While this GDC article is decent but the GDC article over at gamespot.com is 10x more detailed with all the information includes release date. (Go to gamespot.com and search Huxley 3/19/07 article)

To answer your question, each pure PvP zones that does not includes any quest PvE mobs (ie deathmatch, capture the flag and many other modes) will allow 200 players. 100 per faction. 4 men makes squad, 5 squads forms platoon. 5 platoon becomes 1 company which equal 100 players. For PvE questing zone with PvP it allows 64 players max, 32 from each faction.

User performance???? Are you joking? Isn't that why they have adjustable graphics settings in games? You adjust the settings until you reach the desired performance. It might not look as "pretty" but it sure makes the game playable.


And somehow calling me "fanboy" is ok even after you were warned about name-calling? Smoooooth....

I have occassionally checked on this game. I am holding any opinions about it till I see it myself. Seems to have some interesting ideas but agree about the claim not  to need a clan yet people can give the best stuff to a new player. To me that makes it very decieving and not a nice thing to claim. There are people who will see the claim not to need a clan and think "cool, I play it casually" then get ran over by the guy in a clan that gave him top-end gear. I hate such claims and that worries me.

Originally posted by Slavebot
While this GDC article is decent but the GDC article over at gamespot.com is 10x more detailed with all the information includes release date. (Go to gamespot.com and search Huxley 3/19/07 article)

To answer your question, each pure PvP zones that does not includes any quest PvE mobs (ie deathmatch, capture the flag and many other modes) will allow 200 players. 100 per faction. 4 men makes squad, 5 squads forms platoon. 5 platoon becomes 1 company which equal 100 players. For PvE questing zone with PvP it allows 64 players max, 32 from each faction.

Interesting. I still wonder, when all is said and done, how this will play.

Originally posted by Landogarner
User performance???? Are you joking? Isn't that why they have adjustable graphics settings in games? You adjust the settings until you reach the desired performance. It might not look as "pretty" but it sure makes the game playable.


And somehow calling me "fanboy" is ok even after you were warned about name-calling? Smoooooth....

And Vanguard has no bugs and runs smoothly on the minimum specs.

I can feel your blood temp raising from here, calm your forum hate.

No one is "Talking bad about your game". OK?

Vanguard is a steaming pile of crap that has nothing to do with your generalization of graphics settings and performance.

You are playing a rushed to market game that needed another 3+ months of optimization before being released. I had the benefit of being in the closed beta, that experience and knowing Sony's track record, saved me from wasting my money buying the retail version.

Just because you are angry that you wasted your money that doesn't mean other companies don't know how to optimize their games BEFORE releasing them. Welcome to yet another of Sony's -pay to beta test our game, haha suckers!-

For a 100 v 100 battle to go down, with all the bombs and skillz going off PLUS armor the server will crash. If the graphics we're a little dated, not like PS dated but maybe looks detailed like EQ2 and can run on a decent machine (but not ulgy models for some characters).

Once I see a video with 100+ v 100+ then I will belive it, and it has to be smooth like butter (or close to anyway) not <5 FPS for all the players now.

Originally posted by Landogarner
Vanguard is a steaming pile of crap that has nothing to do with your generalization of graphics settings and performance.

You are playing a rushed to market game that needed another 3+ months of optimization before being released. I had the benefit of being in the closed beta, that experience and knowing Sony's track record, saved me from wasting my money buying the retail version.

Just because you are angry that you wasted your money that doesn't mean other companies don't know how to optimize their games BEFORE releasing them. Welcome to yet another of Sony's -pay to beta test our game, haha suckers!-

Talk about assumptions!

You completely missed my point, so ill type slow.

Never trust what a company SAYS there game will deliver. I don’t have that much blind faith.

What huxley currently "promises" seems a little far fetched to me, could be doable, ill have to wait and see.

Now, stop frothing at the mouth and clean yourself up.

