Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Are you happy with 16 players?

72 replies to this topic

Poll: Are you happy with 16 players? (356 member(s) have cast votes)

Are you happy with 16 players?

  1. Yes, 16 is enough (178 votes [53.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 53.29%

  2. No, I want more (156 votes [46.71%])

    Percentage of vote: 46.71%

Vote Guests cannot vote
davetopper
  • davetopper

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2012
  • None

#31

Posted 18 August 2013 - 03:40 PM

I thought I might be wrong on this poll, usually I vote with the masses thinking like minds. I wasn't wrong this time either. I thought people would want more though.

I am nocturnal so I usually end up in an area with around 5 people. Many times I end up being alone. Which suits me as well, at least you are not setting there waiting for other players just to do your own thing.

Here's another thing though. Let's say you are online and a friend is playing single player. Now if CVG isn't smokin some herb they claim that you can fire up your in game cell and call that person into your server. Isn't that special?

I think this experience will take the socialvibe that Test Drive Unlimited 2 wanted to have, and actually have it.

This may not be chaos land of the past, but just may be accepted that way as well.

16s enough.

Ertrick36
  • Ertrick36

    Sole Survivor

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Mar 2013

#32

Posted 18 August 2013 - 03:49 PM

I've played online games that have had MASSIVE numbers of people in them. I didn't really like them because they were laggy and people could get away with anything in them. Besides, it isn't like the streets will be entirely empty, and the sixteen people in the game will be the only people in the game. Though having a few hundred or so players in a single server couldn't hurt, as the map is just massive (I'm speaking in terms of playability; not the consoles' capabilities to run the games like this).

Guns N R0se
  • Guns N R0se

    King of the Mountain

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2009

#33

Posted 18 August 2013 - 03:58 PM

Gonna have to wait for the PC version for more players since consoles can't handle it sad.gif

manny_calavera
  • manny_calavera

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2008

#34

Posted 18 August 2013 - 04:06 PM

I hardly ever have found a full 16 player match in either GTA IV or RDR, I'm perfectly fine with R* choosing quality over quantity. To put more players they would have to cut on character and vehicle customization.

Guns N R0se
  • Guns N R0se

    King of the Mountain

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2009

#35

Posted 18 August 2013 - 04:13 PM

QUOTE (manny_calavera @ Sunday, Aug 18 2013, 16:06)
I hardly ever have found a full 16 player match in either GTA IV or RDR, I'm perfectly fine with R* choosing quality over quantity. To put more players they would have to cut on character and vehicle customization.

Did you play either of those games on release? Both were (and are considering their age) extremely easy to find full games in. As far as cutting content, this wouldn't be an issues if consoles were so obsolete. Even the "next gen" are pitiful compared to PCs.

Sanderm1
  • Sanderm1

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2013

#36

Posted 18 August 2013 - 04:14 PM

16 PLAYERS - Disappointing
24 PLAYERS - Good
32 PLAYERS - Perfect
64 PLAYERS - Amazing
64 PLAYERS+ - Too many

^Talking about gameplay NOT software. I know that current gen can't handle it but maybe next gen we can have atleast 24 players? I just feel like that with 16 players in such a massive map it'll feel dull and "lonely" just ike GTA IV free roam. And all you people say that 16 players is enough for the current software but tell me that if rockstar were able to have all these current features with 32 players with NO lag you wouldn't want it?

Ertrick36
  • Ertrick36

    Sole Survivor

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Mar 2013

#37

Posted 18 August 2013 - 04:18 PM

I'm starting to feel an anti console sentiment clouding up here. Next thing you know, we'll have a full-fledged console war, and this nice little poll will have to be locked confused.gif

manny_calavera
  • manny_calavera

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2008

#38

Posted 18 August 2013 - 04:28 PM

QUOTE (Guns N R0se @ Sunday, Aug 18 2013, 17:13)
QUOTE (manny_calavera @ Sunday, Aug 18 2013, 16:06)
I hardly ever have found a full 16 player match in either GTA IV or RDR, I'm perfectly fine with R* choosing quality over quantity. To put more players they would have to cut on character and vehicle customization.

Did you play either of those games on release? Both were (and are considering their age) extremely easy to find full games in. As far as cutting content, this wouldn't be an issues if consoles were so obsolete. Even the "next gen" are pitiful compared to PCs.

