By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Kaos: Dedicated servers for all versions of Homefront “means everything is bigger”

Nsanity on 22 January 2011

Everythingforgamers

Holinka had a chance to speak with Joystiq, he said that having dedicated servers helped the firm "offload" some of the work.

“You have to think about your constraints when you’re making a game,” he said. “If we host a server on a console, all of a sudden, that console is both server and it’s playing the game. That really lowers everything: player count, the number of vehicles, everything. Dedicated servers allow us to offload all that work and basically all the client has to worry about is running the game.

“It means everything is bigger — there’s more players, more vehicles, more targets, more airstrikes.”

Dedicated servers allowed the developers to add a 16-versus-16 online mode but beyond that, Kaos said the more players and battles that were added, the less fun it was.

“It just didn’t work,” said Holinka. “We just found it wasn’t fun. It just plays better at 32. If you played a level with 50 or 60 people in there, every time you turn around, you’d get shot.”

http://www.everythingforgamers.com/news/987/kaos-dedicated-servers-for-all-versions-of-homefront-means-everything-is-bigger/



Around the Network
NotStan on 22 January 2011

Oh. So now I finally realize how COD gets away without hosting the dedicated servers, making dramatically smaller maps.

 

I am starting to warm to Homefront now, will probably wait for reviews before purchasing though, can't just jump head first into a new IP.



Disconnect and self destruct, one bullet a time.

Killy_Vorkosigan on 22 January 2011

Oh yeah common sense, not Evil Activision's foul logic

 



jonager on 22 January 2011

this game better be as good as they paint it. i don't want another haze



Zkuq on 22 January 2011

Yeah, Homefront does actually seem pretty interesting - compared to most other shooters out there. Dedicated servers for all platforms is definitely good. The thing is, they could still have added more players by increasing map size - I personally liked the idea in Battlefield 2, scaling maps according to the number of players on the server. Still, 32 players is the most common player count on PC and I'm pretty happy with that.

Now the only question remains whether it'll be possible to browse servers manually - I can see why people may want a matchmaking service but I also think it should be possible to search for servers manually. Also, player-administrated servers would be a good thing on consoles as well. You know, player-rented servers with player-set rules and admins.

I might actually consider getting this on PC. The only major drawback is Steam.



Around the Network
gurglesletch on 22 January 2011
NotStan said:

Oh. So now I finally realize how COD gets away without hosting the dedicated servers, making dramatically smaller maps.

 

I am starting to warm to Homefront now, will probably wait for reviews before purchasing though, can't just jump head first into a new IP.


Why not?




Get your Portable ID!

NotStan on 22 January 2011
gurglesletch said:
NotStan said:

Oh. So now I finally realize how COD gets away without hosting the dedicated servers, making dramatically smaller maps.

 

I am starting to warm to Homefront now, will probably wait for reviews before purchasing though, can't just jump head first into a new IP.


Why not?


It just still seems too generic to me, I've jumped on board MoH, even though I thought it looked generic too, but friends nudged me to buy it, I thought that game was apallling, and I ended up losing £5 on it because the staff wouldn't believe me that I didn't use the online code... I really don't fancy purchasing a game straight away again and be burned by the repetitive FPS action that I've come to expect now, with the same weapons, cluncky motion etc.



Disconnect and self destruct, one bullet a time.

palancas7 on 22 January 2011
Zkuq said:

Yeah, Homefront does actually seem pretty interesting - compared to most other shooters out there. Dedicated servers for all platforms is definitely good. The thing is, they could still have added more players by increasing map size - I personally liked the idea in Battlefield 2, scaling maps according to the number of players on the server. Still, 32 players is the most common player count on PC and I'm pretty happy with that.

Now the only question remains whether it'll be possible to browse servers manually - I can see why people may want a matchmaking service but I also think it should be possible to search for servers manually. Also, player-administrated servers would be a good thing on consoles as well. You know, player-rented servers with player-set rules and admins.

I might actually consider getting this on PC. The only major drawback is Steam.

Is it Steam exclusive?



 

gurglesletch on 22 January 2011
NotStan said:
gurglesletch said:
NotStan said:

Oh. So now I finally realize how COD gets away without hosting the dedicated servers, making dramatically smaller maps.

 

I am starting to warm to Homefront now, will probably wait for reviews before purchasing though, can't just jump head first into a new IP.


Why not?


It just still seems too generic to me, I've jumped on board MoH, even though I thought it looked generic too, but friends nudged me to buy it, I thought that game was apallling, and I ended up losing £5 on it because the staff wouldn't believe me that I didn't use the online code... I really don't fancy purchasing a game straight away again and be burned by the repetitive FPS action that I've come to expect now, with the same weapons, cluncky motion etc.

I thought MOH was worth it. Certainly has better multiplayer than BLOPS.




Get your Portable ID!

PullusPardus on 22 January 2011

two FPS games that i don't understand why people are hyping them about, this and Brink