Originally posted by JimmyLegs
For a 100 v 100 battle to go down, with all the bombs and skillz going off PLUS armor the server will crash. If the graphics we're a little dated, not like PS dated but maybe looks detailed like EQ2 and can run on a decent machine (but not ulgy models for some characters).

Once I see a video with 100+ v 100+ then I will belive it, and it has to be smooth like butter (or close to anyway) not <5 FPS for all the players now.

Planetsides major reason they can do what they can do is, Client Side Hit Detection (For better or worse, it was Necessary). So, yeah, I’m not sure how they are doing it, but I’m in the same boat as you, sounds to good to be true... and by true, i mean Plays well on an average computer with a decent connection with no packet loss. 

FPS and Packet loss are MAJOR concerns for ANY FPS game.

Speaking of packet loss, wonder were the servers will be.....

 

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Originally posted by JimmyLegs
For a 100 v 100 battle to go down, with all the bombs and skillz going off PLUS armor the server will crash. If the graphics we're a little dated, not like PS dated but maybe looks detailed like EQ2 and can run on a decent machine (but not ulgy models for some characters).

Once I see a video with 100+ v 100+ then I will belive it, and it has to be smooth like butter (or close to anyway) not <5 FPS for all the players now.

Planetsides major reason they can do what they can do is, Client Side Hit Detection (For better or worse, it was Necessary). So, yeah, I’m not sure how they are doing it, but I’m in the same boat as you, sounds to good to be true... and by true, i mean Plays well on an average computer with a decent connection with no packet loss. 

FPS and Packet loss are MAJOR concerns for ANY FPS game.

Speaking of packet loss, wonder were the servers will be.....

 

I really am looking forward to Huxley but I hold the same reservations you do. I do belive that a 100 vs 100 is possible, but how they will be able to make it work without a large amount of lag is what bugs me. As for the instances in these battle zones, they are objectives such as a power plant or ammo depot where small groups of players ( I would imagine something like 4v4) fight over it and whoever wins gets a bonus for their entire 100 person team.

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Originally posted by Landogarner
Vanguard is a steaming pile of crap that has nothing to do with your generalization of graphics settings and performance.

You are playing a rushed to market game that needed another 3+ months of optimization before being released. I had the benefit of being in the closed beta, that experience and knowing Sony's track record, saved me from wasting my money buying the retail version.

Just because you are angry that you wasted your money that doesn't mean other companies don't know how to optimize their games BEFORE releasing them. Welcome to yet another of Sony's -pay to beta test our game, haha suckers!-

Talk about assumptions!

You completely missed my point, so ill type slow.

Never trust what a company SAYS there game will deliver. I don’t have that much blind faith.

What huxley currently "promises" seems a little far fetched to me, could be doable, ill have to wait and see.

Now, stop frothing at the mouth and clean yourself up.

Assumptions? You referenced Vanguard as your example.....   Are you experiencing some packet loss between your brain and your fingers? Where is your brain's server located? You should really try and find a local server for your brain to connect to.......

Speaking of which, packet loss hasn't been a major problem in online games since the 90's?  Unless you have a crappy connection but then that's not the games fault, is it?  The number of hops between your computer and the server and good netcode in the game, are all that really matter. What happened to this "tech knowledge" you were bragging about earlier?

Why are people arguing over how many players will be able to batttle at once?Like anyone who is involved in a SKILLEd battle can actually sit back and enjoy the other 99 battles going on around them?pffftt .I never even liked any more than 4 on 4 in unreal tournament it's nothing to enjoy when you get too many on screen.Performance?this may be an issue however asian marketed games tend to keep the total poly count down.If you watch any of the videos there is really only a few static meshes around the perimeter with most of the poly counts coming from the actual players of mobs[pve].I am sure there will be settings to turn down extras such as dead bodies laying around too long and things like that.

I havn't seen alot of videos ,but it seems like alot of the battles are instanced zones,so this will cut back on lag issues.To the person who keeps talkign about planet side[rflmao]i beta tested that game and for the longest time perhaps even still,i rated it as the worse game i ever played.Ryzom is close to that now for bragging rights.

