Page 8 of 8
Posted: 2007-12-25 19:04
by Sadist_Cain
Masaq said a lot of numbers right there.... just makes me want 80 player server even more

Posted: 2007-12-25 19:15
by flik
haha i remember this.
128 players revisited!
Flik
Posted: 2007-12-26 00:12
by BloodBane611
This is threadophilia. Stop making it with the dead threads!
But those are some interesting numbers masaq threw out.
Posted: 2007-12-26 03:16
by [T]MLPatriot
i wish we could exceed the 64 player limit.. have there been any developments in terms of breaking the limit?
Posted: 2007-12-26 06:22
by Mongolian_dude
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...
Posted: 2007-12-26 06:48
by DavidP
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.
Posted: 2007-12-26 06:56
by GeZe
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
Posted: 2007-12-26 07:25
by -=TB=-ante9383
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.
Posted: 2007-12-26 09:26
by Dirtboy
This will be an administration nightmare!
Posted: 2007-12-27 12:38
by Nickbond592
still it isn't going to happen no matter how hard we wish, so long as the source code is in EA's hands