. Large max player size with massive maps and when there are fewer players the maps are made smaller.

Battlefield disagrees with you. It's all about the size of the map.RK-Mara

I have to agree with you man, Battlefield 2 has been out for four years and still going strong. A lot of people dont have mics on there and its not as bad as what the TC is describing.

[QUOTE="RK-Mara"]Battlefield disagrees with you. It's all about the size of the map.djxaquaxblue

I have to agree with you man, Battlefield 2 has been out for four years and still going strong. A lot of people dont have mics on there and its not as bad as what the TC is describing.

Server admins can disable the mics too.

[QUOTE="Killfox"]

[QUOTE="RK-Mara"]Battlefield disagrees with you. It's all about the size of the map.james28893

Exactly. If they can make some pretty decent size maps. Then it should fun. Also atleast you have the option to play with that many players unlike other games where they cap you off at 16.

I think Warhawk is a great example. Large max player size with massive maps and when there are fewer players the maps are made smaller.

Yeah. Agreed. I love Warhawk. One of my favorite online games to play.

BS. Play in a 50 player CS:S match and it isn't a mess. kingman03

50 cs:s maps are crazy messes, the t are camping on one side while the ct are on ofensie the mess is when the grenades and flashes begin to unleash.

your either a jealous lem or a really jealous lem or a lem to addicted to puny map8 player simple gears of war online games

large multiplayer is hard to get right...you cant just take smaller modes and make them bigger...

at such a large size, modes need to be specially designed, team deathmatch, capture the flag...etc. all need to be taken out, because they are useless at that size.

a lot of PC games can go that high, COD4, UT3...etc...yet their are only a few, BF, Joint ops...etc, that manage to get it right.

you also need big maps...and I mean seriously big...their have been BF maps that are miles and miles across.

The concept of 60+ players in RFOM 2 is interesting,

But right now playing more then 30 players in RFOM is a LAG fest as it is,

Perhaps PSN should impliment some minimum connection speed standards?

Its all about opinions. Some people prefer 60+ player slaughterfests to those of small group games (I being one of them).

It's already aimless clowns running around with no mics in a frag slaughter fest in RFOM1

So just imagine 2 with 60+ WOW can you say aimless slaughter fest.

By no means does 60+ translate into good online. In most cases it translates into frustration and team killing and just outright madness.

I was playing a 16+ player game of COD4 last night and we all had mics. And it was still a frag fest. Just an example.

Huge online player games have never been all that great. It's 99% of the time much funner with smaller managible groups with mics and using good stratigy.

So for 60+ ROFM 2 expect frustration and mindless chaos.

Fuzzy_Munch

The concept of 60+ players in RFOM 2 is interesting,

But right now playing more then 30 players in RFOM is a LAG fest as it is,

Perhaps PSN should impliment some minimum connection speed standards?

cosmostein77

lol and you probably wont even have a good enough connection for minimum connection speed standards nah just kidding but 40 players on RFOM a lagfest? It rarely happened to the games I went in to and when did it would go ahead fast like it never happened.

Finally, I can line up headshots like on PC.

60 player will be fun, it will be like you're in a real war, just complete mess/chaos.Anti-Gamer

am I the only one that sees anything wrong with this? How the heck is war fun?

what about using the mic? isnt it going to be a bit chaotic having 30 people trying to communicate over each other?pro-nathan-07

no... resistance and resistance 2 have squads for each team.. you go into a squad of around 6 people and you can only hear those people.. noone else on your team.. so in resistance 2 there will be objectives in multiplayer and each team should have around 5 squads.. all those squads go out and achieve stuff

edit.. and yes you dont HAVE to go into squads.. you can stay out and listen to all the mess.. but i think they limit it to a couple people talking at a time

It's already aimless clowns running around with no mics in a frag slaughter fest in RFOM1

So just imagine 2 with 60+ WOW can you say aimless slaughter fest.

By no means does 60+ translate into good online. In most cases it translates into frustration and team killing and just outright madness.

I was playing a 16+ player game of COD4 last night and we all had mics. And it was still a frag fest. Just an example.

