Jump to content

1,000+ Player Server?


CayleRose

Recommended Posts

Hello, I own a 20-Core, 64G Ram, 1,000Mb/s Upload dedicated root server and I am wondering if the developers would allow a limitless player amount option for people like me who have such equipment at their disposal. Keep in mind, original Renegade has 128-players servers at one point.

I support Renegade-X very much, I let my root server upload the Renegade-X torrent client 24/7 with an average 8.4Gigs uploaded every day for new players.

10320556_697565070303195_4624583115479199236_n.jpg

Please let me know soon, because I would enjoy very much hosting a real "MMOFPS" in the name of Renegade-X.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Former Developers

There are certain limitations with UDK which prevent us from having super large servers, mainly because of a hard-coded cap which only fully licensed UE3 games have access to with full source code. As much as we would like to go limitless, the limit is something that is out of our control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Havoc89

#1. Yes, I would like to know this too.

#2. If it is capped at 64, how much is the UE3 license?

#3. Off-topic; in the future, can you guys make an executable reading from a .ini file which we (the hosts) can edit and put our server addresses in? I am sure every Ren-X community's clan would love to be able to just double click an icon and be directly taken to their main server. Do you see this happening? I understand you already have a game launcher, then a mini-launcher with web pages loading, but can have a third option for direct connect as well? The idea is absolutely mouth-watering to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem isn't just with the server, it's with the clients. Each client needs to know where the other clients are and tanks, etc, it would be too laggy for people, let alone would there be enough space on the maps?

I would just get the license.

Any connection these days can handle 500 -/+ online; (a lesson for those who don't know) - all the client has to do is download the tiny little packets of streaming information from the hosting server. These packets are so insignificantly small that it would take maybe an hour to reach at least 4Mbytes on a HIGH-populated game.

The hosting cap has always been crap like 16, 32, 48, 64.. These numbers are the usual cap because common commercial internet averages around 7Mbit (which 7Mbits = 0.875Mbytes) upload speed.

Most Renegade servers are usually 25Mbits as well (these are the good ones that dont lag at 64 players and a little more).

My server pumps out, as you've seen in the image above, an estimated steady 1,000Mbits/s. Servers like mine can easily handle, say, 5,500 connections and act like its only 64. It of coarse can handle more but that would be the casual stress limit.

Your argument is for those who have very poor connections, which is very uncommon these days. I have zero confidence that my server, if the devs allowed, would even get near 500 online - simply because the maps are not designed for such activity. But even a person with a junky 18Mbit download speed could handle 500 players online (which would all be streaming from my server). You must understand exactly what Peer-to-Peer is, because this is not Peer-to-Peer.

The reach here is to jailbreak this player-limit cap. Why? Well, that question alone is for your human nature to answer.

I hope I cleared this up.

@@Devs, really like to know what the current maximum player cap is.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just think who would like to play a match with more than 64 players (Thats already absurdly high) on the given small maps?

you would need new, much larger, maps ...

imagine 100 players each side on walls or islands ... worse: Field

not to forget the balance, the game is not balanced fo such a playercount!

I hope the keep the limit at 64 max ... i love the actual 40 player limit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not only about servers. The clients need a shitload of graphical and cpu power to keep up with all the action.

there is a settings option in the game where those with junky graphics cards are even able to play.

if that does not help, in the situation of too many objects for your computer to handle, you have the right not to join such a high-cap server.

I hope the keep the limit at 64 max ... i love the actual 40 player limit

then you dont have to play on them if they do come to exsistance, thats is your right, but don't hold the rest of us back, not that you can, as you're entitled to your own opinion.

__

I am still very anxious to learn what the cap limit UE3 has.

Also, if it is a $99 license they require, im sure they are allowed to be donated a license instead of money (which isnt allowed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still for the limit, not just because I think the game is not made for more than 64 players in any way, but because it gives a false impression for new players who just downloaded the game and join an overcrowded server ... or a 200 player server with barely 40 players ... that will turn a lot new players away ...

you might say that those can try a low cap server aswell ... but most wont ... for the most it is the first impression that makes them stick to a free game or let them turn it down ...

about the donation for the license ... we all do not know any details about their agreements with EA

but since the $99 license allows them to make more than just 1 game

(they could make their own project and earn a lot money with the same license)

i think that could lead to some problems with EA and their legal department

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Developers would like to go limitless, as Havoc89 said, they're just restricted until they get a $99 UE3 license.

