Max players in multi game

[winsrp]

Even when 4 players is nice, I think you should plan in something like 16. Most computers now can run TQ really easy, and if the engine is something like it, you might be able to put 16 players in a single game without problems.

What you think?

[Renevent]

Sounds like it would be an absolute nightmare to balance. I think part of the multiplayer count limit is by design and based on more than hardware limitations.

Heck, even Diablo 3 has a 4-5 player limit planned as well...

[Roros]

I would imagine it's entirely a design thing rather than a technical limitation. I wouldn't be surprised if they could get 128 players into diablo3 without much effort, let alone something like 8 or 16.

There's a certain point where it goes from being somewhat organized and managable to just complete chaos. Even in dungeon siege 2 where each player had his own party of AI characters and pets, 3 players each with their own posse became such a mess that we found ourselves having more fun by deliberately limiting it to 4 total characters - regardless of whether they were players or npc's.

I feel that 3-4 is the sweet spot. It's about as many you can have while still maintaining a sense of teamwork and synergy. I'm perfectly fine with the game allowing for more, but can't see myself getting much out of it. At 5-6++ players, the gameplay starts shifting more away from "I'll go in first to draw aggro if Bob gives me fire resistance" into "everyone dps the same guy, votekick the ones who lag behind".

[Alek]

It has been said soooo many times, and not to waste my words on what others have already told:

quality over quantity.

[Renevent]

"I feel that 3-4 is the sweet spot. It's about as many you can have while still maintaining a sense of teamwork and synergy."

Yeah, I feel the same way. At some point it just starts to feel like chaos...

[Malpheas]

No doubt. I think 4-6 max players is good.

As well, the game should have some mechanics only when x number of players are in the game:

Monsters behave differently with more PCs (read: player characters), like a group aura or more AoE; something massively tactical. Then you could justify putting "Warning Game Experience May Change Online".

[ASYLUM101]

Yeah, 3-4 sounds good. If you go with 16 players per game, the game balance would shift so much, you'd probably get one shotted by everything. To keep the game balanced for 16 players, the monsters would have to have at LEAST 10x their original stats to keep up with those extra players.

[yerkyerk]

For coop, 3-4 players seems fine.

16 players would be fun in a pvp arena though :D
But for a proper pvp arena you'd need closed servers...

[Alek]

Proper pvp arena requires more balancing than you can imagine. It's just time consuming imho, as nobody is going to play GD for PvP.

[Scryer]

Not much for me to add here, I really enjoy the team work around 4 players. 4-6 sounds great.

[Frey]

should be 6 players multiplayer. I hope you have a good connection.

[alexei]

I think only 4-5. 6 is where the teamwork start to shift.

[Mindray]

As many as possible, as long anyone will be involved in the game, not just couple high levelers rushing and cleaning up paths and rest just fallowing them like lambs, I hated that in TQ.

I want see some real teamwork action these time, where players have to co-op with each other to survive, but this comes down to level balancing.

Like I mentioned, there should be max number of players allowed per game difficulty, the more difficult game is the more players are allowed to participate in it - this will make gameplay more attractive, intense and less stale and repepetive - no gang rushing.

Bare in mind the more players involved in combat the less you can see when they start spamming different spells around, so I say, 4-5 players max is enough, to avoid loot click spam fights and to let anyone have his/her 5 minutes in combat.