ETQW Frequently Asked Questions [Archive] - Enemy Territory: QUAKE Wars Official Community Site

[SD]BongoBoy

05-04-2007, 12:08 AM

It might be out-of-date, maybe bongoboy can give us an update...

Yes indeed, we've been updating this FAQ as development has progressed, with only limited success, it would seem : )

You're absolutely right, we used to have no hard limit on player numbers, but following extensive server testing and Beta feedback we've made the decision to change it. The maximum number of clients is now 32, so Server Admins can have up to 16 players per team. If this doesn't sound like enough, remember that ETQW's gameplay is all about focusing the action rather than dispersing it. We've found that the sweet spot that gives the most players the best time the most of the time is with about 12 players per team and our maps are optimally balanced for 24 clients. That said, we've had very enjoyable 6v6 and even 5v5 matches and we're confident that ETQW will satisfy even the most dedicated clan players.

dmschaos

05-04-2007, 12:17 AM

Great! Thanks!

mortis

05-04-2007, 12:22 AM

BongoBoy;1000']Yes indeed, we've been updating this FAQ as development has progressed, with only limited success, it would seem : )

You're absolutely right, we used to have no hard limit on player numbers, but following extensive server testing and Beta feedback we've made the decision to change it. The maximum number of clients is now 32, so Server Admins can have up to 16 players per team. If this doesn't sound like enough, remember that ETQW's gameplay is all about focusing the action rather than dispersing it. We've found that the sweet spot that gives the most players the best time the most of the time is with about 12 players per team and our maps are optimally balanced for 24 clients. That said, we've had very enjoyable 6v6 and even 5v5 matches and we're confident that ETQW will satisfy even the most dedicated clan players.

If it's "translation-worthy" we should get to work on it! FAQ in Spanish is usually written "Preguntas Frecuentes" and I'm sure we'll have a need for multilingual FAQs.

Evilsmurf

05-04-2007, 12:33 AM

suits me, one thing i hate is having to spend 5 mins getting across a map only to find the hot spot has moved back to the place i started:mad:

SpankMuffin

05-04-2007, 04:23 AM

BongoBoy;1000']We've found that the sweet spot that gives the most players the best time the most of the time is with about 12 players per team and our maps are optimally balanced for 24 clients. That said, we've had very enjoyable 6v6 and even 5v5 matches and we're confident that ETQW will satisfy even the most dedicated clan players.

So BongoBoy, do you think that since the maps are optimized for 12v12 matches it will mean that ladders and tournament rulesets will be 12v12 matches?

I know that hypothetically, a ladder or league could have whatever rules they wanted to, I'm just curious to know what SD thinks the optimal tournament match size would be? I've always preferred smaller matches, but if the sweetspot makes gameplay slightly more fun or balanced then I'm all for that.

Rogue

05-04-2007, 04:36 AM

Ideal sizes in pub play don't relate to competition IMHO.

In a Crossfire article by TosspoT there's a comment attributed to Locki re: ETQW probably being played 6v6 by comp gamers.

sponge

05-04-2007, 04:41 AM

Indeed. Many ET servers are 24-64 players, but comp is still only 6v6.

SpankMuffin

05-04-2007, 04:51 AM

Good point, that completely slipped my mind. Then again, most of us haven't actually played the game yet, so I guess we will know more when we actually get our hands on it, right? ;)

I like the sound of 6v6 though, those were always my favorite sizes for W:ET games.

FrenchTart

05-04-2007, 10:28 AM

*devours all information* ;)

Locki

05-04-2007, 12:09 PM

Ed's not here right now, but Clan/Tournament/Ladder matches will work well with 6 versus 6, possibly even 5 versus 5. This is really important because of the cost of flying team-mates to LAN events.

fusen

05-04-2007, 12:56 PM

5v5/6v6 is really only the way big tournaments will adopt the game tbh

[SD]BongoBoy

05-04-2007, 01:58 PM

What he said!

-)G(-PunisheR

05-04-2007, 02:18 PM

What about these ranked/unranked servers? Are we talking about stats and unlocks like that "other game" or are we going to see the XP system from Wolf ET were it resets after the campaign or both? I guess i just want to know where the line is between ranked and unranked since I rent a server for our games and dont really want to have to fork up for another "secure" box like the "other game" required.

PS the "other game" is BF2. It left such a bad taste in my mouth i had to have a tongue transplant:D

Kamikazee

05-04-2007, 02:30 PM

Unlocks work like in W:ET: earn XP bij assisting your team and you get your "valuable" rewards.
After each campaign or map cycle, they are reset to level the playing field.

