A suggestion

Spudzzy · Post by **Spudzzy** » 2007-01-23 14:37

Well I think that if it's possible you should increase the max amount of players in a server to well over 64. Like 100 or something, the higher you can make it the better.

Is this possible?

Post by **MasterTom** » 2007-01-23 14:43

yes... it has been done... (only on a local server as far as I know)...
but not proven stable for online play... (not even sure it works online)...

KP · Post by KP » 2007-01-23 14:50

Bah, 64 players is just a fragfest anyway. About 40 is enough.

KyrmyFIN · Post by **KyrmyFIN** » 2007-01-23 15:00

Yeah, even 64 is too much, 40 - 44 is just perfect

, but in FH2 mod, at Omaha Beach the 100 players maybe can be cool

Wasteland · Post by **Wasteland** » 2007-01-23 15:24

Why would somebody post a thread in the "Suggestions" forum with the title "A Suggestion"?

Stick to the point - A.J.Sawyer

Spudzzy · Post by **Spudzzy** » 2007-01-23 19:12

JP*wasteland.soldier wrote:Why would somebody post a thread in the "Suggestions" forum with the title "A Suggestion"?

...um... you answered your own question. It was a dumb question to begin with.

I don't think 64 people is a frag fest. This mod stoped battlefield 2 from becoming that. It's funner with more people though. Theres more than 64 people on a real battlefield. You are trying to make it realistic right?

Thunder · Post by **Thunder** » 2007-01-23 19:16

50 on a 32 player server.
used to be great fun on the old igi .32 server

KP · Post by KP » 2007-01-23 19:18

But usually the battlefield is slightly larger than in BF2... And with 64 players there usually isn't much room for squad tactics. It tends to be much more run n' gun.

Thunder · Post by **Thunder** » 2007-01-23 19:21

armed assualt is huge
and still fantastic for squad combat.

the best thing, if you hate your squad command bots instead!

Valtasar · Post by **Valtasar** » 2007-01-23 19:40

I prefer a 32 player maps.

blud · Post by **blud** » 2007-01-23 20:02

In BF2's conquest you might be able to play with 100 people. But PR's AAS concentrates the fighting on certain areas. So it's way more congested than BF2 conquest.

Also, with regards to wasteland soldier's post, "A suggestion" IS a lousy title for a suggestion post. A good title would have been "Increase max players to 100". Then I wouldn't have bothered opening up the thread lol.

Wasteland · Post by **Wasteland** » 2007-01-23 20:26

Spudzzy wrote:...um... you answered your own question. It was a dumb question to begin with.

No I didn't. You posted a thread in the "Suggestion" forum. And then you titled it "a suggestion". Kind of redundant. A lot of people do this. Sometimes it's "a few thoughts" or "some suggestions" or whatever.

For all people who will ever from this day forth post in the suggestion forum. Please be specific in your title.

Lothrian · Post by **Lothrian** » 2007-01-23 21:28

I agree to agree with what was said before - in the current AAS format, it couldn't work. Imagine 100 people battling for the ruins at EJOD - pure stalemate.

It would require much larger maps - like Albasrah size - and a new AAS format.
Instead of a strict path, it would have to be tiered to have 3 options to capture, then once all there are done, then 3 more in 'tier2' etc.

In otherwords, 2gb RAM would be redundant, and 3GB would be needed and map sizes ever increase + 50% to 100% increase in players online. It would be great, but until we have DX10 cards + DDR3, it seems unlikely to work well.

I could still be very wrong