Why do PC FPS gamers like to cram so many players on a map?

I like playing in 40 man servers in COD4.... 50 can get a little chaotic, plus all the granade spammers,and martydom can be a bit much with so many people in the map.

PC Gaming is all about pushing the limits of modern hardware.

Because they can. Doesn't mean they all do.

I love to play on the 16v16 player maps in TF2 when a bunch of my friends are playing. Other than that meh? :P

Depends on the game. TF2 16 v 16 with class limits is fun, MW2 with 32 players would just be dumb... that game is good for 18 max.

You need to try MAG.

but hey, it's the PS3 exclusive that has 256 players on the same map, not a PC game :PBrunoBRS

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]but hey, it's the PS3 exclusive that has 256 players on the same map, not a PC game :Pferret-gamer

Because it can be fun killing tons of guys in just a few seconds. It is awesome when you get the entire 20 man team to rush Long A and just destroy the opponents. There are plenty of servers that have low player limits, so nobody should be complaining or questioning.

Because they can. Also, 32 person TF2 is so much more fun than 24 if you do it right.

I hate playing CoD4 with more than 16 players. So many servers have 50 player TDM, which is just insane, in a bad way. SilverChimera

You're crazy, man. Playing CoD4 with 50 player TDM is fantastic. :D

BF2 and BF2142 has 64 players, but you could still go several minutes without seeing an enemy, because the maps weren't the same sty|e as seen in games like CoD4 or BC2.

Then again, I wouldn't really want to play CoD or Bad Company on my computer anyway...

Bad Company 2, although I've been rather critical of it, actually works much better on PC with 32 players in my opinion. Lots more action to go around.

[QUOTE="SilverChimera"]I hate playing CoD4 with more than 16 players. So many servers have 50 player TDM, which is just insane, in a bad way. TreyoftheDead

You're crazy, man. Playing CoD4 with 50 player TDM is fantastic. :D

[QUOTE="TreyoftheDead"]

[QUOTE="SilverChimera"]I hate playing CoD4 with more than 16 players. So many servers have 50 player TDM, which is just insane, in a bad way. SilverChimera

You're crazy, man. Playing CoD4 with 50 player TDM is fantastic. :D

Dude how can you not like that? It's ridiculously fun...

Because PC's are supreme, and we like to demonstrate our supremacy by having more players.

i don't know. i can't stand playing bad company 2 on a map with more than 24 players. i usually play on maps with 18-20. but hey, it's the PS3 exclusive that has 256 players on the same map, not a PC game :PBrunoBRS

Yeah, its map balanced for 256 players....

I swear....

[QUOTE="SilverChimera"][QUOTE="TreyoftheDead"]

You're crazy, man. Playing CoD4 with 50 player TDM is fantastic. :D

psn8214

Dude how can you not like that? It's ridiculously fun...

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]but hey, it's the PS3 exclusive that has 256 players on the same map, not a PC game :PBrunoBRS

As someone who loves huge servers, I'll tell you why.

I came from consoles. Bungie is probably the only developer who has stuck to their guns in the belief that Halo is a game best played with 16 players and that's even chaotic. And to be fair, I've been playing CE on LAN with anywhere between 3 friends, and 15 friends and loved it in any form. When I heard MW2 was capped at 12 or 18 on ground war, I didn't like that very much. After playing did I realise that was totally okay, because the spawn points are close enough to where you don't even know you're shooting the same guy until one of you dies.

For me, I don't like walking around a huge map only to get shot from somewhere, then having to run all the way back without feeling like I did anything that life. In arena games, keep the number small. But in war games (MW2 is like an arena game to me) like BC2 and ESPECIALLY Red Orchestra, I want to feel like I'm part of a larger battle. At that point, I don't care if I get messed up in a dozen ways, as long as I've felt like I've experienced the best virtual war there is.

I played a game of RO yesterday. It was a small field with a network of trenches, but a 50 player server. You'd see a platoon's worth of your guys lying down behind bales of hay and rocks trying to get shots off while tracers rounds from enemy machine guns are bouncing all over the place, then someone calls in artillery, and you see the bodies of your team mates get flung up into the air missing limbs and bleeding all over the place. War's not a game, but goddamn is it glorious.

Maybe it's just me, but at this point in time, war games aren't about me being a hero and saving the day COD style, it's everything that's going on around you that makes the experience.

We do what we want because we can

Because PC's are supreme, and we like to demonstrate our supremacy by having more players.

ichc1000x

Yeah purty much, not because is all that great, but just because we can.

I wonder how you guys would feel about WWII Online or PlanetSide. MMOFPSs with player caps in the THOUSANDS, not to mention huge maps for them to fit in.NamelessPlayer

Unfortunately, these games are plagued with technical errors, so they don't recieve the credit that they deserve.

Nobody said anything about Call of Duty 1 or 2...

Those maps and the spawn system are well balanced for 64 players....

As someone who loves huge servers, I'll tell you why.

I came from consoles. Bungie is probably the only developer who has stuck to their guns in the belief that Halo is a game best played with 16 players and that's even chaotic. And to be fair, I've been playing CE on LAN with anywhere between 3 friends, and 15 friends and loved it in any form. When I heard MW2 was capped at 12 or 18 on ground war, I didn't like that very much. After playing did I realise that was totally okay, because the spawn points are close enough to where you don't even know you're shooting the same guy until one of you dies.

For me, I don't like walking around a huge map only to get shot from somewhere, then having to run all the way back without feeling like I did anything that life. In arena games, keep the number small. But in war games (MW2 is like an arena game to me) like BC2 and ESPECIALLY Red Orchestra, I want to feel like I'm part of a larger battle. At that point, I don't care if I get messed up in a dozen ways, as long as I've felt like I've experienced the best virtual war there is.

I played a game of RO yesterday. It was a small field with a network of trenches, but a 50 player server. You'd see a platoon's worth of your guys lying down behind bales of hay and rocks trying to get shots off while tracers rounds from enemy machine guns are bouncing all over the place, then someone calls in artillery, and you see the bodies of your team mates get flung up into the air missing limbs and bleeding all over the place. War's not a game, but goddamn is it glorious.

Maybe it's just me, but at this point in time, war games aren't about me being a hero and saving the day COD style, it's everything that's going on around you that makes the experience.

Sharpie125

I must say for game play styles like invasion they should have made it 24 people.. 16 just isn't large enough imo and often times the huge invasion maps feels like a desert.

I like a high player count when I play Battlefield 2.Arach666

I must say for game play styles like invasion they should have made it 24 people.. 16 just isn't large enough imo and often times the huge invasion maps feels like a desert.

sSubZerOo

The worst thing in Halo is when you have those specific game types, attack defend or whatever and a big open map. You look out and you see 8 guys running at your *base* in a cluster, with a vehicle or two if they're lucky.

You're all probably tired of me bringing up RO haha, but there's a close quarters map in that game where the last objective is to pretty much storm a warehouse. So your whole team of about twenty, twenty five guys flood into the place with bayonets and grenades. Awesome stuff.

Some games do well with more players while others dont, like COD4 and MW2 dont while BF and TF2 do. In battlefield I love having more players, it adds that "battle" feeling to it with explosions going of everywhere and guys dying all over the place. I have no trouble getting highs scores and killings lots of people on 32 player servers, maybe you suck TC?

Nobody said anything about Call of Duty 1 or 2...

Those maps and the spawn system are well balanced for 64 players....

Cronik959

Considering the fact I get grenade spammed to oblivion on every large COD2 server, no. Then again, I suck at COD2 :P.

[QUOTE="Cronik959"]

Nobody said anything about Call of Duty 1 or 2...

Those maps and the spawn system are well balanced for 64 players....

Upparoom

Considering the fact I get grenade spammed to oblivion on every large COD2 server, no. Then again, I suck at COD2 :P.

Thats why you play on servers with the nades disabled :D

I think Halo Reach could use more players per patch....Usually its only 4vs4 for TDM, 8 vs 8 would be nice in just the regular maps.

Just thinking about it, sounds like it can be pretty chaotic eh?

That's what I thought about MAG before I played it, but then I bought the game, and when there is a lot of players facing a lot of other players in a more tactical style, it works out VERY well.

In my experience TF2 works very well with 32 players, it does make a difference that number, often when you have 20 or 24 you don't get people playing with all classes in the same team. The rest is all for pure fun, sometimes it is nice to go to a server and just play to shoot stuff without caring, i always play 27x27 in CS with deathmatch and it is always very fun.

Depends on the game I guess, im a game like BF2 I would be pretty bummed out with les then 32 players, and I even feel like 64 is a small number sometimes.

And in CS:S I only play on 40 player servers.

The reasoning is that both of those are quite tactical in nature, and the maps are usually big enough and well made enough to support the numbers.

Then there are some games where a high player ount is not a good thing, I presonally would point to the quake games, or maybe the CoD games (altho I have not playied the last2 in the series.

I think it comes down to structure, if the games has clear objectives, and control, then a high player count is almost always needed, I would likely think it is true if you said MAG too, some games are just better with more players, an orderly chaos if you will.

Then again sometimes the answer is simply: Because we can.

Because the choice is there.

You can find a 12v12 server just as easily as you can find a 16v16 server.

I personally enjoy 16v16 servers because I can find more people to kill. :P