Games Radar Preview Huxley!

[KeNshin]

Well there are a couple of ways to go about the 20vs20 thing.

1) Anything higher then that resulted in gigantic loss of fps/huge amounts of lag: There's no point in saying "hey we can have 100 vs 100 battles, but the quality sucks ass".

2) This only applies to the random BGs and you can do higher ones in clan versus clan: 60vs60 with random people might just have been too hard, resulting in chaos and no decent fun.

3) 20vs20 for Launch, once Huxley has a bit more players they'll add the remaining bigger BGs: self explanatory.

4) 20vs20 was in the beta only and games radar mistakingly took this as the max setting in the fully released game: I've read other previews that came out a couple of months ago, where the writers told us they were allowed to play the beta as well and the developers were still talking about 60vs60 matches. It's not impossible that Games Radar made a mistake.

There's probably a couple more scenarios I can't think of but whatever the case, be it 20vs20 or 60vs60, it will be done the way they feel would be best for the game, if there's no problem for supporting these gigantic battles, they'll make it happen.

[Ridd1e]

Yawn...Waited long enough.. Come on already

[BeeHay]

nice! hurry up and wait....

[chesterdjester]

did webzen like totally give up on the game, its like nine days into 2008 and the company website still says "within 2007"

[Siberian]

They dont seem to like to give us any information. Although there is a Webzen USA you would think they would handle public relations over here and do things like update a website for us every few months.

[JoeyBagaDonuts]

Finally some more info on this game. Still gonna be quite a bit until it comes out, but can't wait. (=

[Grind]

I don't think they'd move it down to 20 vs 20 because of lag or because that was the best number for PvP fighting.

There is an interview somewhere out there that says Webzen actually thought of having battlefields hold more than 200 people for larger than 100 vs 100 fights. But after doing a lot of testing (or maybe they just thought about it and did some kind of crazy research) they found out that 100 vs 100 worked the best and was the most fun.

So it's not the technology that would hold the game back, which is why I think they're still going to have 100 vs 100 battles.

It's not like there are going to be 200 people jumping and dodging around in a 10x10 foot box, shooting missiles in every direction and not even bothering to aim.

These will be teams of 100 controlled by end game guilds, spread out through a VERY large map. In the area capture game mode (that resembles the Battlefield series, capturing areas and gaining points etc), each squad could be going after different areas in completely different parts of the map.

Then maybe at some point in the game larger battles take place in a sort of choke point of the map. who knows?

There are plenty of games out there that support far more than 100 vs 100 battles. RF online boasted thousands of players fighting in epic PvP battles. Even back when WoW was first starting out, you could get 40-50 vs 40-50 without having much trouble. and that was back when they had HORRIBLE servers that crashed all the time for no reason.

Sorry I'm kind of rambling, I just see no reason for them to make it 20 vs 20 as the max number for battlefields. So I assume it's just a mistake/misunderstanding.

[Alpha Wolfgang]

i hope i can at least be in 60 vs 60 matches...


-i am a tank/helicopter/jet whore... just because i like tanks and aircraft, doesnt mean i am a noob... i have extensive skill with armor and air support, ranging from battlefield, operation flashpoint, and other games.

so, you will see me trying to get a vehicle more than out fighting on foot... and if that makes me a n00b to you 'pros then so be it... because i can slaughter infantry with ease, haha... and i can almost always beat the vehicle competition... so i guess that puts me on top of the food chain?

[Felix12g]

They've been having problems with the Unreal 3 engine and getting the MMO aspect of the game working. They contracted with another company that has more experience with this kind of thing to help them work out the kinks and get the game on track.

[Guyver]

Originally Posted by Felix12g

They've been having problems with the Unreal 3 engine and getting the MMO aspect of the game working. They contracted with another company that has more experience with this kind of thing to help them work out the kinks and get the game on track.

I'm not saying that I don't believe you, but a source would definetly make me feel better. :D

[Siberian]

Originally Posted by Felix12g

They've been having problems with the Unreal 3 engine and getting the MMO aspect of the game working. They contracted with another company that has more experience with this kind of thing to help them work out the kinks and get the game on track.

They said they are having trouble with the unreal engine because all of the support for it is in English. That is concerning. If they don't have enough people fluent in English to make the game then how will they support it in North America after it is released? Every time I read something from webzen I have less hope that we will ever see this game.

[Felix12g]

Webzen: Sang Woon Yoon, development strategy manager in global studio management

Gamasutra - Korea Rising: Five Crucial Interviews

[F3Speech]

Just read the review, and sounds good...

But... is it just me or could that be a review of Neocron2 with a title change, I really didnt realise the similarities were so much.

That said... the review does talk about more advanced pvp modes which will be very welcome, hopefully the quest system with have a similar upgrade from N2 (you would struggle to actually call it questing in N2 i think).