I'm simply trying to find out what the unlicensed max UE3 cap is.

EDIT:

I would like to know how this server bypassed the current 40-player cap.

Before I took the screenshot, there were 61 players; so I know its 60+.

Ideas?

UDK_2014_05_02_23_37_11_694.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it was done dont think that anyone would be in, ive seen +100p Strike at Karkand 64p INF only server in BF2 staying empty and can say the reason right off the bat: The whole game, hereby let alone simpler-to-fix in comparison issues like map-size or weapon dmg-adjustments, isnt designed around such an high player count.

8v8: deathmatch for the greater lulz.

16vs16: skill competition.

20vs20 rush or conquest: handleable, you can still keep track of the course of the battle.

anything at or above 32vs32: total chaos, everyone dying randomly, too many people to have a plan since just spraying bullets in the general direction of enemy suffices to drop atleast one guy.

I dont get whats so fun about running +2km on each respawn to get splashed by the nextbest hostile explosive anyways, or that you would have 50+ snipers on a team at the occasion of an 128p.

The higher the player-count the more you have to nerf and limit everything in the game to make it equally enjoyable compared to the experience youll get at a smaller player count, which in turn ruins the game for any smaller than the max player-count rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because thats how it works ...

humans decide a lot by the first impression ...

it is the way we work ... specialy if it is for something

that is not necessary ... something like video games specialy if you have no relation to it ....

advertising agencies make shit load of moeny with that knowledge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

advertising agencies make shit load of moeny with that knowledge

hi, stay on topic.

Hey guys! I found the player cap for RenX. It is 128.

The Devs want break the 128 cap and go limitless ^^

I'm going to be a VERY happy camper once this game is complete :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want Planetside 2 type of battles then why not play Planetside 2 ? I would rather shoot myself in the head then to play > 60 player matches on renegade sized maps. 16vs16 or 8vs8 is the sweetspot for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like box matches. Complete chaos; 300 people in a tiny area not enough room to breath - death everywhere you look, teamkilling enabled, bombs going off, friends dying, people getting mad cause ur team mate keeps blowing up the team with C4, then through the chaos you find you way to the main battle in a tiny spot with 100 guys in each side of the room fighting for control of 1 square.

People like 32vs32 or less. I get it - I want to explore all possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would like to have a crowded server :P. but you should really stick to 100 - 200 not more.

also you will need maps that are designed also for more players than 40 players.

personally i would say even though i would love to have such a server as an option i doubt you would have success. currently all the servers together can barely reach 100 players...

and mostly you will get newbies in your server who dont know a shit about this game. this would be chaotic pretty soon lol and thereofre not really fun anymore...

and if you know planetside 2 you know what happens in such a huge game when only a few are playing it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you make bigger maps? If I read correctly then the huge chaotic clusterfuck is what some people want here. I have a different proposal. Just make a very small map for these people and have a 40p server with this map. Preferably just a little circle where everyone spawns right in front of each other. Oh and make it so this map is marathon and there is no way to end it. The more chaos the better, right?

Or maybe not and these people should go find a different game...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

max players for the CURRENT maps should 60 players or so. more and its not really playable anymore. if he really tends to have a server that e.g. allows on the map walls or so more than 100 players than good night, no teamplay and tactic anymore, it will be just a pure massacre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you make bigger maps? If I read correctly then the huge chaotic clusterfuck is what some people want here. I have a different proposal. Just make a very small map for these people and have a 40p server with this map. Preferably just a little circle where everyone spawns right in front of each other. Oh and make it so this map is marathon and there is no way to end it. The more chaos the better, right?

Or maybe not and these people should go find a different game...

Can we actually do that?

Maybe they'll go away then. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to defend a higher than 40 layer count but we're really getting the stupidest of discussions over it. Actually thats all we get nowadays. This forum is so dead, do we really need the little sparks of life in it to be so dumb?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The info you have is wrong.

The UE3 license costs thousands of dollars, however you can pay $100 for a UDK license in order to be able sell the product that you create on the UDK, however 25% of profits (the first $50,000) go towards Epic.

Paying the $100 for the UDK will NOT grant access to the source code in order to change the hard-coded player limits.

As for spoofing player limits, very easy with a small custom proxy server for the server information requests to the master server, using the hosts file is one way of doing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...