blazesboylan wrote:
I'm afraid I didn't read the whole thing, but I like the idea of a huge map.
Another possibility would be several normal-sized maps, but when you reach the edge of one, you jump servers. So server 1 has the NW map, server 2 has the SW map, server 3 has the NE map, server 4 has the SE map, and when you hit the east edge of server 1, you jump to server 3, etc.
Once victory is reached on one server, you can still run through that map, but you have to take all the other servers before all the servers re-start at once.
There are numerous obvious disadvantages and technical difficulties to that approach, but there are a few maybe subtle advantages over the huge map approach:
- No need to scale with size and number of players (a potentially huge issue for server software)
- Instead of "huge" the map could end up being infinite, limited in size only by the number of servers
- It would be neat to be able to add a server and say "this server contains the map that connects to the northeast corner of all the other servers X, Y and Z" -- i.e. grow and shrink the meta-map in real time.
OK back to reading the brainstorming chat...
I like the idea, or possibility, of having a server per map for a distributed war system. I was thinking about it too, but decided to go for the campaign mode implementation first, which allows a server to be set up so that maps are completed one by one, mostly with coop in mind.
The biggest problem of having a server per map is attacking to a fully occupied map. How does that happen in an organized way? Where will everyone spawn?