Player Limit

[HaTe]

Alright, so first off, please don't flame with "already been discussed." We've discussed why 64 player servers aren't for RenX (or UDK in general). How about 50 player servers, though? I really think it would be beneficial, given that the maps are mostly larger. It really seems as if it is designed for 50 players (25 a side). I know the prevailing issue is the lag, but with 40 I am experiencing little to no server lag whatsoever. Can the game handle 50 player servers? Can the servers up handle that many players in a game in a UDK game? I really hope so.

[Ruud033]

Yeah I also wonder what the limits are here.. Maybe we can do a test setup sometime?

[RoundShades]

I will just say what I normally do: Unless it's a comp and I am in a designated respawn wave or something, I usually prefer casuals with roughly 12 guys per team. That is 2 defenders, 3-4 pressure infantry, and 6 vehicles fielded.

I can see the appeal in 20-24 player teams though. 24 would be a respectable step up from 20, 4 players more per team is a significant increase for in-game combat firepower for both sides...

[Goku]

With the amount of players we have atm 40 seems about fine. If we get a bigger player base then i would fully support larger servers.

[Canucck]

40 is already too much

[HaTe]

Of course everyone is going to prefer different things, and there will always be those small games available certain times of the day still regardless. When I start the game up and see 40 players in one server and 12 in the other though, I personally either just close out of RenX or wait for the 40 one to lose a player. People who prefer the larger games are really feeling hindered in this respect. At certain times in the day, there's almost always at least one server with 40 players in it. It's a pain in the ass sitting there refreshing it or watching on irc for someone to leave. 50 would make this wait less time, or occur less sometimes too. And I really think 25 aside would play wonderfully in Renegade X. It was fun in Renegade, and that was with smaller maps and less sneaking potential.

[salarite]

With the amount of players we have atm 40 seems about fine. If we get a bigger player base then i would fully support larger servers.

Agreed. Currently we have the potential to play on 2 servers, but if you raise the limit to 50, only 1 server will be played on and the other completely deserted.

[HaTe]

With the amount of players we have atm 40 seems about fine. If we get a bigger player base then i would fully support larger servers.

Agreed. Currently we have the potential to play on 2 servers, but if you raise the limit to 50, only 1 server will be played on and the other completely deserted.

I don't most think people just join one or the other. People like me prefer to just join the server hat has the largest number of people. I believe that many RenX'ers are the same way. If there's a limit of 50 people in the server, it means that there is more opportunity to join that server, and an overall higher appeal because of more people in it.

From my analysis, the vast majority of people leave in bunches after a game has been lost or it is clear that they will lose and the game will drag out. That's what kills the server player count. People leave in bunches, then people who load up the game see a small number of people playing and don't bother to join that server. With more people in the server at one time, it means that even if that big bunch leaves, there is still a significant amount of people in the server, and so more people will be prompted to join.

It's not like there is only 75 people who play the game. There's much more, it's just that they all play at different times, but most people aren't going to join a server with a low player count. If you don't believe me, check for yourself. Sit there and watch the playercount of the 2 servers. If both are equal at 12, one will rise rapidly while the other stays about the same or loses players. That's because if one is at 12 and the other is at 20, the majority of people would rather join the 20 server.

tl;dr It would increase playercount in the game and in each server at any given time.

[Handepsilon]

I agree with Hate about player's tendency to join in crowded server. I've tried joining an empty server (EKT or TmX) and didn't get any players inside

[DoctorB0NG]

Having one full, crowded server doesn't help though. Who knows how many people sit there and try to get on the server and give up and don't play then because they didn't get in. If there were two slightly smaller servers, the turnover is more evenly distrusted and people have a better chance of getting in at any given time.

[HaTe]

That would be true if people did not care about how many players are in the game prior to joining. The fact that ONLY EKT and TMX servers are populated ever proves otherwise. There's only a few select people who will join an empty server to try and populate it, and then the number of people who will join into a server slowly increases as the playercount in that server increases.

