128 Players? Still Testing?

dunem666 · Post by **dunem666** » 2012-03-10 02:42

Ive just noticed that the SISU 128 player "test" server is still going strong.

Only still testing now 2 years later....

Not time to give up or offer server files to other admins? Im sure like myself and many more agree, the community suffers in the smaller and more DEDICATED areas because of the monopoly on players.

You might as well but an "inferior" tag on all 64 players only servers.

I like to share my POV when poss. So i did.

"Bring back 0.86"

Tit4Tat · Post by **Tit4Tat** » 2012-03-10 04:18

iam guessing its there "baby" type thing...unique, it attracts people for its concept. Tbh ive played on there few times and i cant say i prefer it to 64p..why? Maybe its still early days and the rules aint admin'd so much but it seems unorganised and messy..!

p.s quality over quantitie

Maverick · Post by **Maverick** » 2012-03-10 04:20

It's only up on certain times. Chill out. Also, to us USA players, we normally don't get on since the ping is an issue. The server isn't stealing your playerbase. So what if one server has 160 players? If I want to play there, then by god it's my choice to play somewhere else.

DudeofDeath · Post by **DudeofDeath** » 2012-03-10 05:19

128 Players are awesome, especially on the larger maps, wish there was a 128 player US server too..

xambone · Post by **xambone** » 2012-03-10 05:29

Just give them more time, its not like you have done any work to help.

Steeps · Post by **Steeps** » 2012-03-10 07:32

Personally I think it's a good choice to keep the 128 players on just one server. This could be because I just don't like it, but having so many people in the game is just a turn-off from PR. When there are over 100 players, I just feel like I'm playing BF or CoD because it is just too fast paced and you never stop shooting.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Post by **Jafar Ironclad** » 2012-03-10 08:05

Good to hear you again on this subject, Dunem.

There are a bunch of things I want to say, and almost nothing I can actually say on the subject. I want to open a hindsight discussion though:

How much further along would the >64 player code be if, when it was brought up vociferously as a community issue many months, it was actually released to the server admins? For the sake of interest, let's try on both our idealist caps and our practical/software developer caps when pitching in to the discussion.

Whether or not the consensus here serves a particular line of action, I think it's an interesting concept.

Developmentally: What I think would have happened is that such a release would have divided the playerbase between the servers, thus resulting in less time spent at maximum server load, and therefore less testing samples/crash scenarios. Testing is not a problem when dealing with good-as-can-practically-be-done code, but the 128 player server still crashes on its new legs even today. Just ask Soppa, or anyone who is deeply involved in running/admining the server.

From a player's standpoint: I'm not truly sure. On one hand, it probably results in a server that is closer to where I live, improving my latency experience. It also gives me an opportunity to play more with my community regulars if my community is running such a server. On the other hand, it would mean fewer stable servers (as running a high-powered server is EXPENSIVE, and for many community budgets, I would imagine it precludes maintaining their former server state or buying another server).

From a server admin's standpoint, I can't really relate. But I can speculate it inspiring some intense competition for player gametime.

Wicca · Post by **Wicca** » 2012-03-10 09:19

Did the testing not start 1 year from now? Not two?

Brainlaag · Post by **Brainlaag** » 2012-03-10 12:30

Almost exactly 1 year.

Psyko · Post by **Psyko** » 2012-03-10 12:31

pretty sure it was 1 year. there were talks 2 years ago when people such as some of my previous clan were trying to find loopholes using the amount of digits in the player name and stuff. and they collaborated with other clans to try and increase the server count but it was the OLUT guys who really pushed it out one year ago.

@ :O P
When this info gets released, your still gonna have a big problem with maintaining the server. sure there are rules involved now and we can predict when its going to crash and stuff but your still going to have to buy a big server and maintain it and its going to crash often.
Try not to become too frustrated, there will be a payoff eventually for the servers who have suffered, im sure of it.

MaSSive · Post by **MaSSive** » 2012-03-10 12:44

128p code is now PR official project. Its being worked on and once its ready it will be released for all. Unfortunately as most people said here it requires very powerful machine only for himself ( one 128p bf2

r server ) or at least one per core, and in my opinion its not worth it.

For this you will need at least quad xeon with 1333Mhz fsb and high clock rates 3Ghz+, and same type of ram, running on headless linux x64. Afaik there is no Windows version, its being worked on linux 64bit.

Running cost for that kind of server is not cheap, and many clans/communities will not be able to afford it. Bottom line, are you starting to get the picture what I'm talking about?

Let it be as it is now, cause that is the best atm.

Sgt. Mahi · Post by **Sgt. Mahi** » 2012-03-10 13:17

Maverick wrote:It's only up on certain times. Chill out. Also, to us USA players, we normally don't get on since the ping is an issue....

You guys should know by now that low ping isn't that important in BF2 compared to games like MW2 and CS.

First of all BF2 is balanced out on a ping on 100 so having a ping on 150 is not an issue at all (trust me, years of experience on the TG server has taught me this).

Second, the BF2 gameplay is not that dependent on low latency like other multiplayer FPS.

thedarkhorse · Post by **thedarkhorse** » 2012-03-10 20:39

yeah I've been playing on the PRTA server for the past couple days even though I'm in western Canada and my ping is a around 100 higher than on the NA servers I don't really notice any difference in lag.

cyprezz · Post by **cyprezz** » 2012-03-10 20:57

I just notice there's two additional PRTA servers with over a 100 player max, although it's not populated. Does this means there's going to been more 100+ player server soon, administered by PRTA?

Wicca · Post by **Wicca** » 2012-03-10 21:54

Are they named PRTA?

cyprezz · Post by **cyprezz** » 2012-03-10 23:30

[R-CON]Wicca wrote:Are they named PRTA?

Ops, my mistake. I meant TART SISU servers. There's two of them, both have 100 player for max.

MaSSive · Post by **MaSSive** » 2012-03-11 00:09

cyprezz wrote:Ops, my mistake. I meant TART SISU servers. There's two of them, both have 100 player for max.

Those will be TART tourney servers probably.

Wicca · Post by **Wicca** » 2012-03-11 00:10

[R-COM]MaSSive wrote:Those will be TART tourney servers probably.

Training.

MaSSive · Post by **MaSSive** » 2012-03-11 00:13

[R-CON]Wicca wrote:Training.

OSNAP-ACAD...I forgot its today...well today here 1:15AM over here in Nam

128 Players? Still Testing?

128 Players? Still Testing?

Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?