The persistent stats are derived from this, but don't give you any other advantage other than a shiny "Lieutenant" or "Acknowledged pilot" badge. (Note: I don't know which badges are in. I'm no developer, but it's fun to make those things up.)

However, because the persistent stats are currently global, the servers from which data is collected need to be secured in one way or another. Whether this means that you can only deal with trusted GSP's or can ask a custom certificate remains to be seen.

Please bear in mind the game has no official release date announced as of yet.

SpankMuffin

05-04-2007, 02:37 PM

Ed's not here right now, but Clan/Tournament/Ladder matches will work well with 6 versus 6, possibly even 5 versus 5. This is really important because of the cost of flying team-mates to LAN events.

Thanks Locki, good news to me! :D

What about these ranked/unranked servers? Are we talking about stats and unlocks like that "other game" or are we going to see the XP system from Wolf ET were it resets after the campaign or both? I guess i just want to know where the line is between ranked and unranked since I rent a server for our games and dont really want to have to fork up for another "secure" box like the "other game" required.

In various interviews I believe Locki (as well as others, maybe?) have stated that they have designed the game similar to W:ET and your XP/Rewards will be reset after each campagin. To my knowledge, the only thing a ranked server will have over an unranked one is the ability to track stats (kills, deaths, accy, etc) and give you a military title in front of your name based on those stats.

That means that there won't be any permanent rewards like in the other game. Hope that helps.

alien

05-04-2007, 04:17 PM

What I'm asking myself is if there's a possibility for smaller GSPs to set up ranked servers, too?
Or will it be the same as in BF2? Only one GSP is allowed to set up ranked servers per country?

I'm supporter at a german GSP (maybe you know it, our servers are known as offering good pings to everyone in Europe) and therefor I'm quiet interested in the way the ranked system is going to work...

Kamikazee

05-04-2007, 06:50 PM

The GSP deals and details aren't published yet.
I can imagine with the stat system being fairly new, they would first of all like to test what security provisions it would need.

KlosterKatten

05-04-2007, 07:03 PM

Im glad you choose to limit the players. With only one objective to focus on at a time, it would be pretty chaotic if it were 32 players trying to go to the same spot at one time.

32 players should be more than enough.

Sweet_Candy

05-04-2007, 11:31 PM

Will the medics be more realistic in ET QW? Less like demi-gods?

Bobbyvader

05-05-2007, 09:42 AM

yes they will be! They have electric shocks to revive you :D

rtpHarry

05-07-2007, 11:55 PM

In question 11, answer paragraph one, it ends with

Wold War II

but should say

World War II

:)

Charliebrownau

05-08-2007, 08:47 AM

That does NOT look like a FAQ more like an press release pimpage.

Take this section for example:

" How about hardware - can you tell us about the system specs to run ETQW? blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah "

Well of course you need a 3D video card , what new game doesn't these days
It sounds like it is rambling . All that needs to be mentioned is final retail system specs are not released yet and something like:

Computer with Windows 2000/XP/2003/Vista or Linux
32 bit single core ( 2 to 4 ghz) or multi core CPU (2 to 4 ghz)
1 gig of RAM or more
5 gig of HDD space
128 Mb Video 3D graphics card with DirectX 9 and Opengl drivers
Keyboard and mouse supported
Broadband connection to play online

Viperkhan

05-08-2007, 08:56 AM

I guess they don't know for sure just yet, posting temporary answers to questions won't do people any good. You're probably hitting the recommended specs with your lined up specs there though. They'll give the official requirements to us in good time before release I'm sure, so that everyone who has to purchase upgrades can do so.

MrPoodle

05-09-2007, 04:31 AM

yes they will be! They have electric shocks to revive you :D

i kinda like the way the body arches in the movies from the shock paddles

[T]BludShoT

05-09-2007, 05:47 AM

BongoBoy;1000']You're absolutely right, we used to have no hard limit on player numbers, but following extensive server testing and Beta feedback we've made the decision to change it. The maximum number of clients is now 32

Will mods be able to change the max clients? Or is this a hard coded limit?

Brinkman

05-15-2007, 06:31 AM

bout time ^_^

top_fuel29

05-15-2007, 09:55 AM

bout time ^_^

Yah I'd say it was

Kamikazee

05-15-2007, 01:34 PM

BludShoT;9461']Will mods be able to change the max clients? Or is this a hard coded limit?
RR2DO2 said it is hard coded in the engine, so mods won't be able to increase the player count. A later patch could fix this though, but it still remains to be seen if the game would even work with eg. 64 players.

So once again: 32 is the current upper limit.