I have been awaiting this game for quite some time and alot of what i have read and watched seems real good.It seems like this may be the game that finally breaks the asian market outa there aged old style of gameplay.Yes this game appears to be alot like unreal tournament,so what that game was and is a great game.Halo/gears of war are just a couple of great games that also copied unreal tournament.

I am not getting over expectant of the greatest game to date ,because frankly i don't expect the asian market to change there games that dramatically.I notice things like only 5/6 armour slots?maybe there is hope the game uses an advanced combat system that utilizes performance versus injury?example your hit in the leg you cant run as well,the more damage an area of your armour takes,the worse your performance is.What kind of anti cheat is there going to be since PVP will be forced onto players advancing there skills?Where will the servers be?can we expect for once an east coast server?I am in canada and connecting to anywhere outside of east coast USA is total lag.I noticed someone talking about crap connections,well lag has nothing to do with crap connections ,it's all about HOPS and congestion to the servers.

Personally this game has been my most anticipated game since the early quake/unreal days,so i hope it can deliver on 75% of what i am expecting.

iv been wathcing this for a while i cant wait to give it a try

If WEBZEN delivers this game will be a great success imo. I always wanted to play an FPS with a persistant world.

I will be playing Huxley!

FYI, this MMORPG.com article doesn't have their facts straight.  Check out these other articles:

IGN Huxley article
"It is encouraging that Webzen believes they'll have enough control over lag issues that co-op missions are doable considering most FPSs can't seem to figure it out (we're looking at you Halo 2) without being a massively multiplayer game to boot."

Gamespy Huxley article
"Kang promises that the Battlezone is scalable, with matches being as intimate as one-on-one and as large as 100-vs-100."

Warcry Huxley article
"Each city has a projected population of 2,500 players and 5,000 per server. In some ways, the game seems to want to be a hybrid between classic single-player FPS titles like Half-Life 2 and online FPS experiences like Battlefield 2. There is the single-player game in and around the cities that includes quests, NPCs to battle and MMO staples like crafting and then there are the instanced, objective based maps that include things like control points and spawning vehicles. Back in the city zones, players can buy their own more permanent vehicles to get them around town."

"He also noted that they will likely try to keep the 360 and PC players largely separate, although some limited cross platform play is anticipated on the cooperative side. The emphasis for the PC version is clearly online PvP, while on the 360, they hope to put more detail into the single-player/cooperative aspects of the game."


1UP Huxley Q&A
"As Webzen has stressed all along, Huxley, powered by Unreal Engine 3, will place more emphasis on gamers' twitch skills than on characters' stats--and nowhere will this be made clearer than in the deathmatches, where players will put aside the game's larger MMO-style concerns to indulge in some good old-fashioned fragging and trash-talking."

"Imagine a master server of sorts, much like what you find in current FPS games. Players can sign up for a match, much like WOW Battleground queues, allowing for specific parameters to be set and met. There aren't many "open" battles that players can just randomly jump into, as they have already started within certain parameters. That's not to say that players can't be notified via an ingame system that their faction is at risk of losing a battle and a ship is at the ready waiting for volunteers to be brought to it via dropship."

Gamespot UK Huxley article
"Currently, the game is planned to launch with two major cities (one for each faction) and eight smaller cities, along with about 80 battlefields, each of which can house up to 200 players at once."

"Apparently, battlefields where players fight against the monstrous hybrids will allow up to 64 players at once, while competitive battlefields will allow up to 200."

"The developers at Webzen plan to encourage players to play together by letting them form small squads of up to four players each, larger platoons with five squads each, and finally, companies, which include five platoons (with a total of up to 100 players in each)."

So.. check out the other articles before you base your opinion on the lacking MMORPG.com article.

