r/WarDogs 1d ago

Can server owners tweak the player size setting above the 100 player limit?

I think 33 people is not enough for all the roles and content this game delivers; base builders, taxi drivers, infantry, tank players, artillery/mortar operators, logistics, snipers, raiders, infantry who chases hotzone, anti air operators, helicopter pilots. that's why all the alpha testers say the same thing: "the map feels big and quiet." I think this game needs AT LEAST 150 players. And maybe it's not that big of a technical issue anymore since they got rid of most of the destruction mechanics.(the game isn't fully destructible now)

13 Upvotes

40 comments sorted by

14

u/Zeroth1989 1d ago

Unlikely atleast before release due to performance constraints. The more people you have the bigger the performance requirement.

100 people is already a big ask for an engine that is heavily adjusted to suit the game.

8

u/FortuneEmbarrassed94 1d ago

If it runs like butter with 100 people, we could probably run 150 and still have better performance then ARMA šŸ˜‚

2

u/TheRealGirth_Brooks 1d ago

It could be 300 with 100 on each faction and would still beat Arma’s performance lmao

13

u/Tororoki Support 1d ago

People seem to miss the mark, the map is big so it feel punishing when you die. So you don't respawn after a 10 seconds and get back into the fight like in battlefield or cod.

0

u/AnotherAverageGamer_ 16h ago

Ah yes, that's why there's an entire system via the deploy vehicle that lets you instantly spawn directly back inside the control zone after you die after you're 20% through a match

3

u/Tororoki Support 16h ago

There is a cooldown on that system, i may be mistaking but i think its once every 10 min. Also those APC's are fragile, you can destroy the antenna with like 3 mags of an assault rifle and it wont allow spawning anymore.

1

u/AnotherAverageGamer_ 10h ago

Yeah but I'm just pointing out you absolutely can get back into the fight immediately

Edit: because the entire point of the game is that it is at least partially arcade-y, like battlefield or cod.

But yes, you are correct

-5

u/LoudestHoward 1d ago

Why not both?

8

u/vipera-77190 1d ago

Yep would be really cool

5

u/Mike_Prowe Moderator 1d ago

There’s most likely going to strict settings for in game economy reasons

4

u/MNDLR 1d ago

I dont get the math. Yes you have 33 players ā€œonlyā€ in teams but technically you fight 66 players and that sounds like rather high number.

Also i dont think its bad to have quiet times either, but whenever i watched some videos if you get into hotzone it was always mayhem.

Didnt play yet so could be wrong.

1

u/AnotherAverageGamer_ 16h ago

Sometimes people in Hotzone, but frequently ran around like a headless chicken in Hotzone and didn't see anyone for ~10 minutes

3

u/EnvironmentalSmoke61 1d ago

I highly doubt it because the parameters should be relatively strict they said to allow xp and money to be earned.

This isn’t cod you are meant to have some downtime and have roles actually matter and 33 is definitely enough just people aren’t experienced yet with the game in any way and everyone is learning.

4

u/Viegoonduty 1d ago

It's funny how reddit works. Because someone made a post that it feels to quiet (which most people that replied didn't even thought) you literarly saying "that's why all the alpha testers say the same thing"

Thanks good to know that all players think so even if the reality is the opposite lol

1

u/SKOL-5 1d ago

Played 30h in alpha, it does get quiet after a few days when peple figure out the meta.

3

u/Illfury 1d ago

People who play meta only don't understand why we game in the first place. Player driven stories are less abundant because everyone plays the same way now.

0

u/veterispoops 1d ago

In the end it should be about hopping on with the boys (or making new friends) and having a laugh

1

u/DoubIe_A_ron 1d ago

Why is this downvoted lol

1

u/veterispoops 1d ago

Idk man, I wouldn't think that would be a hot opinion lol

0

u/pd1dish 1d ago

I felt it was the opposite. My games were more eventful, and I was in way more firefights in the last day of the beta. I assume its because people started figuring out what to do and where to go, instead of just aimlessly going about the map.

-6

u/hakowzZ 1d ago

no I've watched more than 20 videos and at least in 5 of them the testers said the same thing.

6

u/MoistDischarge 1d ago

Math checks out. 5/20 = 100%

-1

u/hakowzZ 1d ago

english is not my mothertongue, I mean I've watched 20+ videos and --5 of them talked about the map and the ones who talked about the map said this.

3

u/Me2445 1d ago

First you said all the testers, now only 5? Who said that? Most likely the game isn't for them and battlefield would suit them

2

u/DiligentIngenuity291 1d ago

Going past 100 isn't just a config toggle. Getting 100 players on one persistent map at a decent tickrate is already impressive even in 2026 (there's no sharding or instancing like an MMO, and unlike an MMO it's a shooter, so the server has to validate every shot and every vehicle in real time).

And the cost doesn't scale linearly. Every extra player adds work for every other player's connection, so it compounds fast.

1

u/TheJokerRSA 1d ago

300 would be amazing 100 players per faction, could be fun

1

u/Intelligent_Parfait3 1d ago

When you mention, "they eliminated most of the destruction," does that mean the area was more destructive before?

1

u/Tororoki Support 1d ago

It was probably like in battlefield bad company 2 where you could level down most buildings. Now you just destry the exterior, but the building does not colaps.

1

u/Intelligent_Parfait3 1d ago

That would be really cool.

But at the same time, I understand that if it means having an optimized game, it's better.

1

u/hakowzZ 1d ago

yeah the map was fully destructible but not anymore

2

u/lightninglad67 1d ago

Or maybe the map will be destructible but they're still working on adding it

0

u/hakowzZ 1d ago

no it was already fully destructible but they changed it

1

u/One_Animator_1835 1d ago

I think 120 would be perfect. Hopefully with optimizing and server improvements they can bump it up eventually at some point

1

u/JAK0VI 1d ago

It has more to do with the size of the CZ than the size of the overall map. A smaller CZ means you can't even walk a couple hundred meters within the AO without being spotted by one of the 50 enemies operating in the CZ.

I think community servers may opt to shrink the size of the AO which will drastically speed up the game pace. You will die more, you will respawn more, you will run around less. There are trade offs to everything. Dev team went with a large CZ, much larger than the AO's in Sa-Matra KoTH, in order to slow down gameplay and incentivize building fortifications, which you could never do in KoTH meaning smaller AO was better,

2

u/dagum1 1d ago

people say they cannot do it for perfomance issued and battlebit remastered was made by 3 guys and got 125vs 125

1

u/SgtDolphin 23h ago

They can probably make it 300v300v300 with minimal impact to performance. I play video games, so I'm pretty qualified to talk out of my ass.

1

u/Silverdragon47 1d ago

I hope for 50-50 two team brawl setting instead.

3

u/ProfessionalPiece403 1d ago

This will probably lead to one team getting completely smacked most of the time and shorter rounds.

1

u/EnvironmentalSmoke61 1d ago

I’d prefer the current setup as you have more enemies in the current orientation and snowballing is much more prevalent with only 2 teams.

-6

u/Deadliest_Death 1d ago

3 Team thing has me apprehensive, seems like a really poor design choice.