Huge online player games have never been all that great. It's 99% of the time much funner with smaller managible groups with mics and using good stratigy.

So for 60+ ROFM 2 expect frustration and mindless chaos.

Fuzzy_Munch

I have played loads of 60+ player games, let alone 100+ players.

They have all been great

It's already aimless clowns running around with no mics in a frag slaughter fest in RFOM1

So just imagine 2 with 60+ WOW can you say aimless slaughter fest.

By no means does 60+ translate into good online. In most cases it translates into frustration and team killing and just outright madness.

I was playing a 16+ player game of COD4 last night and we all had mics. And it was still a frag fest. Just an example.

Huge online player games have never been all that great. It's 99% of the time much funner with smaller managible groups with mics and using good stratigy.

So for 60+ ROFM 2 expect frustration and mindless chaos.

Fuzzy_Munch

finally someone agrees with me. i think resistance should stick to 40 player max. i would be excited if warhawk 2 had 60 player support because it would be incredible, but its just too many people for a fps team deathmatch. i dont really care though because i was only able to find two 40 player games in rfom in the 8 months i played it.

finally someone agrees with me. i think resistance should stick to 40 player max. i would be excited if warhawk 2 had 60 player support because it would be incredible, but its just too many people for a fps team deathmatch. i dont really care though because i was only able to find two 40 player games in rfom in the 8 months i played it.

bazookajoe19

Team deathmatch wouldent work with so many players - especially with random spawn points, so im guessing objective based, ctf, or point capture modes.

(looks at other PC FPS large scale mp games)

It's already aimless clowns running around with no mics in a frag slaughter fest in RFOM1

So just imagine 2 with 60+ WOW can you say aimless slaughter fest.

By no means does 60+ translate into good online. In most cases it translates into frustration and team killing and just outright madness.

I was playing a 16+ player game of COD4 last night and we all had mics. And it was still a frag fest. Just an example.

Huge online player games have never been all that great. It's 99% of the time much funner with smaller managible groups with mics and using good stratigy.

So for 60+ ROFM 2 expect frustration and mindless chaos.

Fuzzy_Munch

Wow, you have never played RFOM online, have you?

or read deeply into RFOM 2 online, either

The 40 player matches in Resistance were brilliant, it felt like a war should be. And the levels were massive, so they supported the players very well. What's even more amasing is I have not once lagged playing in the rooms. Also, Resistance 2 is NOT Resistance Fall of Man 2, It's Resistance 2:United We Fall. It's hard to beleive your opinion is not somewhat biased anout this game if you have not even looked deeply enough into it to know it's title.

And who in God's name said you have to play in a room with 60 people, you know the max can be less than that, right?

[QUOTE="Fuzzy_Munch"]

It's already aimless clowns running around with no mics in a frag slaughter fest in RFOM1

So just imagine 2 with 60+ WOW can you say aimless slaughter fest.

By no means does 60+ translate into good online. In most cases it translates into frustration and team killing and just outright madness.

I was playing a 16+ player game of COD4 last night and we all had mics. And it was still a frag fest. Just an example.

Huge online player games have never been all that great. It's 99% of the time much funner with smaller managible groups with mics and using good stratigy.

So for 60+ ROFM 2 expect frustration and mindless chaos.

bazookajoe19

finally someone agrees with me. i think resistance should stick to 40 player max. i would be excited if warhawk 2 had 60 player support because it would be incredible, but its just too many people for a fps team deathmatch. i dont really care though because i was only able to find two 40 player games in rfom in the 8 months i played it.

I completley agree. 40 was perfect for Resistance. I don't know what the devs were thinking when the online experience was one of the best out there. Only thing missing was a vehicle experience which insomniac is integrating. So far, me and my friends have yet to find 40 player max game on resistance, but with even 20 people, it's amazing. Now, only if UT3 and Orange Box and even Rainbow Six Vegas had Resistance kind of online community....it's so hard to find good players to play with.

Halo 4 is going to have 80 players! PS3 fanboys PWNT! :lol: