- last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT
Posted by: BertramRiedacher
16 is good enough.
anyone whose played halo pc knows that.
anymore and its too crazy to be any fun.
plus the lag would be too much.
and why are all these player maximums powers of 2? why not 20?
I'd like someone like Chris Butcher (programmer) to answer that, but I think maybe it has something to do with binary. But the reasons I came up with it are silly, so that's all I'm gonna say.
Why does BF:1942 have 64 players?
Well first off, i've never seen a 64 player match. It levels out at 30-40 players. Secondly, BF is using less bandwidth per player. That means, each person is getting and sending a lot less information. That's vital for a huge MP game like BF or Warbirds, but it also means that there is less detail and infromation being sent b/n players. Its a trade-off, but BF is sold on the idea of huge, huge games involving vehicles and airplanes and such.
And remember, bigger is not necessarily better. Look at Splinter Cell: PT. That game has four peoplle maximum for mp. Why? It easily could've gone larger. But its ia gameplay issue. The more people that you thrown into a match, whether its SC:PT or Halo 2, doesn't neccesarily equate to a funner match. 16 player is plenty big, so long as the maps are designed well (which they willl be).