[T]BludShoT

05-16-2007, 08:53 PM

That sucks, why wouldn't the game work with more players? That makes no sense.

LionQ

05-16-2007, 09:35 PM

BludShoT;18127']That sucks, why wouldn't the game work with more players? That makes no sense.Indeed, the 64 player server in Battlefield 2 are so much fun... Seriously now, less is more.

Gus Bell

05-16-2007, 09:45 PM

"That sucks, why wouldn't the game work with more players? That makes no sense."

Really? Image every BF2 battle you've been in that you only had one spawn point left in 32v32 matches and then make it twice as bad. Because ALL 64 players would be there, not half of them guarding the other bases. If you like spawning into a group of enemies that know where you are going to appear and are camping you repeatedly instead of capturing the base, just to be point whores, there are plenty of games on the market that allow more than 32 players. My server will be locked at 12v12.

Flesh

05-16-2007, 09:51 PM

If you're going to compare QW to some game, than compare it to ET, not battlefield.

I know that QW is balanced for 12 vs 12, but so is ET. In ET there were servers that allowed 40+ players. And there were plenty of ppl playing there. If you add these large maps that QW has, I see nothing wrong with firing up a 40 player match every now and then.
If some ppl enjoy it then why not allow them to play with more than 32 players on server?

Skarum

05-16-2007, 10:15 PM

Indeed, the 64 player server in Battlefield 2 are so much fun... Seriously now, less is more.

mmh I don't see a reason why the 64 player sever in battlefield are much more fun than a 32 player one. If all the servers had be configured like they should (32 player on a 32 player map and not on a 64 player map) you would have the same expierience like on a 64 player server with the big maps. But since Battlefield is only about having as much points and rewards most servers are running 32player on a 64 map, in order to get high points. And now everyone thinks that only 64 players on a server are fun? Wake up!

So don't complain about a limitation of 32 players, and don't compare Battlefield with Quake Wars since there is a front line and objectives that you don't have in Battlefield.

LionQ

05-16-2007, 10:26 PM

mmh I don't see a reason why the 64 player sever in battlefield are much more fun than a 32 player one. If all the servers had be configured like they should (32 player on a 32 player map and not on a 64 player map) you would have the same expierience like on a 64 player server with the big maps. But since Battlefield is only about having as much points and rewards most servers are running 32player on a 64 map, in order to get high points. And now everyone thinks that only 64 players on a server are fun? Wake up!

So don't complain about a limitation of 32 players, and don't compare Battlefield with Quake Wars since there is a front line and objectives that you don't have in Battlefield.I was being sarcastic; hence the "seriously now" afterwards. For your information, I've always filtered large maps out of my Battlefield 2 server browser - if I was heading for a public game in the first place, that is.

Skarum

05-16-2007, 10:29 PM

sorry I tought the Seriously now, less is more.
was sarcastic

LionQ

05-16-2007, 10:33 PM

sorry I tought the was sarcasticNegative. :p

[T]BludShoT

05-19-2007, 08:13 PM

You guys don't get what I'm saying. I'm aware that the gameplay in QW suites max clients of 32 players. It's very very likely that playing the game out of the box with more than 32 players would suck.

But what about new maps and mods? People could make entirely different game modes with QW in which 64 or even more players would be awesome.

And I am simply saying that I see no reason why the game shouldn't be moddable to increase the max clients past 32. It's just an artificial limit that would handcuff modders.

There is actually only 1 reason I can see for them doing it, which is that they fear that as soon as QW hits the market, someone will make a lame mod where all it does is increase the max clients. And from that they fear that gamers (not having a clue what is actually good) will suddenly make the 64 player servers super popular and tons of servers will be for 64 players. Then gamers and new customers who just bought QW will join those servers and the gameplay will suck terribly and they will say omg screw QW it sucks.

So, I can appreciate hardcoding the limit for that reason but only for like 3 months or so. Then the 32 player game will be well established and I think they should remove the hardcoded max clients limit in a patch (but keep the max clients at 32 for vanilla/un-modded QW).

joe2

05-19-2007, 09:15 PM

i'm very disappointed in a hardcoded limit of 32. depending on the success of this game there might be thousands of servers and hundreds of thousands of players - why set an arbitrary limit when there might be a small % of people out there that ENJOY the game with too many players. I remember reading articles about BF 2142 and other games where the developers said "we never expected servers to have 64 players" but some people enjoy it. Why limit your product when it's not necessary technically? if the game sucks with >32 people will quickly figure it out on their own.