People who join and are looking for a high player count server are going to ignore the lower player count server anyway. If there's one at 35 and one at 12, they will never join the one at 12. Your logic states that people will join the smaller playercount server because the larger one is full (at 40, currently). My point is that that is very rarely the case. If people want to join the smaller server, they will join that server. If people want to join the larger server, they will wait for that server to lose a player. The vast majority of people won't simply just join the smaller one because the larger is full. They'll sit there and wait to join the full one. That's why it's not helping the other server out by limiting the cap at 40. If you want factual evidence to support this, watch the next time your server is full. Within 3 minutes of a single player leaving, another one will almost always join and fill up the server again. He didn't join the smaller server because he didn't want to play in a smaller game. People who like the smaller games will join those smaller games, and then eventually it will keep increasing or decreasing from there on its own.

Let me put it like this:

Player 1 - 20+

Player 2 - 15+

Player 3 - 20-

Player 4 - 30+

Player 5- 25+

Player 6 - 0

Player 7 - 10+

Player 8 - 35+

Player 9 - 30-

Player 10 - 5+

The number and the corresponding + or - is how many players are in-game that it would take for each player to consider joining that server. + means anything over that #, and - means anything under that number. 0 is the rarest occurrence, and is the players who join an empty server.

Now lets say the server count is (for example's sake):

TMX 40

EKT 12

Players 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 will not join EKT and will either wait for someone from TMX to leave, or close out of the game. Players 3, 6, 7, 9, and 10 will join EKT.

The point is that increasing the player count max will provide players 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 more opportunity to play and have fun. It has no real affect on the other players, as there will always be a server with less players. I saw this happen in Renegade time and time and time and time and time again throughout the years too, so its not like this is just being pulled out of no where. The only time Renegade servers even considered lowering their max playercount was when they were consistently not hitting that max, for this reason. The fact that the max is being hit daily, and that the last max player leaving is replaced almost immediately should be enough support for this logic.

It would increase both server counts on average in the end too, because the group quits would still see the player count at a relatively high number, and the people who will only join a server with 35+ would still join if it was 50 and 10 people left, but wouldn't if it was 40 and 10 people left.

[RypeL]

The maps are not designed for higher ammounts of players. The maps are slightly larger then in the original only cause of sprinting.

[SFJake]

The maps are not designed for higher ammounts of players. The maps are slightly larger then in the original only cause of sprinting.

Which causes issues, but thats only for the old maps. Maps like Lakeside are so large its not even funny. Sprinting is the only thing that was really adapted, all the ranges are terrible and snipers dominate far more. Under can manage to feel too empty at 40 yet you step out you die because snipers have a billion ridiculous hiding spots and all the range in the world. As infantry, its sniper or don't try to have fun. And counter-sniping was always the most boring thing on earth.

Not that the original didn't have this problem, but its so amplified now, because you adapted maps to sprinting.

And we know, you said it, 40 players was the max you'd ever do, period, no discussion. The maps were designed on something that shouldn't have been and now even 40 players feels like its too little. All of that on an engine that, so most server owners say anyway, can't take more than 40 players. They wouldn't even use the higher cap.

Does it even matter? Could we actually fill more than 40 now? Finding a 40 player server is becoming increasingly difficult even at european peak times.

[Handepsilon]

all the range in the world.

Little fact... Sniper actually has range limit as well... my larger map has managed to break away from sniper range

[HaTe]

The maps are not designed for higher ammounts of players. The maps are slightly larger then in the original only cause of sprinting.

They may not have been designed for it, but the original release of the game had a max of 64 players. Along with that, even the re-makes are almost all larger (and have more hiding opportunities) than the original Renegade's, which 64 and 50 player servers were/are the most common in. The game's average number of players would increase with a higher cap too. Why not at least test it out? If it gets too laggy, then it can easily be reverted back. If it does somehow hurt either of the server's player counts (which I highly doubt it will), it could be reverted back.

[RypeL]

We already tested it in B1 and it was awful in multiple ways.

[HaTe]

64 or 50? And there's been countless optimization changes too since then, correct?

[XD_ERROR_XD]

64 Players now...? No. even if lag wasn't an issue. The Map design is still not polished enough to allow for so many players in one server. People are complaining about snipers already, imagine if we added another 24 to the player limit.

