Max amount of players - stick to 8 or increase?

Age of Empires IV IV - Discussion
1

I’m assuming AOE4 would have a network architecture better than the series’ peer2peer which would result in much less lag of course.

Now I always thought about a 5v5 match and what kind of implications would it have strategically. 1 central pocket in a team with 2 flanks and 2 side pockets leads to very interesting results on paper. I think the gameplay would genuinely benefit from 2 more added players (10).
At the same time I personally think going more than that is not going to work that well. AOM allowed for 12 players and 6v6 games were kind of hectic compared to the carefully strategically and tactically developed 4v4 matches of AOE2.
And no matter the limit, I think we all agree the game should keep offering options for more than 2 teams as well, I hope they dont lose that.

What do you all think?

1 Like
2

Anything beyond 2v2 is usually just a mess in RTS games. A fun mess though, I enjoy them and I am sure 5v5 or 6v6 will still keep that fun element (with a reasonable pop cap and stable servers) I personally just play 4v4’s to relax, practice a build or try a goofy strat. It’s not competitive in any RTS imo.

3

Its better to keep it at 8 players for 4vs4.
It might be good to increase it to 12 or even 16 players (4x teams with 3 or 4 players in it), but that is gonna take long time to finish and almost nobody would play those type of modes, so i think it would be a waste of time to invest time in that.

4

no more than 8. playing 4v4 is already a lag party no matter what rts you are playing, specially when all units from the 8 armys battle in the same spot

5

There should be no lag in 4vs4 at all and if theres lag, its most likely a hardware issue than a software one.

6

I would go as far as 16 to 24 players. With the rapid increase in hardware technology and network technology, there is no reason to not develop the code to support it. However, software always lacks behind hardware in development and support.

2 Likes
7

12, just like Age of Mythology. If you don’t want 12, then choose less when creating your game.

2 Likes
8

I originally voted for 5vs5 but now in hindsight I realize I should have voted lower. I know technology has evolved to handle more connections but there always seems to be problems in RTS games with more people … 4 vs 4 at the max I think is good.

9

You could always just select an 8 player limit if you are worried about your hardware limitations. But gameplay wise they should push it for at least 10 today with 5v5 balancing.
4v4 seems so obsolete.

1 Like
10

It would be awesome to have a max of 12 players, but the only problem would be the lag. I already have enough trouble with the servers in AOEIIHD with 8.

11

Since you can limit the max number of players when hosting anyway, I don’t see any reason not to choose the highest number.

12

The only problem with more players is the increased lag issue due to network architecture or graphic rendering (too many units at the same time fighting plus effects and so on).

If they manage to get a dedicated server, it would be the best choice.

13

I also believe the lag issue and poor internet connectivity can be an issue. So stick with generic method that works instead of being too ambitious and fail.

1 Like
14

I voted 10, I think it would make for some epic battles. If your PC cant handle it than dont select 10 players in your game option, or upgrade your hardware. Microsoft would be stupid not to add more player slots, there are many other games that allow more players to play matches. If Microsoft wants to carve their way into the RTS market they need to go big.

15

I always tought this. 1v1 2v2 3v3 for competitive and small groups. The rest for fun. Just imagine 6v6 or a 4v4v4. or a 2v2v2v2v2v2 like in planetary anihilation.

1 Like
16

I’ve never actually thought about such an idea seriously, but for large groups of friends it can definitely make for grand, fun matches with lots of action involved, hectic as ■■■■, but I’d imagine also amusing. The sheer number of strategies one could go for is fascinating. Imagine it being implemented into AoE3 with the TEAM home-city shipments… :smiley:

17

Why not add more players if it works? If you don’t like it you aren’t forced into playing with 11 other players.

1 Like
18

Maybe instead of individual matches, we could just have one giant map the size of Europe that every single player in the game is fighting over. It would be a true world war, but they could set it in ancient times and let us use only cards from AoE3. But super cartoony graphics, too, of course, for those AoEO abominations. Everyone would be happy.

19

I like big matches with a lot of players as long as it can be done without compromising performance.

20

compromising performance to increase the number of participating players is not a good thing. Especially when you have large armies and fight in the same place. Ok, the games will now be even more stable, but that’s not why there is no limit on players that can play without diminishing performance. Another thing: hypothetical 2v2v2: are we sure that all pairs of players want to win ?? I happened to play in a team with people who really did not care to win. In the meantime, they made me lose because they agreed with the enemy team. In a 2v2v2, you can realize that two teams join before you play the game, and then play against the same player. In fact, it’s just right that happens when a player is obviously too strong, it’s normal to have them all; but the pre-match alliances are damaging the skill of the player who is at the disadvantage of not being the strongest and therefore without any reason. It would take something that could balance this aspect.