mothra

05-19-2007, 09:20 PM

i can tell you why:
the average gamer installs the game and joins the
server with THE MOST PLAYERS. ZOMG, LOL, StreetFight.
then after a few maps without progressing because of this big, shitty
chokepoint deathmatch massacre he will put the game down and go
back to Q4/UT4 because: what's the difference ?

with limiting the playercount you actually somehow kindly "force" the people
to play your game like it was intended and you will most likely get the same
adrenalin rush of taking objectives as the dev/tester team had during
development. As a dev you certainly want as much ppl to play the game
like you did design it back then.

but no problem, somebody will hack it and some mods will emerge but then
they are mods and not vanilla, that's the point.

joe2

05-19-2007, 09:59 PM

then why are there hundreds of 20-32 player BF servers and only a small fraction 64 player servers, and the game has been very successful? i think people aren't so dumb that they can't decide on their own what they want to play

Uchronic

05-19-2007, 10:06 PM

I wouldn't be against translating it in French, as long as we could be coordinated ... and be posted about updates.

I just need someone giving me the confirmation that a translation would be useful and inserted somewhere here.

[T]BludShoT

05-20-2007, 06:38 PM

but no problem, somebody will hack it and some mods will emerge but then
they are mods and not vanilla, that's the point.

Yeah it is a problem. Hacks like that would require a hacked exe and would be illegal (to distribute the exe), and against the EULA, so no modder would touch that. And if they did, PB wouldn't work in their mod, and every player playing the mod would be breaking the EULA. So hardly anyone would get the mod since it would be so retarded.

And @Joe2, maybe QuakeWars is technically unable to do 64 players. Perhaps they found in beta testing that it ran very poorly or something. I have no idea.

I don't even want to play vanilla QW with more than 32 players since obviously it must suck with that many people or they wouldn't have limited it, however, I'm always disappointed when a new game comes out that is missing a feature or capability of the previous gen's games. (For example BF2 is missing DOZENS of features from previous gen games like Quake 3, so much so that it kind of takes your breath away how shitty BF2 is (I mean I still play it but it's missing a good console/cvars/configs, first person demos!!! (unbelievable), match mode features found in quake mods, etc).

But in this case the missing feature in QW is the ability to do 64 players. Cuz now you can't avoid the fact that that's one thing battlefield has on QW.

mothra

05-20-2007, 08:15 PM

hmm, i didn't think about the exe-hacking....
you are right, this will hinder many mods going for other
gamemodes or just more players cause they balance the game
towards a playercount > 32.

But since the devs said that ET:QW is balanced against 24, i already fear
that ALL of the initial servers will be 32.

In other teambased games I played I started with servers with higher
playercount (but not the maximum) and now gradually
reduce the number because it really get's more and more
complex/fun as soon as you have less player who know what they are doing.

therefore clanplay on ET:QW will concentrate on 6v6 I think and it should
work even for those big maps.

I hope there will be 24/18/16/12 servers out there as well.

Wizplayer

05-20-2007, 10:57 PM

Will there be a Monthly fee on this game??

Ifurita

05-20-2007, 11:37 PM

[T]BludShoT

06-15-2007, 09:15 PM

I think it;s been asked several times here. The answer is no. There may be higher fees for ranked/official stats-reporting servers, but this is pure speculation and nothing has been released about what this will really look like.

I could understand a *SMALL* increased fee for ranked servers, but if Splash Damage allows the trusted providers to gouge with their prices (like how it was in BF2) then I will be *very* disappointed in them.

b3x

06-15-2007, 10:11 PM

BludShoT;38134']I could understand a *SMALL* increased fee for ranked servers, but if Splash Damage allows the trusted providers to gouge with their prices (like how it was in BF2) then I will be *very* disappointed in them.

i wouldnt worry about it. these servers just wont be played on ...

Kamikazee

06-15-2007, 11:21 PM

BludShoT;38134']I could understand a *SMALL* increased fee for ranked servers, but if Splash Damage allows the trusted providers to gouge with their prices (like how it was in BF2) then I will be *very* disappointed in them.
It's a free market out there. Even though SD nor Activision asks an extra fee for hosting ranked servers, I guess the GSP is still free to set his price...

Sublim3

06-15-2007, 11:24 PM

And you can bet your arse that nuclear fallout will be charging a premium for ranked servers IF they get approved to provide them.

[T]BludShoT

06-22-2007, 06:33 AM

It's a free market out there. Even though SD nor Activision asks an extra fee for hosting ranked servers, I guess the GSP is still free to set his price...

It's not just a "free market". SD can control the prices that the GSP's sell for, by threatening to remove them as a GSP if they gouge. Why would SD be in bed with them to line their pockets anyways?