Not that theirs anything wrong with similarities, I loved Neocron but lets hope Huxley takes hold of the netcode/combat/lag complexities (yes i said lag dont shoot meh ;p) better than Neocron2 did/does; this the only reason my friends and I stopped playing.

For the moment Neocron2 imo has a cornered market there is just nothing like it available atm, but when Huxley is released Im sure we will see also of N2's current/old player base move over.

Roll on release

[Dreconus]

..., ok i've monitered these forums for some time. i think some of you have easily misread the article... where it says 4v4 - 20v20 "FireFights"

Firefights means without vehicles... therefore the maps would be reDickulously smaller. i dont think they mistyped, mispelled, or misinformed you in any way. they just didnt play the bigger battlegrounds that have vehicles etc. all the video's i've seen of beta gameplay didn't have vehicles.

[Chris69006900]

well 100v100 woudlnt that be like laggy??? lol like the graphics are good and 100v100 MASSIVLY multiplayer online games dont have the best graphics of all time lol and anyways 100v100 thats a lil big dont ya think you coould be dieing every second lol it would be fine with me if it was 30v30

100v100 i woudlnt play it then lol

[Grind]

Originally Posted by Chris69006900

well 100v100 woudlnt that be like laggy??? lol like the graphics are good and 100v100 MASSIVLY multiplayer online games dont have the best graphics of all time lol and anyways 100v100 thats a lil big dont ya think you coould be dieing every second lol it would be fine with me if it was 30v30

100v100 i woudlnt play it then lol

Well it wouldn't be 200 people spraying bullets in a 10 X 10 foot box. It would be 200 people spread across a GIANT map. And then I assume there will be choke points where people tend to group up but a literal 100 vs 100 firefight probably wouldn't ever happen. And if it did, we'll all just have to have faith in the servers :D

[D0gSoldi3r]

When theres 15 vs 15 people tend to act more brave because theres less chance of being struck, But when you see people in 100 vs 100 i bet both of my bollocks it will be more tactical. Cause just like in a real war, you don't stand a chance.

Played medal of honor online with 120 people online once, that was crazy stuff.

[Deified]

Man this game keeps getting better. Now dont be so dissapointed cause there are noe 100v100 matches. Because think about it. Those sized matches require alot of room to work with, there will be likely no team play, and lag lag lag!(mayby)

But i think overall this game looks terrific. With specilazations to squads does induce squad play that could mean that more teamplay,and veichle licisine i belive i read so no noobs try to play with big veichles lol, basicly this game looks terricific. But personaly i wanna see if it can survive unlike the matrix lol :P Also you never know about patches. Look at WoW freaken add in a whole new zone it seems like every time there is a big patch <---WoW player and if this game is good i may have to switch lol!

[Xyrael]

Did any of you ever actually play a MMOFPS before, I just hear people ranting about BF2. Who cares about BF2. Try Planetside, 400 people on a world, that's MMO. BF2 sucked in comparison. If anyone ever played Planetside you'd know the power of the zerg, the infamous Tower of Power battles where the entire planet of 400 people battled over a single tower, or the outfits of 12 man that attempted to capture the generator of a base while holding off 200+ enemies. There was lag, if you had a suck computer or connection, but for the most part battles were awe inspiring and smooth, you felt so diminutive and unimportant and yet you always felt like you had stuff to do. Reinforce the defenses, bust through the back door, shoot the grenade launcher down the tunnel at the right angle and pray you don't get blasted by the twenty defenders inside, suit up in heavy armor and tank your way through that tunnel like a unstoppable meat shield while everyone else followed you.

100+ players isn't as much chaotic blast fest as much as it is mob mentality. You feel helpless on your own, so you stick with everyone else. Some people prefer being a medic, others liked being snipers, most preferred standard infantrymen. But it was the outfits that ruled the battlefields.

I really hope they include the 100 v 100 battlefields, possibly even more with NPC soldiers on your team in a massive PvP quest, just for the feel of being in a real war. I'm not the kind of person who'd ever play a 4 v 4, I hated Unreal Tournament and Halo and all that. 20 v 20 would be tolerable, but 100 v 100 let's people not in clans perform roles just as good as a clanner. Anything less than that takes away from solo gameplay, and although this games not geared for it you know there's a lot of loners out there.

Coming from the experience of Planetside, not some sissy small fry game like BF2, is what's disenchanting me about the smaller games. But who knows, they didn't get to review something about the actual game, just the demo they got. Heck, maybe they didn't even explore the whole place to find the 100 v 100 (or Webzen didn't want to show it to them because they couldn't fill out the battlefield with 200 real people and show them the experience, which could have caused a bad review)

[Bluez]

The thing about have 400 people and such fighting in a battlefield is that no single person will actually have an effect on how the battle goes. Ive never played planetside, but even in smaller games like battlefield, I might be doing very well, but in the end, our team gets smashed, and no one bothers to read the scoreboard or compliment one another. It also helps people stand out and show off their characters better. I wouldnt want it to become a "sprint-to-your-death fest."