Player Count?

[iTweek.]

I have to get rid of something.  I noticed that you can increase the player count?

But again a CT advantage, and not for the community? Or I have in the patch notes what missed by because of player Solts?  equal rights

 

lg

Edited January 16, 2017 by [AoG]iTweek

[Sn4ke]

To my knowledge a 64 players slot-server has always been possible.

But there have been huge performance issues?

EDIT: and about CT... there is no reason to complain about them (in my opinion).

The only reason that CT got the most players (avgerage) is that they have always been there. They have been there while others left due to annoying DDoSes and they managed to setup a decent protection for that - and they share their knowledge.

@Fffreak9999 is always helping me if I have any kind of server problem.

Edited January 16, 2017 by DarkSn4ke

[iTweek.]

There were 64 slots server. This was limited in beta 3 to 40 and you could not raise it.
But how do I see it now again but not for normal people? So start command or config do nothing.

[Sn4ke]

@[AoG]iTweek see my EDIT above.

and please... instead of posting an angry complaint, you should consider instead to do a very simple thing: ask kindly

as I've edited above: CT is very helpful if you have any server issues / questions / whatsoever.

It's not that they want to be the "only" big server. Reason for that is the small player base. Nothing else.

[kenz3001]

its a mutator

[iTweek.]

I could write that now. But I'll let it off " "only" big server" come on ct server and so

It was not an angry question, it was just a question. If it is different, I am sorry.

 

@kenz3001 thanks for the answer. Pity that you need a mod for it

Edited January 16, 2017 by [AoG]iTweek

[Fffreak9999]

Yeah, we use a mutator to alter the player limit on the server.

We are not the only server to use this and nor are we withholding it either, If you want a copy of it, let me know.

[iTweek.]

Thanks for your answer.
I thought already what in the patch notes what skipped.

I also thank you for giving us that, so I'm not saying no.  Would be grateful for that

[Fffreak9999]

Max Player Mutator

This will increase the maximum player limit of your server.

You can also use this one

This will give you more players than the other mutator

Edited January 17, 2017 by Fffreak9999
Further Info

[iTweek.]

I thank you. Now the question how does it work with the mutator? I've never done it before

 

[Fffreak9999]

start UDK.exe server CNC-Field?AdminPassword=<REMOVED>?maxplayers=40?mutator=Rx_Mutator_MaxPlayers.Rx_Mutator_MaxPlayers

(Bare in mind that the "Max Players" number does not make any difference in the event of using the mutator, it does not drop the limit down to the specified number, since the mutator has a coded amount to set it to.)

[iTweek.]

nice

[Agent]

Any server with a player count exceeding 64 will not appear on the launcher.

[Ryz]

Uhm agent just noticed this (and since there was nobody ingame I went to the forum and stumbled on your post...)

[Agent]

I did say player count rather than limit, ya know

[RoundShades]

I'm still going to stand my usual ground, and say this is a terrible fucking cancerous idea. Stalemates are reduced greatly with good gameplay improvements by the outstanding development and collaborative community. It's still disgusting to imagine playing in a 64 player server, even ones playing only new-field and eyes and such.

What I'd wish servers would do, and I have no say and understand it'll never happen, is agree to host capped at 32. Everyone's going to go to reputable servers anyway, game performs slightly better at 32, and the actual gameplay is tolerable, the vehicle limits allow for reasonable infantry density, the defenses aren't harder than my dick, 9 migrant repairmen roaming the base aren't a thing, sniping doesn't pay off quite as massively, it's just generally better, and most importantly, if we have 40 players, there's a greater chance 8 will join an empty server, allowing it to fill both to 60, than there is for >6 to join an empty server, and fill it even to 20.

Which is funny, because we fill a 30-40 person game during PUGs, while a near-full PUB is running. Extra-ordinary circumstances, but still think it'd work.

