Dead ?

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Hello,

During the 2+ years I've been playing Unreal games, I've never experienced
such a dwindling population of players as I do now.

I'm not talking UT2003, which I fully expected might lose some
players/servers to the new kid on the block, UT2004. It's just that UT2004,
after an initial novelty-burst of interest, would appear, at least to my
eyes, to be severly challenged in the player department.

Curiously, there's never a shortage of servers. Credit for this must be
given I guess to Epic and the general UT community for making it so damn
simple, relatively speaking, to set up a kick-arse server in not very much
time at all. But most of these servers seem to just be map-cyclers.

No disrespect to the people who maintain them. I myself run a rented,
dedicated server which has ludicrous bandwidth specifications (well, it
doesn't even get out of bed for less than 10 players. 16+ and it's 40-80ms
for all involved especially if you're UK-based), a nice TDM set-up and no
over-the-top mutators. It costs me a packet each month, but is sadly just
another map-cycler now.

I've tried changing just about everything on it, with the exception of
Onslaught which has never appealed to me. Still no joy. But at least I can
take consolation in the fact that I'm not alone. Lots of servers, no
players.

Does anyone here have any (sane) thoughts on why this could be ? Is it just
a lull in interest for the Unreal games ? Are we spending our time and money
on other forms of entertainment increasingly ?

Thanks for your time.

Cordially,

Kleeb.
30 answers Last reply
More about dead
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    I'm not sure, but I don't play team death match (at least not in UT2004, but
    in Call of Duty), only onslaught and vehicle capture the flag, I suppose
    some people have moved on to onslaught and the like, but a LOT of other
    games have team death match which is why I'd guess that people don't find
    UT2004 TDM so attractive, or perhaps UT2003 is so much like UT2004 TDM that
    some people haven't upgraded and still play UT2003 TDM
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    I like to play UT2004 ONS and seems, most people flock to a few servers.
    Like ONS is a team oriented game, need at least 10-20 players.
    Some servers can take 32 people and the ones I flagged, many times they're
    full.
    Problem is, if there are more than 20 people on the server , there's a
    serious LAG or Hacking Detected, chops up the game.
    Now days, I don't even log in, if there are more than 20 players on the
    server.
    Why less people playing it, I think too many games are out there, too many
    choices, offering the same thing.

    Panzer


    "Kleeb" <Kleeb@kleeb.kleeb> wrote in message
    news:ihfIc.316$1g5.268@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
    > Hello,
    >
    > During the 2+ years I've been playing Unreal games, I've never experienced
    > such a dwindling population of players as I do now.
    >
    > I'm not talking UT2003, which I fully expected might lose some
    > players/servers to the new kid on the block, UT2004. It's just that
    UT2004,
    > after an initial novelty-burst of interest, would appear, at least to my
    > eyes, to be severly challenged in the player department.
    >
    > Curiously, there's never a shortage of servers. Credit for this must be
    > given I guess to Epic and the general UT community for making it so damn
    > simple, relatively speaking, to set up a kick-arse server in not very much
    > time at all. But most of these servers seem to just be map-cyclers.
    >
    > No disrespect to the people who maintain them. I myself run a rented,
    > dedicated server which has ludicrous bandwidth specifications (well, it
    > doesn't even get out of bed for less than 10 players. 16+ and it's 40-80ms
    > for all involved especially if you're UK-based), a nice TDM set-up and no
    > over-the-top mutators. It costs me a packet each month, but is sadly just
    > another map-cycler now.
    >
    > I've tried changing just about everything on it, with the exception of
    > Onslaught which has never appealed to me. Still no joy. But at least I can
    > take consolation in the fact that I'm not alone. Lots of servers, no
    > players.
    >
    > Does anyone here have any (sane) thoughts on why this could be ? Is it
    just
    > a lull in interest for the Unreal games ? Are we spending our time and
    money
    > on other forms of entertainment increasingly ?
    >
    > Thanks for your time.
    >
    > Cordially,
    >
    > Kleeb.
    >
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 18:02:54 GMT, Kleeb <Kleeb@kleeb.kleeb> wrote:

    >Hello,
    >
    >During the 2+ years I've been playing Unreal games, I've never experienced
    >such a dwindling population of players as I do now.
    >
    >I'm not talking UT2003, which I fully expected might lose some
    >players/servers to the new kid on the block, UT2004. It's just that UT2004,
    >after an initial novelty-burst of interest, would appear, at least to my
    >eyes, to be severly challenged in the player department.
    >
    >Curiously, there's never a shortage of servers. Credit for this must be
    >given I guess to Epic and the general UT community for making it so damn
    >simple, relatively speaking, to set up a kick-arse server in not very much
    >time at all. But most of these servers seem to just be map-cyclers.
    >
    >No disrespect to the people who maintain them. I myself run a rented,
    >dedicated server which has ludicrous bandwidth specifications (well, it
    >doesn't even get out of bed for less than 10 players. 16+ and it's 40-80ms
    >for all involved especially if you're UK-based), a nice TDM set-up and no
    >over-the-top mutators. It costs me a packet each month, but is sadly just
    >another map-cycler now.
    >
    >I've tried changing just about everything on it, with the exception of
    >Onslaught which has never appealed to me. Still no joy. But at least I can
    >take consolation in the fact that I'm not alone. Lots of servers, no
    >players.
    >
    >Does anyone here have any (sane) thoughts on why this could be ? Is it just
    >a lull in interest for the Unreal games ? Are we spending our time and money
    >on other forms of entertainment increasingly ?
    >
    >Thanks for your time.
    >
    >Cordially,
    >
    >Kleeb.

    Too many mod variations if you ask me. RPG is so overrated its a joke.
    These mods are making the game balance all borked and its just not as
    fun anymore.

    Pluvious
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    to be honest, i don't see enough of a difference between ut2k3 and ut2k4 to
    shell out the bux.


    "Kleeb" <Kleeb@kleeb.kleeb> wrote in message
    news:ihfIc.316$1g5.268@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
    > Hello,
    >
    > During the 2+ years I've been playing Unreal games, I've never experienced
    > such a dwindling population of players as I do now.
    >
    > I'm not talking UT2003, which I fully expected might lose some
    > players/servers to the new kid on the block, UT2004. It's just that
    UT2004,
    > after an initial novelty-burst of interest, would appear, at least to my
    > eyes, to be severly challenged in the player department.
    >
    > Curiously, there's never a shortage of servers. Credit for this must be
    > given I guess to Epic and the general UT community for making it so damn
    > simple, relatively speaking, to set up a kick-arse server in not very much
    > time at all. But most of these servers seem to just be map-cyclers.
    >
    > No disrespect to the people who maintain them. I myself run a rented,
    > dedicated server which has ludicrous bandwidth specifications (well, it
    > doesn't even get out of bed for less than 10 players. 16+ and it's 40-80ms
    > for all involved especially if you're UK-based), a nice TDM set-up and no
    > over-the-top mutators. It costs me a packet each month, but is sadly just
    > another map-cycler now.
    >
    > I've tried changing just about everything on it, with the exception of
    > Onslaught which has never appealed to me. Still no joy. But at least I can
    > take consolation in the fact that I'm not alone. Lots of servers, no
    > players.
    >
    > Does anyone here have any (sane) thoughts on why this could be ? Is it
    just
    > a lull in interest for the Unreal games ? Are we spending our time and
    money
    > on other forms of entertainment increasingly ?
    >
    > Thanks for your time.
    >
    > Cordially,
    >
    > Kleeb.
    >
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    > to be honest, i don't see enough of a difference between ut2k3 and ut2k4
    > to
    > shell out the bux.

    Yeah, like I said, unless you're an onslaught fan (which many of us are)
    there really isn't a big need to upgrade from 2003 to 2004.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    On 2004-07-11, Szaki <szaki10@comcast.net> schrieb:
    > I like to play UT2004 ONS and seems, most people flock to a few servers.
    > Like ONS is a team oriented game, need at least 10-20 players.
    > Some servers can take 32 people and the ones I flagged, many times they're
    > full.
    > Problem is, if there are more than 20 people on the server , there's a
    > serious LAG or Hacking Detected, chops up the game.
    > Now days, I don't even log in, if there are more than 20 players on the
    > server.
    > Why less people playing it, I think too many games are out there, too many
    > choices, offering the same thing.

    Yes, it's kind of a catch-22 situation. Players will naturally only join
    servers that have a game going strong, but it needs someone to take the
    plunge and either idle with bots, or just sit there until more players
    arrive in the first place.

    I guess if you're lucky, and you're in a clan with quite a few members, you
    can nearly always be assured of someone turning up to play against,
    particularly if you have your own private clan server.

    I agree with the fact that there are too many games offering too similar
    types of gameplay. I wonder if the spectre of the cheater has contributed in
    anyway to the falling number of players. At the moment, there's no one to
    cheat against. :/

    Cordially,

    Kleeb.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    On 2004-07-11, Pluvious <Pluvious@knowhere.com> schrieb:

    > Too many mod variations if you ask me. RPG is so overrated its a joke.
    > These mods are making the game balance all borked and its just not as
    > fun anymore.


