100 players on one server - too many

[matty1053]

IMO, the thing is....

If you look at PR spy and see 2 full servers, a lot think the community is dying.

Lets say there are 3 full servers.... so 300p. It doesn't look like a lot of players, since you see only 3 servers full.

When there were 64p servers, you saw more poulated ones. (About 4-5 full servers), so you really thought... "oh the community is pretty big.".

Imagine if there were 100p servers in .95.... I bet there would be about 6 full servers compared to the 19 that were full when .95 was released. (IIRC there was like 19 at one point)

[Anderson29]

I once saw a 64p small skirmish. It was crazy fun




Actually, not only its gonna be good for the gameplay and less server load, but it also means there will be 36 players having to populate another server, which is good, i am tired of seeing 1-2 full servers which you cant get into but every other server has less than 10 people playing

gameplay is your opinion and who cares about server load...all the 100p servers i play on seem fine.

and 36players populating another server?..?.or 36 players not even playing.....i think i can speak for a lot of dudes that causally play this game....i wouldn't even bother playing if it went back to 64 or even 80... and i sure as hell wont seed a server that has a max player count of 64 or 80, just being honest and i know im not the only one.

[bren]

Running 64p tonight. Let's test our hypothesis.

[maarit]

yep...too much....with rallies and stuff.
i quit playing the mod because it went too fast paced.
64 players with nametags were the best.

I was also the player who was always screaming 100p servers but while i played,it was bad.
64p sounds nice

[Brainlaag]

IMO, the thing is....

If you look at PR spy and see 2 full servers, a lot think the community is dying.

Lets say there are 3 full servers.... so 300p. It doesn't look like a lot of players, since you see only 3 servers full.

When there were 64p servers, you saw more poulated ones. (About 4-5 full servers), so you really thought... "oh the community is pretty big.".

Imagine if there were 100p servers in .95.... I bet there would be about 6 full servers compared to the 19 that were full when .95 was released. (IIRC there was like 19 at one point)

The early release of 0.95 had still similar attraction as 0.9 and a base playercount of a ~900p, even with 100p servers that would have been some 9 servers.

[bren]

The variety of more servers with /64 slots also gives more game-play variety. If you want a laid back server then go to x server. If you want a competitive, tactical experience go to y server. If you want good ping you can go to z server. It opens up more opportunity especially to those who just want to join a server that isn't full. Instead of messing with the (at sometimes unreliable) auto-deploy you can easily have more chances of finding a server with an open slot. A lot of people are in distress due to the fact that there isn't a lot of opportunity and when there is the server is full, and to be honest it is usually a pain in the *** to get in a full server unless you're friends with an admin and you're hitting him up on teamspeak.

[Tajulek]

I'd rather say that 100 players on the server at the same time is too few but... My computer wouldn't make it with 200 players

[matty1053]

Now I realise why people are saying it sucks, since gameplay seems quicker.
Rounds do last about 45min.

I think more Tickets is necessary. At least have 100p layouts with 1000 tickets.

[40mmrain]

The early release of 0.95 had still similar attraction as 0.9 and a base playercount of a ~900p, even with 100p servers that would have been some 9 servers.

maybe at initial release but during 0.95's middle age the server list was mostly like this for Norther American hours

kokan and hookers - 64/64
hog muttrah - 64/64
H - Hardcore - 64/64
tacticalgamer - 2/64 or 64/64

right now theres about 100 people on HOG. So the playerbase has shrunk closer to 50% rather than ~90%

[Ranzpirat]

Now I realise why people are saying it sucks, since gameplay seems quicker.
Rounds do last about 45min.

I think more Tickets is necessary. At least have 100p layouts with 1000 tickets.

For this, there are a lot of maps with LRG layers. (roughly 200 tickets more than std)

[Hitman.2.5]

I think, 100 players on server is no any lucky idea. Too much for CPU, less tactics and strategy (from the view of the whole team). What about reduce it for 80 players?

....NO!

[matty1053]

....NO!

Yeah, I agree.

Why bother with 80p? Just leave it at 100p if they go that route.

[bren]

Honestly, the things that make PR good and make it better are the things that make us play it to this very day. Teamwork. Communication. Preparation. Execution.

In the end we don't need to bump down the server max players, we just need to condition new players. Teach them squad leading and commander skills.

[Pronck]

And the teaching part is exactly what is not happening due to lack of in-game time because it is more fast paced. Along with that there are communities that don't invest into conditioning new players as much as they should. There is simply not enough time left anymore.

[Peeta]

I would be very curious to see the effect of reducing the number of maximum players back to 64 (enforced via server license ofc).

Might take some convincing to get the PR Team to agree to a "study" but it would certainly put this issue to bed.

[wrecker]

Recently I've done a little testing of my own computer, which is admittedly crappy as all hell, putting the graphics on all high and I realized that my GPU is not the bottleneck of my PC when playing PR because I can play perfectly fine when seeding an almost empty server, even with lots of explosions and smoke. Its simply that as more people join a server my FPS decreases drastically. This used to not be a problem pre-1.0 because 64 wasn't too much of a load, but now I've been struggling to play for the past year. Now obviously there are those of you who are going to say it's my fault for having a crappy PC but I also must say that some of the best teamwork I have had is on smaller servers where there are less squads derping around and more concentrated action. Just food for thought.

[Murphy]

You want the most coordinated rounds ever? Play small matches of 10v10 or lower. This way everyone is 110% attuned to the entire team, something goes down on the other side of the fight and you can hear it from the guy who is under fire but you have enough of an impact as one player to actually change the entire battle.

64 man servers are an option for anyone wanting to host it as far as I know. I do believe Merk found their sweet spot at 80 players, and I cannot argue as I have had plenty of fantastic rounds on their server. I think the point is not enough people care to go back to 64 player servers. I still manage to play some 40-60 player rounds a fair bit when seeding or a late at night and I have to say I notice the lack of excitement when you drop 40-50 players.

In the end it's up to the people holding the server licenses if they want to go back to 64 or not.