59 replies to this topic

[Auxor]

I know that the devs have probably already got an idea in their head, but it'd be cool to see what their community thinks would be a suitable number of players.

The numbers are assuming that the maximum playercount for the Source engine is 16 and not 32.

[Boxiii]

8-10 seems fine,although i would have to play the game first to get a feel for it.

[Lord_of_Sausage]

I'd like 5-6, With fewer people, you get more of team feeling, rather than a crowd. Also, it makes teamwork much more important, since you will need to help each other. Loosing one mate in a team of 10 wouldn't matter much, but loosing one when you only are 5 makes it much worse. Think of L4D, wwould it be fun as 10 survivors, even if the game was based around so many?

[Blashca]

14-15, larger player numbers would give a greater community feel.

[Pattom]

It would depend on the map, really. I imagine some maps would benefit from keeping the Rebels together as one tight-knit squad, others from having enough troops to approach multiple objectives from multiple angles. That said, I voted for 8-10: I figure that's the right size for a team to split up and keep communicating.

[Halsh]

I went for 5-7, as someone else said it's about the right size before it becomes a case of "Oh, someone died? ... No problem." rather than the, presumably, preferred case of "****! Someone died!.. Ok, need to re-evaluate.". It also makes it slightly less of a strain on the RTS player; one of the issues I encountered in ZM was that simply through numbers you couldn't kill them fast enough for them to all die before the end without a colossal messup on their end.

[braddollar]

5-7 definitely. Too many players and it'll become impossible for the Overwatch to win.

[Pattom]

If the objective is to kill all Resistance members, then yes, the number of human players should be comparatively low. I was thinking of multiple control points being a fixture on typical maps, though: the Overwatch can spread his/her troops out to attack all of them at once, or storm just one, or maybe hit several in sequence. The Resistance needs to adapt to whatever strategy is thrown at them (I presume Resistance is defense, though I don't think that's been stated explicitly), so giving them a few more people to allows them to counter that with their own plans. After all, in Half-Life 2's story, being able to hit several targets and slip by Overwatch forces is a big factor in Resistance success. And if they just decide to hole up and camp around one position, a Strider or two would tip the scales in Overwatch's favor.

[CCCPkiller]

5-7, unless you can have like 2 other people under the overwatch, on the ground (instead of the RTS man being able to control, unless of like strider) if that happens, then maybe 8-10

[korge]

Its hard to say without seeing deeper gameplay videos.

Im assuming 8+ rebels can be tough to take down as the overwatch player.

[Typhonarick]

i think that if there are more 6 humans, the game will be too hard for the Overwatch player

but to have a good idea without gemeplay video is difficult

but it would be necessary to let the possiblity to play with more players for those who want that

[offe]

i think 5 - 7 would be fitting, all though i would have to see more gameplay to decide

[Ranma]

Because I have never played the game, I have no idea how many players there should be on average. If I'm able to test the game I'll be able to make an opinion on how many players I think there should be.

[Firespray]

Since the game isn't out I can't judge, however just guessing around 11 players, that would give it just enough for a cooperative game.

[braddollar]

I think the problem would be that with 11 players, or some other large number, that there would be too much for one OW to reasonably deal with. Now perhaps if there were two.. that would be interesting.

[Tweevle]

It'd be interesting to have a special "One Free Man" game mode, where it's just one player as Gordon Freeman against the Overwatch. Obviously it'd have to be balanced appropriately.

[korge]

Im liking the 1 v 1 idea. Itd be super hard Im assuming but with the right balancing, it could really work. One player player FPS while other plays RTS? Thats ridiculously unique.

[AndY]

Tweevle, on 13 July 2010 - 08:47 AM, said:

It'd be interesting to have a special "One Free Man" game mode, where it's just one player as Gordon Freeman against the Overwatch. Obviously it'd have to be balanced appropriately.

korge, on 13 July 2010 - 10:24 AM, said:

Im liking the 1 v 1 idea. Itd be super hard Im assuming but with the right balancing, it could really work. One player player FPS while other plays RTS? Thats ridiculously unique.

The RTS player could be limited to one unit and a set of traps/environment triggers. It's a neat idea.

There was a mission in C&C Red Alert where you had to move one unit inside of an enemy base.. Anyone remember its name?

[Auxor]

That "One Free Man" gametype is possibly the greatest idea anyone has ever come up with.. a single player with a HEV suit and full weapons versus the entire Combine army controlled by either one RTS player or several with access to smaller squads of soldiers or one Strider for example.

[Typhonarick]

1 vs 1 seems to be a good idea
if gordon have many weapons (maybe less than in HL)