Sorry for the reference to C&C Renegade (again, *sighs*), but compared to that game, Renegade X feels like a chaotic mess. Even darker maps, more bushes, more trees, lots of props, more particle effects, more entrances, smoke grenades... It's a lot harder to keep up with. I really miss the minimalistic and simplistic approach of C&C Renegade. Some of this can be found back in Renegade X, per example the map Canyon. It's a desert environment so there are no bushes or trees around. The map also is rather small which makes it more noob-friendly and leaves less place for snipers because the entire open field is at the same altitude. Entrances to the enemy base are limited, but there are many ways to approach these entrances. Put the same idea in a larger map, and you can have a very similar result.

[HaTe]

Not 64. 50. It clearly states that in the first post.

[RypeL]

64 or 50? And there's been countless optimization changes too since then, correct?

Incorrect. There have been no notable improvements to the network code and we cant change the underlying network code anyway.

But performance isent even the major reason why we dont want it. B4 was running with 64 for quite some time. And it is worth noting that i wasent against it before we tried it. Neither was Havoc89. Though after we saw how awfull it played from a gameplay perspective even when it was occasionally running smooth on some servers, only then i turned against it. A game needs to provide players realistic goals to give them some sort of progression. But the games turned out into mostly stalemates where new players had like 0 chance to get anything else done other then killing infantry and tanks. Over and Over and Over again. Till they rightfully quit the game. It made for an extremely poor showing of the game. And even with experienced players the coordination isent much easier. And the more people there are on your team and in the enemy base the more you need to coordinate. Lone wolf tactics were impossible. And they are rightfully a part of this game as sneaking into the enemy base gives you something challenging and exciting to do away from the usual frontline battles.

Another problem we learned back then and that we in no way anticipated was the psychologic appeal of joining the "largest server" and how other servers were left deserted as i already posted about in detail here: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=74898&p=146637&hilit=toilet#p146633

HaTe, there are so many reasons i could name you against 64 player servers that i could go on for a while (and no, we also wont try 50 players as 40 is more than enough. most maps should be played at 32).

That beeing said of course i know that bigger maps like Lakeside are bigger and therefore might be ok with an increase in player numbers. But you cant just kick players when the map is switched from Lakeside to a smaller map. So for >40 player servers it should be a server that only runs maps especially designed for higher player numbers. If the maps support the player numbers properly then ok. But that would still leave the technical problem. And again from the B1 experience we know that the players will call the game "shit" etc as soon as it lags. They will expect that we "fix this shit" instead of them joining a lower player server. While in the meantime the serveradmins would PM us in panic asking what they could do to make their server run better and that they already went in dept to upgrade their server just to not fall behind to other servers on this niche game. ... everything about it was a nightmare.

[HaTe]

Renegade's developers themselves have been quoted saying that they believe that the game and their maps made around it are made for 8v8-16v16's. Yet people vastly enjoy having far more people playing than that. If Renegade servers had limited their playercount to 32, many of the servers and communities would have died off much faster than they did. So the game was literally built for 32 people max, yet the majority of people enjoyed having 40-50 people in public servers. I don't think increasing the current playercount by 10 would cause that much lag, really, as servers have practically no noticeable lag right now as is. The maps can literally be "designed" for 40 players (Goldrush, lakeside, under, and even complex would disagree though), but people still prefer to have more people playing than that. I didn't mean game/engine optimization neither (though updating the version from b3 to b4 surely had some affect with this), I meant vehicle optimization, as the main issue in B1 with the large player count was that vehicles were incredibly shaky. Not to mention that the reduction in size of the download caused issues back then too. Those are the optimizations I was hinting towards.

That's all I'll say on the subject, as it's clear that you're sticking to your guns and not going to change your mind anyway. I just really wish you would re-consider, coming from a long time (since release) Renegade addict, and witnessing how this played out there. 50 is nowhere near the same as 64 neither. That's increasing it by 5 people a team, rather than by 12 people a team. That's not a fair comparison to use.

[RypeL]

I didn't mean game/engine optimization neither (though updating the version from b3 to b4 surely had some affect with this), I meant vehicle optimization, as the main issue in B1 with the large player count was that vehicles were incredibly shaky. Not to mention that the reduction in size of the download caused issues back then too. Those are the optimizations I was hinting towards.