I did play them around release date, at least RDR, not sure about IV. And it was very rare for me to find a full lobby. Not counting that half the players usually leave before the match ends. That's why it puzzles me that so many people find 16 players to be too few.

TheCrewGeneral
  • TheCrewGeneral

    P★C★G★A★M★E★R

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2013

#39

Posted 18 August 2013 - 04:55 PM

20 wouldn't be half bad.

Raztatic
  • Raztatic

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2013

#40

Posted 18 August 2013 - 06:27 PM

I definitely want more but I think they wouldve charged us initially to play it if we could have 100-200 player servers.. I think that once its established they'll be charging for it and maybe by then they'll have 32-64 player servers.. I dont think we'll ever see 100-200 player servers.. Its just too much and they could easily get away with 64.. Even doubling it at some point would probably be enough for some gamers.. Be patient, enjoy the introduction and if were lucky we will get what we want in the future..

DopeSack
  • DopeSack

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2013

#41

Posted 18 August 2013 - 06:31 PM

i voted NO but i think 16 might be all current gen consoles could handle w/o total sacrifice of fps which in my opinion is a good reason to limit the numbers....

But i also feel that when this comes to next gen this number will be increased as processor and graphics power is increased considerably which will improve the overall experience imo...

Raztatic
  • Raztatic

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2013

#42

Posted 18 August 2013 - 06:34 PM

I also dont know much about online gameplay.. If we can have 16 players and have all the content from the main game plus some extras Id be more than happy... but if for a price they could set up larger servers than that would be cool too smile.gif

Velesath
  • Velesath

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2009

#43

Posted 18 August 2013 - 06:53 PM

QUOTE (IDredMan @ Friday, Aug 16 2013, 13:17)
QUOTE (CM_Kimmy @ Friday, Aug 16 2013, 09:13)
QUOTE (Sam-onella @ Friday, Aug 16 2013, 09:11)
I play SA-MP and I completely disagree with the OP. We are lucky to have 16 players. Increasing the player count will just stress the consoles more because of all the data to sync between players. I mean look at SAMP and JC2MP, they had to sacrifice some gameplay elements such as artificial intelligence due to data syncing conflicts. Plus, we are talking about two completely different engines one being less demanding than the other. The only way I can see more players being put in is if gameplay elements are sacrificed.

TL;DR: Do you want an online game with more players but far less content/game mechanics or keep the sixteen players and keep key game elements?

I thought they have removed key elements anyway? i know underwater exploring won't be online. Don't they usually remove a lot of stuff?

We're not really pushing the underwater side right now, but once we get the first batch of content out - which is going to be a lot; hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of missions - then we'll start looking at some other things. Underwater. Getting all the subs going. They're all there, it's all ready to go. And underwater's kind of cool. I think we're going to find that a lot of people like underwater, so I think it's an area that we might utilise in future.

That somehow makes you know underwater exploring wont be in.

To me it sounds more like there won't be missions, objectives, and game modes focusing on underwater, not that they'll be removing the single-player underwater content for GTAO.

SausageInACan
  • SausageInACan

    كافر

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2013
  • United-States

#44

Posted 18 August 2013 - 06:57 PM

QUOTE (Velesath @ Sunday, Aug 18 2013, 18:53)

To me it sounds more like there won't be missions, objectives, and game modes focusing on underwater, not that they'll be removing the single-player underwater content for GTAO.

Eventually there will be missions dealing with underwater. The president of R* North said this.

Ertrick36
  • Ertrick36

    Sole Survivor

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Mar 2013

#45

Posted 18 August 2013 - 06:58 PM

QUOTE (Velesath @ Sunday, Aug 18 2013, 18:53)
QUOTE (IDredMan @ Friday, Aug 16 2013, 13:17)
QUOTE (CM_Kimmy @ Friday, Aug 16 2013, 09:13)
QUOTE (Sam-onella @ Friday, Aug 16 2013, 09:11)
I play SA-MP and I completely disagree with the OP. We are lucky to have 16 players. Increasing the player count will just stress the consoles more because of all the data to sync between players. I mean look at SAMP and JC2MP, they had to sacrifice some gameplay elements such as artificial intelligence due to data syncing conflicts. Plus, we are talking about two completely different engines one being less demanding than the other. The only way I can see more players being put in is if gameplay elements are sacrificed.

TL;DR: Do you want an online game with more players but far less content/game mechanics or keep the sixteen players and keep key game elements?

