but I think we can agree that there is a number in any game where once you reach it you start to have reduced gameplay quality. I've never played wwiionline but I imagine that 10,000 players in one war would start to degrade gameplay. So if we call this the stagnation point, each game has a different stagnation point depending on the game itself. Maybe wwiionline has a higher stagnation point due to the nature of the game and how much more of generic ww2 combat it encompasses. So maybe 1000 people online in that game is deemed acceptable.
The point is, we can agree there is a stagnation point in a one arena aces high yes? Would 10,000 players on one map work? Clearly not. So what exactly is the stagnation point if it's not around 600-700 as HTC saw fit?
No we dont agree on this. It is not the numbers that is the problem. It's the lack of control. I have never played ww2online either so I dont know how their game is set up except that they have a rank system that allows players to control other players. I believe that higher ranking players decide where the offensives are and there is a limit to how many players can go to certain locations. So the entire Allied army is not allowed to focus on one single part of the enemy. NO HORDING!
And by having a rank system, there is always someone in charge of policing the group. I think the commanders can reject players requests to join their offensive.
No, 10000 people would only degrade game play if there was no structure to the game and they were all allowed horde a single base! If there was a structure to the game that prevented that and if there were EFFECTIVE moderators in place to prevent players from abusing other players verbally or otherwise then it would be doable.
You can look at it this way. We have "Kill Shooter" turned on why? Because there is no control in AH to keep some spaz from shooting his own guys just for the fun of it. Say we had (as an example only) 1 moderator for every 10 guys and kill shooter was turned off. If those moderators made fair and level headed judgments they would surely notice that the spaz was a new guy with a sick sense of humor or that he was normally a non problematic guy that for some reason just jumped countries and started shooting at one guy. The mod would realize this is someone who is pissed off at someone and is getting out of line in his behavior.
The mod would immediately warn the new guy and eject him from the game if needed. He would punish the normally non problematic player to an extent that would teach him to not do it again or be banned from the game. So for the most part intentional studmuffinging would never be a problem. Only then, accidental fragging
would be a problem. So the mod gets a complaint about fragging. He knows the guy who did the fragging and knows that he is not a spaz or someone prone to getting out of hand so the incident is recorded, but no one is punished because it is determined accidental.
The down side is you might get fragged accidentally, but the up side is guys have to think twice about cutting off someone who is already shooting at the bad guy. So you would start to see less kill stealing and less of 5 guys shooting over each others shoulders. No it doesnt cure all if it, but there starts to be some order in the game as opposed to every man for himself. Kill shooter is a necessity because the prevailing wisdom is that the group can police itself. If that's the case then why do we need kill shooter? Self policing on the internet does not work. If it did there wouldnt be FBI agents digging for pedophiles. There is no consequence to your actions and the report function is a joke. This is why there is a cesspool.
How do you figure ww2online has "generic" gameplay? They have a command and control system in place just like every military in the world. WE have
Lord of the Flies
