Well MAG looks crappy to begin with, thats before the 250 player thing. Also 250 players is WAY to much. R2 did 60 and that was chaotic but managable, I feel that is the limit before things get way out of hand.

I prefer single player over online any day for the reasons mentioned above. I feel co-op is a better way to do online than competitive as well. Yet I like a good online fight every once and a while. Its all up to the game, is it fun, is there a progression, do I feel like I am contributing, factors like that.

You know I've often thought that a online roleplaying game would be good if.... well this is radical.

If the game was always online right and all the story characters online were employed by the publisher to be actors in the game. So you could have real natural conversations and interactions with them. They obviously are drilled and trained in scripting and quests and have to bone up on info. Of course logistically it would never work so its completely useless. Actually its a stupid idea.

Do you guys think there is a limit on how many players you want to be competing against in a an online game?

I'm happy with smaller numbers.

How does lag work BTW.

I mean I've experienced it and I wonder how other games deal with the problem. Is there some sort of automation or prediction of moves, so that when data is slow or missing it sort of keeps the game going by pretending everything is fine?

Archangel3371 said:

I love online gaming. While it is competative and I do play to win it doesn't bother me to lose either. I have a pretty good connection so if I ever get lag it's mostly due to the game choosing a host with a poor connection. Thankfully the vast number of online games I play are of very high online quality. I've had sooooo many fantastic gaming experiences online from Halo 2 & 3 to Street Fighter IV to Gears of War 1 & 2. I especially love really big battles so for me it's the more the merrier that's why I'm really interested to see how MAG turns out. I also totally love cooperative online gaming like playing through a game's campaign mode with other players and MMORPG's such as World of Warcraft. To me playing a game with or against human players provides that game with a near infinite number of different possibilities that you simply can't experience playing a game solo.

So have you ever played an online game you weren't very good at? If so how did you feel about continuing playing the mode on that game? What is it that drives you to keep playing? You get gamerscores right? Do they matter to you?

How do you feel about people doing weird stuff for advantages like camp spawning. I was playing shooter and this guy started doing this weird circle move endlessly to avoid me killing him. In real life he would be dead in second, because of the way the aiming works, this bizaare chicken dance saved his ass.

gamingeek said:

How does lag work BTW.

I mean I've experienced it and I wonder how other games deal with the problem. Is there some sort of automation or prediction of moves, so that when data is slow or missing it sort of keeps the game going by pretending everything is fine?

Different games use different methods, but the server is what keeps games playable.  Lag is created by the time it takes for the data to reach the server and then from the server back to the player and other players.  Given that data is not always transmitting at the same speed between players or even from the same player, it must correct itself in order to sync the data.

How this is reflected on the players' side is typically where there's variation.  Traditionally, the characters may warp on occasion or at least have a little clipping.  Halo 3 does it the opposite way and actually warps the trajectory of shots (you can see it in the sniper rifle trail in replays).

Brawl actually seems to wait until the action is relayed back to the user from the server before the game reflects the action which causes the delay in everything on a poor connection (as opposed to typically you see the action happen immediately, then the consequence isn't exactly as expected because everything on your screen is slightly behind).

Also, because this is all on the server, if you're not using a dedicated server and instead a player is the host, he obviously experiences virtually no lag and has a big advantage.

Archangel3371 said:

gamingeek said:

Has there ever been a game made that I'm not good at? Seriously though I have played games online were I wasn't good at such as Forza, I'm not a real good sim-racer player especially at tweaking a vehicle to get better performance out of it but I still loved playing it online because it's always different and there are others who weren't as good either and losing doesn't really bother plus it's the only way to truly get better at something. Also not all games put gamerscores attached to online modes. For instance Call of Duty MW and WaW, I just play them because they are fun plus climbing the leaderboards can be fun too.

Most games these days have ways to counter camping at an opposing player's spawn point and repetatively killing them. Unless you mean finding a good location on map to hide and kill opposing players then there's nothing wrong with that. For that you simply find a way to kill the player who is camped there, beat them to that spot, or simply avoid going in that area.

You kind of lose me with your real-life reference because these are videogames after all and there are TONS of things that work in a game that don't work in real-life, that's a given. If someone is doing some 'weird chicken dance CIRCLE' then you should be able to anticipate and shoot/toss grenade where he might be next.

Have you ever seen the freaky chicken dance? I was so freaked out I could barely speak! There is no predicting that.

aspro73 said:

   Oh and... this 1 versus 100 thing, looks like it is going to explode. The word of mouth for it is insane. Should be no surprise when you see how popular those pub/ bar trivia games are (and tv game shows).