I thought they have removed key elements anyway? i know underwater exploring won't be online. Don't they usually remove a lot of stuff?

We're not really pushing the underwater side right now, but once we get the first batch of content out - which is going to be a lot; hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of missions - then we'll start looking at some other things. Underwater. Getting all the subs going. They're all there, it's all ready to go. And underwater's kind of cool. I think we're going to find that a lot of people like underwater, so I think it's an area that we might utilise in future.

That somehow makes you know underwater exploring wont be in.

To me it sounds more like there won't be missions, objectives, and game modes focusing on underwater, not that they'll be removing the single-player underwater content for GTAO.

This icon14.gif

How does it seem like "underwater exploring won't be in" if the quote clearly said, "Underwater. Getting the subs going. They're all there, it's all ready to go." To me, that definitely sounds like there will be underwater exploring, but it'll just be a little dull for those of us who are objective driven, as they'll have nothing other than the exploration in there.

Gregers08
  • Gregers08

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2011
  • None

#46

Posted 18 August 2013 - 07:06 PM

While I understand console limitations I feel 16 players is a huge bottleneck to GTAO 's potential.

With only 16 players in a session players won't really be able to form a decent amount of groups in session meaning you will be alone most of time if you aren't playing with your crew or friends. Another problem is that the map is HUGE, RDR multiplayer felt barren enough with 16 players and GTAV dwarfs that game in size, just think how rare it will be to have more than 5 people around you when there is so much to see and do in the game world. Moments in the trailer where all 16 players are and interacting with each other will only really happen during events or when your with your crew.


pandagang55
  • pandagang55

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2013

#47

Posted 18 August 2013 - 07:18 PM

I think haveing a max of 16 players is not enough, I mean the map is big so why can't there be more players? With Los Santos filled with 16 players it's going to feel like there is almost no one else there with you depending on if your aloone or with a crew that is. Now i'm not saying GTA Onlie is going 2 be sh*t because of that because I think it looks super awesome and fun but R* could have put atleast 24 to 36 players make the world more filled with real people. I'm content with 16 players but i'd be happier with more.

gpcguy1
  • gpcguy1

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2011

#48

Posted 18 August 2013 - 08:06 PM

QUOTE (pandagang55 @ Sunday, Aug 18 2013, 19:18)
I think haveing a max of 16 players is not enough, I mean the map is big so why can't there be more players? With Los Santos filled with 16 players it's going to feel like there is almost no one else there with you depending on if your aloone or with a crew that is. Now i'm not saying GTA Onlie is going 2 be sh*t because of that because I think it looks super awesome and fun but R* could have put atleast 24 to 36 players make the world more filled with real people. I'm content with 16 players but i'd be happier with more.

They can't just increase the player count...
Consoles have limitations.

CM_Kimmy
  • CM_Kimmy

    U WOT M8?

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2009

#49

Posted 18 August 2013 - 08:13 PM

QUOTE (Gregers08 @ Sunday, Aug 18 2013, 19:06)
While I understand console limitations I feel 16 players is a huge bottleneck to GTAO 's potential.

With only 16 players in a session players won't really be able to form a decent amount of groups in session meaning you will be alone most of time if you aren't playing with your crew or friends. Another problem is that the map is HUGE, RDR multiplayer felt barren enough with 16 players and GTAV dwarfs that game in size, just think how rare it will be to have more than 5 people around you when there is so much to see and do in the game world. Moments in the trailer where all 16 players are and interacting with each other will only really happen during events or when your with your crew.

Hit the nail on the had with this one. Even though there may be a console limitation (which i doubt), it still doesn't stop the fact that the game will feel empty and lonesome.

gpcguy1
  • gpcguy1

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2011

#50

Posted 18 August 2013 - 08:19 PM

QUOTE (CM_Kimmy @ Sunday, Aug 18 2013, 20:13)
QUOTE (Gregers08 @ Sunday, Aug 18 2013, 19:06)
While I understand console limitations I feel 16 players is a huge bottleneck to GTAO 's potential.

With only 16 players in a session players won't really be able to form a decent amount of groups in session meaning you will be alone most of time if you aren't playing with your crew or friends. Another problem is that the map is HUGE, RDR multiplayer felt barren enough with 16 players and GTAV dwarfs that game in size, just think how rare it will be to have more than 5 people around you when there is so much to see and do in the game world. Moments in the trailer where all 16 players are and interacting with each other will only really happen during events or when your with your crew.

