ideal # of players

[unmerged(9191)]

With the new patch and 24 players possible, whats the ideal # of players in a game.

i say the countries of:
Sweden
Russia
Ottomans
Poland (ONLY if you have a good connection)
Venice (or papal states)
Spain
Portugal
France
England
Holland (whent the time comes)

Thats 10...if you have a nice host then maybe a moslem power (persia..Morrocco...mameluks?)

But anything more then that is overkill. its hard to get 8 together...let alone a nice play speed. Having german minors is really just a pain... (see archdukes game as bburg with the big boys)

Other thoughts?

 

[artemis667]

Originally posted by Imperial Army
With the new patch and 24 players possible, whats the ideal # of players in a game.

i say the countries of:
Sweden
Russia
Ottomans
Poland (ONLY if you have a good connection)
Venice (or papal states)
Spain
Portugal
France
England
Holland (whent the time comes)

Thats 10...if you have a nice host then maybe a moslem power (persia..Morrocco...mameluks?)

But anything more then that is overkill. its hard to get 8 together...let alone a nice play speed. Having german minors is really just a pain... (see archdukes game as bburg with the big boys)

Other thoughts?

Well from my experience with the Tsunami game... if you have a large number of players who are seriously dedicated to playing the session, a great host, and all players with stable computers, installations, and a decent broadband link (or even a very high quality modem connection), then 16 or more is not out of the question. So long as people don't mind a bit of chaos.

 

[unmerged(9191)]

Re: Re: ideal # of players

Originally posted by artemis667
Well from my experience with the Tsunami game... if you have a large number of players who are seriously dedicated to playing the session, a great host, and all players with stable computers, installations, and a decent broadband link (or even a very high quality modem connection), then 16 or more is not out of the question. So long as people don't mind a bit of chaos.

And if you had to organize a long term game how many of those 16 could show up on a weekly basis?

 

[JohnMK]

Well I've proven today I can host 15 people at speed 1 minute == 1.5 months, without much lag at all for the most part, and this is with most of the players being from Europe and I'm about . . 3000-4000 miles away from them or so. So I'm sure others can do it. Johan's bandwidth optimizations have really helped a lot, and 1=1.5 is a nice addition. And we only crashed once 1492-1499, when I was hosting, even with 15 people.

I'm very optimistic about Eu2's future as a multiplayer game.

 

[Mowers]

I agree stongly John.

I also think that it doesnt matter who shows up on a weekly basis. Its more realistic to have different rulers every 30-60 years or so anyway. We arnt the biggest community in the world and most people want to play long term, sure there are those that dont but they tend to stand out....

I am looking forward to running the tsunami game with lots of different people, sure some people will want to always play the same power and if they make the effort to be there and support me then thats fine by me.

But regarding your set up I think *unsurpringly from me* that its fundamentally flawed. There isnt enough competition in most of the regions. I dont think that 10 players is enough to cover the regions that you attempting to do. I think 12 players is kind of a minimum now to effectively cover the basic startup nations.

 

[HolisticGod]

IA,

Definitely agree with Mowers.

My ideal game, with no more (and in some case considerably less) 8+ MP experience than everyone else---

England
France
Spain
Portugal
Navarra (terrific leaders, but iffy because its chances of surviving in the AOE MP are slim to none-definitely in the GC, in lieu of Aragon)
Austria
Two-three German minors, with some distance between them
Tuscany, Papal States, Genoa or Venice (preferably Venice)
Poland
A Khanate or lower Russian minor (probably the bravest, if not the best, player in the game) in the Black Sea region or western region
Sweden
Denmark (depends-if there's Meck, Pom or Brand, it'd be a rough game)
Russia
The OE
Mams or Persians (or both-that'd be fun)

And I've noticed, connection-wise, that these massive games are easily doable... And often more stable than the transatlantic 6-8s of 1.06

Mowers,

I'm having unaccountable software problems with EU. CTDed in that last game and couldn't make it back. That and a busy schedule keep me from the Tsunami, but if I can get it straightened out, I'd like to give it another spin. Perhaps even hosting, as I did eleven years with no crashes and zero lag (after people finally shut down their Internet programs) as far as we could tell, across the Atlantic with eleven players.

Of course, then I CTDed, and install after install, optimizations, etc. haven't been able to stabilize the game since.

 

[Mowers]

Hi God,

I really dont know what your problem is at all. But of course I would be pleased to have you on board, it would be better though if you were to run a test before hand rather than use the tsunami as a test. I'd be pleased to help you if I can beforehand- just let me know.

Regarding 1492 set up. (using Peters setup)

1. England
2. France
3. Spain
4. Portugal
5. Spain
6. Austria
7. Denmark or Brandenberg
8. Venice
9. Genoa or Papal States.
10. Sweden
11. Russia
12. The OE
13. mameluks
14. Persians
15. Mughal Empire
16. Algiers
17. Poland
18. An Indian power

If you have less I'd drop them in this order

1. Any Indian Power
2. Genoa or Papal States
3. Algiers
4. Mughal Empire
5. Mameluks
6. Denmark or BRA

Any more and you have to start eliminating regions as opposed to countries to keep MP balance.

But its still so debatable.

What you could do is just pack western Europe with countries.
hell the options are now endless. Perhaps a total rethink is needed.