    That could be another reason yes. With regard to RPG, I did initially find
    it to be quite a cool mutator. I used to run it on an Invasion server I had.
    It seemed in no time at all several players literally could not die. Hmm.

    Is it simply the time of year ? More people out on hols and doing stuff that
    doesn't require a computer or a broadband connection ? Maybe when the winter
    is upon us, we'll see more people fragging again. Or maybe we'll all be
    playing Doom 3 by then.

    Cordially,

    Kleeb.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    > Lag is usually caused by lack of bandwidth. For round numbers, you need
    > to allow about 30Kbps of your UPLOAD bandwidth per player. The connection
    > you mention above *might* be OK with 4 players, certainly no more than
    > that.

    For the single player meaning me, while I'm connected to another server that
    is not my computer.... basically what's the download speed I would need to
    be able to handle all 32 players and info going on
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 20:45:38 -0600, Schism wrote:

    >> Lag is usually caused by lack of bandwidth. For round numbers, you need
    >> to allow about 30Kbps of your UPLOAD bandwidth per player. The connection
    >> you mention above *might* be OK with 4 players, certainly no more than
    >> that.

    > For the single player meaning me, while I'm connected to another server that
    > is not my computer.... basically what's the download speed I would need to
    > be able to handle all 32 players and info going on

    What? I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you talking about the
    bandwidth needed to host a 32 player server? What are you talking about?

    --
    If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
    Linux Registered User #327951
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    On 2004-07-11, Schism <BLAHHHHHH@blahhhhHHHHH.com> schrieb:
    > I'm not sure, but I don't play team death match (at least not in UT2004, but
    > in Call of Duty), only onslaught and vehicle capture the flag, I suppose
    > some people have moved on to onslaught and the like, but a LOT of other
    > games have team death match which is why I'd guess that people don't find
    > UT2004 TDM so attractive, or perhaps UT2003 is so much like UT2004 TDM that
    > some people haven't upgraded and still play UT2003 TDM

    Fair points. I did try Elite Force 2 a few weeks ago. Unless it was
    something I was doing wrong, I could find no servers at all. Quite
    disappointing there, as I fancied a bit of assimilating.

    I've never really taken the time to look at too many other games.
    I personally always liked the UT series as they cater a lot for the Linux
    user.

    It's a pity if things carry on the way they are. I've never been involved
    with a clan, and so have missed out on the whole 'team thang', and now it
    looks like I probably won't get a chance. Unless I develop an interest in
    say Onslaught, which might not ever happen, I don't know.

    I play constantly, mainly Instagib, so I guess I'm in the minority now. Put it this
    way, some guy last week was screaming 'cheater!' at me. Admittedly, I was
    doing rather jammy shots but then what the hell, I play a lot ! :) I
    probably couldn't reproduce the 'skillz' consistently, but I did take the
    accusation as a compliment in the end.

    Cordially,

    Kleeb.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 22:57:05 +0000, Kleeb wrote:

    > I've never really taken the time to look at too many other games.
    > I personally always liked the UT series as they cater a lot for the Linux
    > user.

    I like the UT games for that reason too, but don't limit yourself... I
    also play Quake1, Quake2, Quake3, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, and
    Enemy Territory natively in Linux. ;)

    --
    If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
    Linux Registered User #327951
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    On 2004-07-11, Jay Cee <no@spam.please> schrieb:
    > to be honest, i don't see enough of a difference between ut2k3 and ut2k4 to
    > shell out the bux.

    Fair enough. You probably speak for a lot of people. I'm starting to get an
    idea now of the reasons why not so many people are playing. Thanks for the
    replies (and those to come) everyone.

    Cordially,

    Kleeb.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    > What? I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you talking about the
    > bandwidth needed to host a 32 player server? What are you talking about?

    No, I mean when I'm connected to a server with 32 players, how much is that
    server trying to upload to ME.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    Schism wrote:
    >
    > For the single player meaning me, while I'm connected to another
    > server that is not my computer.... basically what's the download
    > speed I would need to be able to handle all 32 players and info going
    > on

    What you have should be fine.

    --
    Mutley!! Doooooo Something!!
    Fix Outlook Express - http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
    as recommended by your friendly neighbourhood MeltDown.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 18:28:28 -0500, Dan C schrieb:

    > On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 22:57:05 +0000, Kleeb wrote:
    >
    >> I've never really taken the time to look at too many other games.
    >> I personally always liked the UT series as they cater a lot for the Linux
    >> user.
    >
    > I like the UT games for that reason too, but don't limit yourself... I
    > also play Quake1, Quake2, Quake3, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, and
    > Enemy Territory natively in Linux. ;)

    Hmm. I quite fancy having a go at RTCW and Quake 3. Thanks for the tips.

