Snap map player limits

If The player limit it is indeed only four players, then it begs the question how exactly are we supposed to make team maps with more than two versus two players.

Easy answer. You're not. Imagine running around a huge map with 12 players that isn't optimized and won't be playable at 60 frames. There's so many places Marty has either said there's a 4 player limit or hinted that it's got a 4 player limit. It makes sense considering the problems you could have.

I don't like that answer. You sure he didn't mean four versus four?

The only thing I have ever heard was him giving the example at E3 of having a "Classic 4-player Deathmatch"
Doom/Doom 2 would be the classic he was referring to, and that was originally capped at 4 players.

Yes 4 players sounds familiar. Doom three made that mistake. Hope it's not true. 💀

In the Snapmap demos, there are a couple of indicators at the top of the screen, regarding stuff like memory usage, cpu usage, network usage (IIRC).

Maybe you are able to select how many players you want to have active, and this reduces - for example - the amount of architecture and it's complexity you can use, or the amount of items you can place on the map.

I also understand his mention of the 4 player deathmatch as an example, not as a limit. It would drastically limit SnapMap regarding multiplayer maps.

I hope it's something like "you wan't to play with fifteen other dudes? then you can only use so and so many rooms/so and so complex architecture and so and so many items/logic/clickydiclick-scripts".

julz_d said:

I don't like that answer. You sure he didn't mean four versus four?

its definitely 4 player max. I'm pretty sure it was answered on doom twitter as well. Too lazy to dig it up. They could always change it ofc

That 4-player limit must have something to do with consoles, mostly because of hardware limitations, if the limit was higher then it would probably lead to overheating of the consoles, although i could be wrong.

It is a tiny bit disappointing, but by no means a crucial blow - In a LAN setting, I never had more than 4 people playing anyway, and online I'm hopeful that the provided maps will be more than enough for the larger team-based gamemodes.

Remember though, these days, nothing is set in stone, even after release. The reasons given for capping it at 4 make sense - Especially if the maps will be quite limited in terms of size. We wouldn't want the ol' brit10 15 player clusterfuck happening! (Actually, some people definitely would, but you know what I mean ;)

tuo said:

I hope it's something like "you wan't to play with fifteen other dudes? then you can only use so and so many rooms/so and so complex architecture and so and so many items/logic/clickydiclick-scripts".

Yeah man. "More players? Smaller map!" Makes perfect sense OH WAIT. :P

AirRaid said:

Yeah man. "More players? Smaller map!" Makes perfect sense OH WAIT. :P

Since when do software publishers make sense all the time ;) If performance of consoles or RAM/VRAM-size is the limitation, loading less architecture might enable another (customized) player to fit in there. Then again, that's pure speculation of course.

But if it's truly 4 player max, that's a bummer. I also can't find the exact quote, but I thought 4 player was mentioned for custom coop modes, which again would make sense (with all the demons crawling around).

It wouldn't make sense that you can have a bunch of monsters on the screen but can't have a bunch of players on the screen if it was a memory thing.

It is most likely a networking thing. There's a lot more being sent to and from the server with real players. Or maybe because it would be fucking retarded to have 16 players vs monsters....this isn't serious Sam.

It might be that if you want to do any sort of coop at all, it will limit to 4 players, but if it's just players then the limit increases. I don't see any reason why they couldn't do that.

There's zero reason for this limitation. Halo 5 forge works on the same hardware and doesn't limit player counts at 4.

MultiLockOn said:

There's zero reason for this limitation. Halo 5 forge works on the same hardware and doesn't limit player counts at 4.

But Halo doesn't have AI on its forge, or highly detailed modules for which to make detailed rooms with various sources of lighting, you could do that in forge but it would take a strain on your budget

MultiLockOn said:

There's zero reason for this limitation.

Oh really? Which position do you hold at id software to be able to make that claim?

Lol

BluePineapple72 said:

But Halo doesn't have AI on its forge, or highly detailed modules for which to make detailed rooms with various sources of lighting, you could do that in forge but it would take a strain on your budget

Forge CAN have multiple lighting sources, basically an infinite amount.
The interface of the map editor shouldn't have an impact of the size or player count of a map that will be played WITHOUT that UI in the background. That's not how it works lol.

AirRaid said:

Oh really? Which position do you hold at id software to be able to make that claim?

Basic fucking common sense knowing what hardware can do. Every game is a balancing act of resources. The Xbox 360 was much weaker than the Xbox one, but halo 3 has 4 player split screen while halo 5 does not. 343 chose to not allocate valuable resources to important features, yet you still have idiots claiming "the Xbox one can't handle split screen". What an idiotic claim, this console could handle theoretically a thousand players in one game if they had very few polygons. The fact is iD chose not to allocate resources for valuable features.

I thought SnapMap was going to have different Modes, including CoOp and Multiplayer.

If so, various modes with probably have different limitations, like up to 8 player multiplayer at the cost of map size and less placeable pickups.

If there is a player limit. I guarantee its hardly anything to do with graphics and more to do with gameplay. And if there is a technical barrier, it's to prevent the network from clogging up when you got a crowd of enemies, and players, their weapons firing, positions, their current states, etc...all being sent to and from the server all at once. There is more to a game then just fuckin graphics.

You can literally have a bunch of cubes hopping around and run into the same problems.

TheWizard said:

If there is a player limit. I guarantee its hardly anything to do with graphics and more to do with gameplay. And if there is a technical barrier, it's to prevent the network from clogging up when you got a crowd of enemies, and players, their weapons firing, positions, their current states, etc...all being sent to and from the server all at once. There is more to a game then just fuckin graphics.

You can literally have a bunch of cubes hopping around and run into the same problems.

True, if the netcode is the culprit, but wouldn't the same limit then also effect non-SnapMap PvP multiplayer?

tuo said:

True, if the netcode is the culprit, but wouldn't the same limit then also effect non-SnapMap PvP multiplayer?

Yes, but in pvp there isn't a bunch of monsters. It's JUST players. This is why I personally think the limit might actually increase if you decide not to have monsters in your map, could be a setting. I'm hoping atleast.

Edit: I wouldn't blame it on the netcode either. Blame the speed of light

TheWizard said:

Yes, but in pvp there isn't a bunch of monsters. It's JUST players. This is why I personally think the limit might actually increase if you decide not to have monsters in your map, could be a setting. I'm hoping atleast.

Edit: I wouldn't blame it on the netcode either. Blame the speed of light

Okay, now I understand. It's basically what I also posted in another thread, regarding the 4 player limit to be PvE coop, not PvP.

I really hope it can go higher. I have a couple of gametypes to plan out. lol