Make transparent colour... I guess?

england is more first world than scoland

Haha, you're funny muddles. Per person, England is poorer than Scotland.

Don't derail, stay on topic.

I was merely pointing out that we need not change colours to flags of irrelevant third world countries like England and... "sir lankan".

i was being nice to prab

no i me we have corlours as flags so we can have more

Do. Not. Derail.

ok my man segestion is we have pattens as coulours so we can have more

with more colours it would not be more of a Problem to distinguish them? i don't mind, i just remember that this might be a reason in earlier discussions.

The real solution to the colour problem is to allow patterns rather than only solid colours. For a super-simple example, polka dots. But you could have just about any pattern imaginable. Even just simple stripes would be an improvement.

The colour problem was solved by flags and coats-of-arms in medieval times.

theoritically, Fizzer could design 60 player, 70, or even 100 player games just for the fun of it... but the problem is would WL's server be able to keep up with it?

I seriously seriously seriously doubt that server load is the real issue. Even real-time, most of the computation resources required by the game are supplied by the players' computers. Only submitting orders, chat, getting game updates, and perhaps a few other features require the server, and almost all of these are basically just database functions, except for enforcing the rules of the game, which, frankly, is actually pretty simple code (in terms of computational complexity and resource use).

Think of it this way: If there were 50 humans playing in 1 game, compared to if there were 50 humans playing in 25 1v1 games. Warlight already clearly handles the latter. It could easily handle the former.

Now that I think of it, it seems to me one of the most plausible possible reasons for the restriction is simply to put a cap on it to discourage arbitrarily huge games being created for no real reason (i.e. abusing the system just cuz you can). It's like putting a length limit on user names and forum post titles. Yeah, it could probably handle 1000 character user names just fine, but who really needs that for any serious purpose?

I would play in a 1000 player game.

@wct, not many people would be able to create such games anyway and my reasoning is as follows :

Currently, you unlock 40 player games at level 54 if I am not mistaken. So unlocking 50 player games would require you to be level 64 (assuming you get the option to add an additional player per level). If that is the case, then it's hardly going to be used much either way. It's not top prioritym but seeing as Fizzer has already added the colours and the scenario slots, might as well unlock it for high-levelled people, hmm?

With already 40 players, there are plenty of colours that are too alike! Have seen as well thread earlier stating that color is the issue as MoD pointed out. Patterned colours would solve the issue!

Silly to read that some players are concerned that one starts making 50-player Real-Time FFA - why is that Your concern, like you would be obliged to play each on those! This is Customizable-Setting game, the more the better. We can choose what we want to make or join!

I would boost games up to 60 players, there are enough 2000+ territory maps that can offer really interesting multiple team battles. What is it someones concern if that game lasts 3-months or half a year: Dont like, dont join - end of story! The main problem is team-chat that is quite poor handeling over +4 players in team discussions. I would support the idea, but IMO there are 100 must-do updates, that probably would get never done!

Unlocking 50-player game etc... Levels to cap Game Settings is just silly! If someone wants to unlock everything - this can be done with just few hours in single Day: plenty of tutorials seen in forum. So its absurd in first place!

It could be an un-lockable or a member only thing.

The *new* templates often say : best for 2 to 50 players.

@Death:

@wct, not many people would be able to create such games anyway and my reasoning is as follows :

Currently, you unlock 40 player games at level 54 if I am not mistaken. So unlocking 50 player games would require you to be level 64 (assuming you get the option to add an additional player per level). If that is the case, then it's hardly going to be used much either way. It's not top prioritym but seeing as Fizzer has already added the colours and the scenario slots, might as well unlock it for high-levelled people, hmm?

Hmm, that seems to me to be a good point; I didn't think of that. You may be right. I have a hunch, though, that for 'unlockables', they are hard-coded by Fizzer rather than implemented automatically as you're suggesting. Just a hunch, though. I could easily be wrong.

Edited 2/28/2016 16:16:45

Level 64 might be too much, but the idea is good. Why not two per level?

55 - 42

56 - 44

57 - 46

58 - 48

59 - 60

(lol, might sound biased, but 59 is almost a viable level - takes some effort, but not like level 64. Anyone that high is either playing all the goddamn time or drowning in lottery - only 8 people so far have reached or passed level 64)