    Cordially,

    Kleeb.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 18:02:54 GMT, Kleeb <Kleeb@kleeb.kleeb> wrote:


    > a nice TDM set-up

    If I want to play a team based game, I choose ONS, CTF or Assault. I
    think DM types are more interested in playing solo. I've been playing
    Unreal games since '99 and I've played TDM maybe twice. Maybe that's
    your problem?
  17. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    On 2004-07-12, Folk <Folk@folk.com> schrieb:
    > On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 18:02:54 GMT, Kleeb <Kleeb@kleeb.kleeb> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> a nice TDM set-up
    >
    > If I want to play a team based game, I choose ONS, CTF or Assault. I
    > think DM types are more interested in playing solo. I've been playing
    > Unreal games since '99 and I've played TDM maybe twice. Maybe that's
    > your problem?

    Could be, yes. I've noticed the same server getting all the players on TDM
    Instagib, for almost getting on a year, and that's just my observations.
    The rest of the servers, mine included, are empty. Maybe that's the total
    population of TDM players on the planet.

    I could join of course, but I'd rather play on the server I'm paying wads
    for. Ok, DeathMatch it is then. :)

    Cordially,

    Kleeb.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 03:22:09 -0600, Schism wrote:

    >> What? I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you talking about the
    >> bandwidth needed to host a 32 player server? What are you talking about?

    > No, I mean when I'm connected to a server with 32 players, how much is that
    > server trying to upload to ME.

    That isn't what you said... Anyway, I already answered that in my
    previous post. A good estimate is about 30Kbps per player. Note that
    this number is 30 Kilo-bits (not 30 Kilo-bytes).

    --
    If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
    Linux Registered User #327951
  19. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    > That isn't what you said... Anyway, I already answered that in my
    > previous post. A good estimate is about 30Kbps per player. Note that
    > this number is 30 Kilo-bits (not 30 Kilo-bytes).

    Considering I play daily with groups of 16-20 people, this is not true.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:27:25 -0600, Schism wrote:

    >> That isn't what you said... Anyway, I already answered that in my
    >> previous post. A good estimate is about 30Kbps per player. Note that
    >> this number is 30 Kilo-bits (not 30 Kilo-bytes).

    > Considering I play daily with groups of 16-20 people, this is not true.

    Look dude, you asked how much bandwidth each player on a server takes up.
    I answered that question. You apparently do not understand the difference
    between upload and download bandwidth, so I'll not waste any more of my
    time. Believe it or not, makes no difference to me.

    --
    If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
    Linux Registered User #327951
  21. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    > Look dude, you asked how much bandwidth each player on a server takes up.
    > I answered that question. You apparently do not understand the difference
    > between upload and download bandwidth, so I'll not waste any more of my
    > time. Believe it or not, makes no difference to me.

    I never said anything about hosting, so obviously the upload is not
    important and why you're talking about it is beyond me.

    What I'm asking is: What's the download speed required by me, a PLAYER ON
    SOMEONE ELSES SERVER, to fully play the game without lag.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    Suddenly, Kleeb sprang forth and uttered these pithy words:
    > Could be, yes. I've noticed the same server getting all the players on TDM
    > Instagib, for almost getting on a year, and that's just my observations.
    > The rest of the servers, mine included, are empty. Maybe that's the total
    > population of TDM players on the planet.

    Team deathmatch doesn't really make much sense to me. The nature of the
    game means there is not a hell of a lot you can do as a team, unlike
    games designed for teamwork (like ONS and AS).

    It is fun sometimes, but only as a minor (slower) variation on
    deathmatch.

    --
    aaronl at consultant dot com
    For every expert, there is an equal and
    opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
  23. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    Schism wrote:

    >
    > What I'm asking is: What's the download speed required by me, a PLAYER ON
    > SOMEONE ELSES SERVER, to fully play the game without lag.

    As has been said already, its about 30Kbs. The bandwidth required per player
    on a server obviously equates to the bandwidth required by the clients of
    that server. They are one and the same. A client cannot use more bandwidth
    than the server can serve can it? Lag depends on alot more than just your
    bandwidth.

    hth
    --
    sid
    RLU 300284 Mdk 10 2.6.3-15
    My barber's getting very hard of hearing,
    I asked him to make me look like a *count*.....
  24. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    > As has been said already, its about 30Kbs. The bandwidth required per
    > player
    > on a server obviously equates to the bandwidth required by the clients of
    > that server. They are one and the same. A client cannot use more bandwidth
    > than the server can serve can it? Lag depends on alot more than just your
    > bandwidth.

