128 players part two.

Sadist_Cain · Post by **Sadist_Cain** » 2007-12-25 19:04

Masaq said a lot of numbers right there.... just makes me want 80 player server even more

flik · Post by **flik** » 2007-12-25 19:15

haha i remember this.

128 players revisited!

Flik

BloodBane611 · Post by **BloodBane611** » 2007-12-26 00:12

This is threadophilia. Stop making it with the dead threads!

But those are some interesting numbers masaq threw out.

[T]MLPatriot · Post by **[T]MLPatriot** » 2007-12-26 03:16

i wish we could exceed the 64 player limit.. have there been any developments in terms of breaking the limit?

Post by **Mongolian_dude** » 2007-12-26 06:22

Even if we could get 128 players on a server, would they be able to cope?
Even with 64 players, servers are cracking under the pressure and lagz are immense.

...mongol...

DavidP · Post by **DavidP** » 2007-12-26 06:48

To tell you the truth guys most maps would be better with 80-100 people.

Basrah would be awesome 40 vs 40.

Kashan 50 vs 50.

Jabal 45 vs 45.

Really there's no need for 128 players.

Post by **GeZe** » 2007-12-26 06:56

well, the optimal number of player would be:

9 (# squads max) x 6 (players per squad) + 1 co = 55 per side

110 players on a server

-=TB=-ante9383 · Post by **-=TB=-ante9383** » 2007-12-26 07:25

Let's face it, we are never going to have 128-player PR servers.
New BF2 patch? I bet $100 this ain't gonna happen.

Technical limitations (hardcoded player numbers) and hardware limitations (as Masaq stated, the server load would be equivalent to running 4 x 64-slot servers!) will prevent this from ever happening with the BF2 engine. I blame the original poster for once again getting people's hopes up where there really is none.

Dirtboy · Post by **Dirtboy** » 2007-12-26 09:26

This will be an administration nightmare!

Post by **Nickbond592** » 2007-12-27 12:38

still it isn't going to happen no matter how hard we wish, so long as the source code is in EA's hands