Can we get one 100 player Eggwars map?

[Lightning McQueen]

I’m talking about a 10v10v10...v10 teams map. It would be amazing to have something on this scale. 100 players is nothing. There wont be much lag. Or perhaps a 96 player map with all 16 possible teams?

Also, maybe even a 50 player map- 10v10v...10. The lag excuse doesnt come into play here since mushrooms is a 50 player

Not eveyone has a potato anyways. There have been 100 player maps like “centuries” in the past I think. Someone told me it was removed for its lag.

If thats the case I think surely now the server being this big could handle it?

@Efcluke94

 

[Deleted member 352903]

I definitely want games with 100 players, it will be fun and interesting to play

 

[elchuii]

I think I've seen this thread before, but most of the players would have "lag", but I think it would be fun.

 

[Marta]

Theres some limitations which won't make this a very easy thing for us to implement.

You see, when you operate at a very large scale, like CubeCraft does, you standardise a lot of the way the product works, that includes how many players a game server can expect, and how we balance these players across different individual game servers, additionally to that, the code that runs to make these games work well is optimised specifically for a certain amount of players.

These usually are based around what we see in game normally.

Theres more optimised pieces of code that can handle more players, like lobbies, but it's always a challenge to fit everything into the memory and compute allocations each game server is allowed, so a 100 player full game, as our infrastructure stands at the moment, won't be something we can work towards.

As my role is about making exactly those decisions, I can't say this will always remain like this, and always be impossible, however I can't make you any promises either, it's good to see feedback from players wanting different things to happen, and as always, we try to please as many players as we can with our choices.

Infrastructure at this scale is quite complex, and is far from what you experience by creating a single multiplayer minecraft server for you and your friends, so please keep that in mind. We're not halting things because we want to be evil and don't want you to have fun, the majority of the things we don't do is due to technical limitations we're hard at work to resolve.

Thanks for your suggestion.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

Theres some limitations which won't make this a very easy thing for us to implement.

You see, when you operate at a very large scale, like CubeCraft does, you standardise a lot of the way the product works, that includes how many players a game server can expect, and how we balance these players across different individual game servers, additionally to that, the code that runs to make these games work well is optimised specifically for a certain amount of players.

These usually are based around what we see in game normally.

Theres more optimised pieces of code that can handle more players, like lobbies, but it's always a challenge to fit everything into the memory and compute allocations each game server is allowed, so a 100 player full game, as our infrastructure stands at the moment, won't be something we can work towards.

As my role is about making exactly those decisions, I can't say this will always remain like this, and always be impossible, however I can't make you any promises either, it's good to see feedback from players wanting different things to happen, and as always, we try to please as many players as we can with our choices.

Infrastructure at this scale is quite complex, and is far from what you experience by creating a single multiplayer minecraft server for you and your friends, so please keep that in mind. We're not halting things because we want to be evil and don't want you to have fun, the majority of the things we don't do is due to technical limitations we're hard at work to resolve.

Thanks for your suggestion.

Can we do 50 then? A 10 player per team map woth a total of 5 teams

 

[AFreakingCookie (Hank)]

I’m talking about a 10v10v10...v10 teams map. It would be amazing to have something on this scale. 100 players is nothing. There wont be much lag. Or perhaps a 96 player map with all 16 possible teams?

Also, maybe even a 50 player map- 10v10v...10. The lag excuse doesnt come into play here since mushrooms is a 50 player

Not eveyone has a potato anyways. There have been 100 player maps like “centuries” in the past I think. Someone told me it was removed for its lag.

If thats the case I think surely now the server being this big could handle it?

@Efcluke94

It would be chaos, but in a really fun way. Something I hate about big maps that are quicker is try hards play them and you actually cant do anything. The game ends in a minute. I love the idea though, and in the poll, it says “Don’t update eggwars” but I wouldn’t consider adding one big map an update. An update would be having a new mode added, new things added to shop, like things about the actual gamemode itself.

 

[CommunistCactus]

#lagcentral

 

[Ruisdier]

I aslo want a HUGE solo skywars map but I understand if they can't.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

#lagcentral

serverside too, but thats better than the fps lag

 

[OnePointEight.exe]

Theres more optimised pieces of code that can handle more players, like lobbies, but it's always a challenge to fit everything into the memory and compute allocations each game server is allowed, so a 100 player full game, as our infrastructure stands at the moment, won't be something we can work towards.

So is this just a fancy way of saying having smaller servers requires less resources by the way we coded them therefore creating larger games would either require "exponentially" more resources, be very slow and lag, or would make someone have to code the bigger games differently. I am just curious if that is what you meant by this paragraph.

 

[Deleted member 100818]

I've always been a fan of large maps, so I have no issue with it.

 

[LinoYT]

-1
There is already a big map (tea party) and it is rarely filled to the limit of the players, besides that the games are very long with so many players, can you imagine now 100 players?

 

[Lightning McQueen]

-1
There is already a big map (tea party) and it is rarely filled to the limit of the players

Yes thats what happens when u dont uodate a game for a year. FYI Teaparty is the most popular map.

-1
There is already a big map (tea party) and it is rarely filled to the limit of the players, besides that the games are very long with so many players, can you imagine now 100 players?

So you wait for 15 miniutes. Mushroom fills up fast + this suggestion has transformed into a 10v10v10v10v10 50 player map. Mushroom is a 50 player map I believe, with 10 teams of 5 members.

 

[giesko]

,

 

[CyberAutumn]

This would be interesting... Though, the lag would be unreal. This isn't fortnite, sorry. In my opinion, I think this should be a holiday-based map, rather than a day-to-day map. With Halloween, Easter, Christman, etc, you can implement this with 100 people. I couldn't see it filling up to even fit at least 60 people, so I'd rather it not be implemented at all or have it as a holiday map.