After having played planetside a fair amount, I wouldnt mind seeing smaller battles because a massive zerg-fest gets boring after a while because there isnt much in the way of tactics beyone 'go for x base', 'roll armor', and 'need ams/destroy enemy ams'.

Planetside is more fun when you play with a well organized squad using voice communication, so why not have a mmo game that emphasizes more on this rather than on mostly all out zerg warfare?

I just want to see a mmofps where winning and losing is determined by more than just who has the most population - and instances are the only way to really accomplish this. Massive battles have there place, but I like the direction that Huxley is heading by allowing for smaller engagements.

Battles can range from a 1vs1 match to a 100vs100 frag fest. I truly think Webzen can accomplish this game. They say they can handle it then they can handle it.

Ever heard of Real Time Worlds? They are the developers for APB and they chose Webzen to publish APB because they think Webzen has the right technology to run everything. I have been watching this game for the past year and a half and I know mostly everything that is happening with this game. Lag can be an issue but I can guess you probably need a good computer with good a good graphics card and probably at least 512mb of RAM but I think it requires 1gb. If you can't handle this game then upgrade your machine for better performance because I am definately going to upgrade things for this great game.

Originally posted by NewbKing
Lag can be an issue but I can guess you probably need a good computer with good a good graphics card and probably at least 512mb of RAM but I think it requires 1gb.

512 MB of RAM???....................What are you planning on playing? PONG???? 

I would expect this or any other game yet to be released to run like complete and utter crap on anything less than 2 Gigs.

Yeah, I expect Huxley to bring any current computer to its knees.  Those graphics and the possibility of 200 players being on screen.. the hardware that will run this game in full detail isnt even released yet.

God I'm so tired of people thinking a P4/Athlon64 + 7000(Nvidia)/1000(ATI) series hardware is going to be enough to play the highest end games coming out this year.

Times are changing and the games are now starting to outstrip the capabilities of current mainstream hardware.

To fully enjoy the next generation games you will need to upgrade to C2D, or Brisbane(AMD quad core) & Nvidia 8000 series, or the upcoming ATI R600 cards coming out in April.
The Brisbane will be coming out around mid 2007 and will have unparalleled physics processing power.

QQ all you want about Rediculous hardware requirements IDC, The Pentium4 architecture is 7 years old, the Athlon 64 is 5 years old, Nvidia 7000 series is 2 years old, ATI 1000 series is 1.5 years old.

Jesus frigging christ ppl BUY NEW HARDWARE FOR THE BRIGHT AND SHINY NEW GAMES. They are called next gen for a reason. Buy next gen hardware. or invest in SLI/Xfire.

FYI all the big textures can be better loaded from a performance oriented Raid setup. it helps eliminate Hitching.

Originally posted by grndzro
God I'm so tired of people thinking a P4/Athlon64 + 7000(Nvidia)/1000(ATI) series hardware is going to be enough to play the highest end games coming out this year.

Times are changing and the games are now starting to outstrip the capabilities of current mainstream hardware.

To fully enjoy the next generation games you will need to upgrade to C2D, or Brisbane(AMD quad core) & Nvidia 8000 series, or the upcoming ATI R600 cards coming out in April.
The Brisbane will be coming out around mid 2007 and will have unparalleled physics processing power.

QQ all you want about Rediculous hardware requirements IDC, The Pentium4 architecture is 7 years old, the Athlon 64 is 5 years old, Nvidia 7000 series is 2 years old, ATI 1000 series is 1.5 years old.

Jesus frigging christ ppl BUY NEW HARDWARE FOR THE BRIGHT AND SHINY NEW GAMES. They are called next gen for a reason. Buy next gen hardware. or invest in SLI/Xfire.

FYI all the big textures can be better loaded from a performance oriented Raid setup. it helps eliminate Hitching.

I agree with everything you said other than the RAID thing.  It is proven that for single user gaming/workstation environments that a single fast hard drive with a small FAT OS/gaming partition at the front of the hard drive is equivalent or faster than a RAID 0 array at half the price.