    That would mean I could only see 4 players max on screen wiithout massive
    amounts of lag, but I easily see 10 or more without lag and I only have a
    144/144 connection (16 kilbobytes a second) but whatever, I'm going to
    dismiss it now because this is going no where. Thanks anyways.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:30:38 -0600, "Schism"
    <BLAHHHHHH@blahhhhHHHHH.com> wrote:

    >That would mean I could only see 4 players max on screen wiithout massive
    >amounts of lag, but I easily see 10 or more without lag and I only have a
    >144/144 connection (16 kilbobytes a second) but whatever, I'm going to
    >dismiss it now because this is going no where. Thanks anyways.

    Sid stated 30Kbs - that's bits, not bytes. You are not bandwidth
    limited.
    --
    Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking a question.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    > Sid stated 30Kbs - that's bits, not bytes. You are not bandwidth
    > limited.

    I realize that, my connection is 144 kilobits a second max, more like 130
    really.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    "Schism" <BLAHHHHHH@blahhhhHHHHH.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:3tGdnTeitv4F_2nd4p2dnA@megapath.net...
    > > As has been said already, its about 30Kbs. The bandwidth required
    per
    > > player
    > > on a server obviously equates to the bandwidth required by the
    clients of
    > > that server. They are one and the same. A client cannot use more
    bandwidth
    > > than the server can serve can it? Lag depends on alot more than just
    your
    > > bandwidth.
    >
    > That would mean I could only see 4 players max on screen wiithout
    massive
    > amounts of lag, but I easily see 10 or more without lag and I only
    have a
    > 144/144 connection (16 kilbobytes a second) but whatever, I'm going to
    > dismiss it now because this is going no where. Thanks anyways.
    >
    >

    rofl , u are only connected to the server and not to other players. even
    if you had 5000 players on that server 30kbit would be enough. so you
    can play even with a 56k modem.

    hth
  28. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    > if you had 5000 players on that server 30kbit would be enough.


    But your video card would throw up all over your hard drive :P
  29. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    > rofl , u are only connected to the server and not to other players. even
    > if you had 5000 players on that server 30kbit would be enough. so you
    > can play even with a 56k modem.

    Uh, as someone who has spent years on dialup... this isn't true, not without
    extreme lag anyways.... I couldn't even play 8 person MOHAA when I was on
    dialup... if you think each character doesn't take and produce extra
    bandwidth, there's something wrong... a person firing a flak cannon is going
    to produce more info than one not firing a cannon... 2 players charging me
    blasting away is going to need more bandwidth on my side than just 1 player
    doing it. Especially in games like Call of Duty when teams get cornered and
    the enemy constantly is throwing grenades and bullets flying everywhere,
    I've had my ping go up to 999 because of all the info and all the players in
    the game in the same spot... Same thing with MMORPGs... I played SWG for a
    couple months on dialup... sure, maybe 10 players around and I could handle
    it, but get 30 or so and the lag is off the scale.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

    "Schism" <BLAHHHHHH@blahhhhHHHHH.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:GOOdnYMb3an8FmfdRVn_iw@megapath.net...
    > > rofl , u are only connected to the server and not to other players.
    even
    > > if you had 5000 players on that server 30kbit would be enough. so
    you
    > > can play even with a 56k modem.
    >
    > Uh, as someone who has spent years on dialup... this isn't true, not
    without
    > extreme lag anyways.... I couldn't even play 8 person MOHAA when I was
    on
    > dialup... if you think each character doesn't take and produce extra
    > bandwidth, there's something wrong...

    I think its an UT group here, not medal...

    a person firing a flak cannon is going
    > to produce more info than one not firing a cannon...

    not in UT - only weapon and vector data is transmitted. the debris of
    the flak is calculated on clien side.

    2 players charging me
    > blasting away is going to need more bandwidth on my side than just 1
    player
    > doing it.

    oki doki, that was my fault.

    Especially in games like Call of Duty when teams get cornered and
    > the enemy constantly is throwing grenades and bullets flying
    everywhere,
    > I've had my ping go up to 999 because of all the info and all the
    players in
    > the game in the same spot... Same thing with MMORPGs... I played SWG
    for a
    > couple months on dialup... sure, maybe 10 players around and I could
    handle
    > it, but get 30 or so and the lag is off the scale.
    >
    >

    still this is an UT UT2K3 UT2K4 group.

    hth
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Servers Video Games