Yes you did mean that without knowing. Engine/network limitations and the vehicle shaking is tied very closely and can come hand in hand. Cause the vehicles cause the most network traffic cause their physics are calculated on the server and then everything about them is replicated to the clients. This is how the standard vehicle system is in UDK and it doesent scale well at all with more players. We would have to rewrite most of the vehicle system to counter that. Its safe to say that thats not going to happen. But yeah i know HaTe that its also safe to say that we wont agree on this. You wont change your mind and i wont change my mind. So atleast lets agree that we disagree

[RoundShades]

Idk. I can think of 8 good reasons why standard servers shouldn't, but at the same time I wish there was some way for custom games to make 64. Because it DOES work and is a different sort of entertaining, having 6 man units instead of individual man units. That same reason, however, as RypeL suggests, is why it is harder on players to learn or play, because individuals do absolutely no effect and only 6+ people doing any single task accomplishes even a few enemy casualties.

Here are the 8 reasons, just to clarify.

--1) As a player, you run into 12 more lethal obstacles between where you spawn and where your ultimate target is.

--2) Players that randomly pick the game up won't join into teamspeak or randomly stalk some squad of players unless we rename the game Yandere Simulator and make it seem like that is what you are supposed to do. Most are going to lone wolf with a possibility of maybe opportunity repairing an allied tank blob or shooting at a target in coordination with someone else.

--3) Maps like Volcano are total fusterclucks.

--4) Vehicle Physics are unstably high workloads on server processing and cause the game to lag and bug.

--5) You have the possibility of people just joining the 1 really overpopulated server instead of 12 taking the uncommon creativity and guts and patience to sit in a server for 5 minutes until it slowly gains 6 people at which point it can stablely start to retain 12+ players at a time because it has the 6 players already. People who aren't me don't join empty servers and wait for them to populate. They just don't.

--6) Vehicle limits start to make vehicles as exclusive as they are in Cuba, 38 cars per 1000 people and the distinct impression there are never going to be any new ones any time soon.

--7) Mine limits, on unpopulated servers seem abundant to moderate and infiltrators have the advantage by lack of enemy numbers creating a scant defense. On populated servers, infiltrators are completely worthless as number one suggests, but also mass-infiltrators as in squads are actually overpowered because they overcome mine limits and spill out chokepoints in uncontrollable numbers. This is really fun gameplay, that is what HaTe enjoys and I can see that, but that definitely depends on unreasonable to expect squadplay on a 7 man level. Basically, in 20 player teams you have about 8 general divisions of players in your team. In 32 player teams, you have 6 3-7 man divisions. Individuals have no effect against the 5-7 man groups that they can run into.

--8) Damage is not scaled to have that many people. If 32 players all shoot a structure with a grenade launcher, what happens? You tell me. On a more frequent situation, 6 players kill a single player with focus fire in like 1 volley in 1 second. 2-3 players kill 2-3 players at least with 3-4 seconds to react. Individual gunfights are too short for mass gunfights. Perhaps, in that regard, individual gunfights should be balanced to last longer, like all infantry damage in the game (except autorifle) reduced by 20%.

[NodSaibot]

Renegade's developers themselves have been quoted saying that they believe that the game and their maps made around it are made for 8v8-16v16's. Yet people vastly enjoy having far more people playing than that. If Renegade servers had limited their playercount to 32, many of the servers and communities would have died off much faster than they did. So the game was literally built for 32 people max, yet the majority of people enjoyed having 40-50 people in public servers. I don't think increasing the current playercount by 10 would cause that much lag, really, as servers have practically no noticeable lag right now as is. The maps can literally be "designed" for 40 players (Goldrush, lakeside, under, and even complex would disagree though), but people still prefer to have more people playing than that. I didn't mean game/engine optimization neither (though updating the version from b3 to b4 surely had some affect with this), I meant vehicle optimization, as the main issue in B1 with the large player count was that vehicles were incredibly shaky. Not to mention that the reduction in size of the download caused issues back then too. Those are the optimizations I was hinting towards.

That's all I'll say on the subject, as it's clear that you're sticking to your guns and not going to change your mind anyway. I just really wish you would re-consider, coming from a long time (since release) Renegade addict, and witnessing how this played out there. 50 is nowhere near the same as 64 neither. That's increasing it by 5 people a team, rather than by 12 people a team. That's not a fair comparison to use.

Has anyone tried (or had) to play them the way they were designed?

[Handepsilon]

Bro... I hate Volcano too....

I really don't know if the game can really handle 64 players... It wasn't the worst suggestion... simply because there are some guys who wanted 128 instead. *smh*