Project Reality Forums

Don't get me wrong...64 player maps are fun, but they lag and make my graphics card sizzle. Does anyone else wish there would be more servers running smaller maps, not just for playability, but for variety?

i prefer 64....

hell id prefer 128 or 256 if it was possible....

32 is just too small. The reason I prefer BF games to CS or CoD is because of the large maps.

puglous wrote:Don't get me wrong...64 player maps are fun, but they lag and make my graphics card sizzle. Does anyone else wish there would be more servers running smaller maps, not just for playability, but for variety?

yeah would love to see more 32players maps. Because sometimes its just too crowded especially on small, narrow city maps.

Ahhhhh I remember the days of 150 playes on Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising.....

If only it had been a good game...

No, to be blunt, I hate them.

We are thinking about setting up one, but I fear the majority of players demands 64slot server, so it won`t be successfull

No, I dont wish more servers would run small maps.

ShowMeTheMonkey wrote:Ahhhhh I remember the days of 150 playes on Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising.....

If only it had been a good game...

I loved Joint Ops, ahead of it's time really- nothing quite like taunting with an Indonesian accent

'[R-DEV wrote:fuzzhead']i prefer 64....

hell id prefer 128 or 256 if it was possible....

Indeed.

I have not looked into a lot of the 32 max player maps, but I believe 32 player Al Bas would do nicley with 64 players.

Hell, the 16 player map would be awsome. The Area of Operations for the two teams is still huge.

Basically, all the huge maps put on 32 players would do well with 64 players.

What do you all think?

We are thinking about setting up one, but I fear the majority of players demands 64slot server, so it won`t be successfull

Well, to be fair, the smaller capacity may compensate the lack of demand.

(I mean in terms of how easy the server is to fill up)

I would prefer is the smaller maps were on smaller servers and the larger maps were on larger servers. 64 player Helmand is too much.

Yeah I really don't like playing with more than like 44 players. Except on epic maps I guess.

Most 32 player map versions are mediocre... its the ******* child of hte 16 player and the 64... i remember in .4 when servers would run 32Ejod, even though the 64 player was soooo much more fun, even on a smaller server. always felt like a waste of the map

We have 32 size maps in our rotation and no one complains.

albasrah
operation greasy mullet
steel thunder

64 size versions of these maps often have stalemate situations occuring. 32 size with 64 players makes these maps more enjoyable. I really doubt anyone who has played them on our server would of noticed.

32 albasrah is one of the better 32... steel thunder (all of them) is broken IMO

32 player albasrah is the bees knees!

I'd like to see even more city maps where you have no fighting at all outside the city and a single road going round is for the invading force to quickly move troops around to ingress at various points only.

Depends what the map is trying to do. If it's infantry heavy then a smaller map would be preferred, if it's supposed to be armor heavy, then a larger map.

For example, Mao Valley is great, more maps like that would be fantastic, number of players is irrelevant if the map is well designed and does what it's supposed to do, cater to either infantry battles or armor battles.

Too many people make large maps then leave out vehicles and focus on infantry, making them long and boring.

I just reopened the Squadgames.com .:SG:. server. I had it at 40 players but bumped it to 50. The box is the fastest PRMM server up right now. It could handle 1024 players (sarcasim) but I kept it a little lower because I agree with your assessment. 40 players is about perfect imo. Too much zerging and spam otherwise.

The map is set to 32 players though not 64 so it keeps the battles a little more intense imo.