Hit the nail on the had with this one. Even though there may be a console limitation (which i doubt), it still doesn't stop the fact that the game will feel empty and lonesome.

Why do you doubt it? Why do you think GTA IV had 32 players on PC but only 16 on consoles? Or Battlefield 3 which only had 24 but 64 for PC?

Also SAMP is not a valid argument, it's 9 years old of course it can run on a low-end computer.

MonsterCockDude
  • MonsterCockDude

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2013

#51

Posted 18 August 2013 - 08:36 PM

On SA:MP those servers usually did not have pedestrians ( if they did at all ) thus 100 players or so was needed for the map to not feel empty.



If you have a bunch of pedestrians and have a bunch of cops being controlled by the computer you don't really need more then 16 user players, as a matter of fact the more you have the more it could potentially ruin the game since you can have a bunch of people randomly attacking people or flying planes or helicopters and randomly bombing people.


You only need 4 people for a good crew to do co op missions with, 16 people is 4 potential crews going against each other in a server.

CM_Kimmy
  • CM_Kimmy

    U WOT M8?

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2009

#52

Posted 18 August 2013 - 08:50 PM

QUOTE (MonsterCockDude @ Sunday, Aug 18 2013, 20:36)
On SA:MP those servers usually did not have pedestrians ( if they did at all ) thus 100 players or so was needed for the map to not feel empty.



If you have a bunch of pedestrians and have a bunch of cops being controlled by the computer you don't really need more then 16 user players, as a matter of fact the more you have the more it could potentially ruin the game since you can have a bunch of people randomly attacking people or flying planes or helicopters and randomly bombing people.


You only need 4 people for a good crew to do co op missions with, 16 people is 4 potential crews going against each other in a server.

Some people (including myself) like to meet new people through games. And meeting new people through free-roam is ideal.

DeafMetal
  • DeafMetal

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2012

#53

Posted 19 August 2013 - 01:19 AM

Not particularly happy but not disappointed either. Wish they would have at least made it 24.

uptownrockstar
  • uptownrockstar

    Reagan Era

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007

#54

Posted 19 August 2013 - 01:56 AM

I was thinking 16 was not enough, but like someone said, change the crews to four; problem solved

maloy82
  • maloy82

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2013

#55

Posted 20 August 2013 - 10:22 PM

I voted not enough, only because, well in the videos i didnt see very many pedistrains, and 16 people in a large world is kinda lonley??

EDDYHarris
  • EDDYHarris

    한국어조선말

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2012

#56

Posted 20 August 2013 - 11:45 PM

Who knows maybe R* will get a better a engine with larger servers as everyone gets settled in with the game.

shattered-minds
  • shattered-minds

    Lovely chap

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2007
  • United-Kingdom

#57

Posted 20 August 2013 - 11:50 PM

I voted No, but a more accurate description would me "meh, I would have preferred more, but its hardly a deal breaker"

PHOENIXZERO
  • PHOENIXZERO

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

#58

Posted 21 August 2013 - 12:12 AM

I'm content because I'm familiar enough with the hardware limitations to not whine about it. There's just too much going on for current gen hardware to keep up without significant sacrifices like the number of NPCs on foot or in car, lighting, textures and pretty much damn near everything. They're consoles that are nearing 10 years old that have less than 500MB available for games. Having 16 players in the same area with 16 unique vehicles while who knows whatever is going on is probably pushing pretty damn close to the point where the game would start to run like sh*t. I figured that if they went the dedicated server route that it'd free up some resources as the limitations are in part focused around the fact that they used player hosted/listen servers through on the host's console would take enough stress off the hardware to allow a few more but perhaps instead of that they decided to keep up performance as well as they could awhile apparently making some minor MP alterations to how things run. It's not that far different from why we get a crap load of the same model of vehicle as we're driving.

Just wait for the next gen or PC versions, I'm sure both will have a minimum of 32 players or perhaps even 64.

Whiskey Ninja
  • Whiskey Ninja

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2013

#59

Posted 21 August 2013 - 06:49 AM

I'm happy with 16, but when V comes to PC or next gen (inevitably), I'll be hopping on that copy too, because there will definitely be a higher playercount.

So I voted for more.

BAF-stueycow
  • BAF-stueycow

    'StueyCow'

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2012
  • England

#60

Posted 21 August 2013 - 07:43 AM

I personally don't see a issue with 16 players




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users