Then again, it really sounds even better, if there was a out-of-server lobby/queue to notify how many people are looking to join a server despite one being full. Hopefully people very seriously consider 32 person servers then, just host more servers with less people for quality sake and so they're easier to start and fill.

Thanks for letting me broadcast my opinion anyway though. Carry on, everyone. Carry on.

[Agent]

From what I can recall, the initial rationale for reducing the player limit from 64 to 40 was for performance issues that occurred at higher player counts -- this was originally meant to be a temporary change. I'm not against raising this hard limit back up to 64 whilst leaving the default value at 40, thus eliminating the need for a mutator.

I'm also not against refusing servers with player limits above 64 from the server list, though. Much of the game's UI (launcher included) assumes that there will be at most 64 players at any given time in addition to balancing issues.

[Sn4ke]

Max. players slots is a very subjective issue.

For my part, I will definitely not play on a server with 40+ players. Not that it matters much as I'm only playing PUGs & testing maps lately.

Everything from 10 - 30 players is awesome, up tp 40 is... acceptable. 40+ - no way (for me ). But that's a thing every player has to decide for himself. Bad side-effect: the already small playerbase could crumble even more. - OR: positive side effect: avg. playerbase increases due to more slots on 1 server.

 

[RoundShades]

DarkSn4ke shares essentially the same feelings as I. I can think of at least 1 unreal-based 5v5 game, that I'd rather play in any circumstance, to a 48v48 on a map with only 2 vehicle entrances and 3 infantry entrances. That's literally 11 people per entrance, nobody's ever getting into an entrance. If you want 32v32, make a map that has 4 entrances, lots of empty space between bases, and 4+ infantry entrances, so the gameplay doesn't blow as a result. Nobody ever played Battlefield (which I hate btw), on Call of Duty maps. If you have 32 players, but only 3 places for them to go, it's a clusterfuck, they need at least 6 places to go so they can space out to 5 players a place.

I also still think, it's easier to fill up 2-32 player games, than it is to fill up a 64, and it's way easier to fill up 3-32 player games, than it is to have a 64 player game and then attempt to start another with 10-20 people.

[Sn4ke]

I heard my mates talking about a Snow match with 50 people some days ago.... You can imagine how exciting that must have been

Edited January 18, 2017 by DarkSn4ke

[djlaptop]

I realize I am probably in the minority here, but just wanted to throw my opinion into the discussion as well. I don't like big games. Before this mutator, I already avoided joining games that were over 32 players, sometimes this meant I couldn't play for days on end (my schedule wouldn't allow me to play at the times the server is less popular but still not empty). But these days I open the launcher and see there are 48/50 players connected on Islands... Ugh.

It's like, why even bother? Even if I'm on a computer that can computationally keep up with all those players at a decent frame rate, my ping disadvantage being in the US against that many people is problematic. Even excluding that issue, playing against that many players isn't enjoyable because bases are just too well defended by random chance. Again, I know this is subjective, I'm sure there are plenty of people who enjoy it.

Anyhow, this seems to be the case every time I have time to play lately, and there aren't any alternatives due to the low adoption rate of the game.

Thanks for reading, hopefully the number of overall players will grow in order to support more servers with different playercount options.

[Fffreak9999]

The main reason for us taking this change is because as you saw, many more people are actively playing rather than waiting out of game, very rarely would there be 2 servers running and this means that players would miss out on the opportunity to enjoy a game.

 

Now I can understand that for some people smaller games are more fun, however as a community should we leave people out of game that they could be enjoying?

I feel that a level of balance (both over the gameplay and the server's ability to play at the increased level) is necessary and 50 players appear to manage very well and stable (at least for CT). It also allows for more map diversity instead of the smaller maps that dominate gameplay now (Islands + Walls) we have been seeing more play shifting to the larger maps in our rotation (Eyes, Tunnels and Arctic Stronghold) and this can only be a good thing since new players are being introduced to many more modes of play and with the larger player count to support those maps.

Since the bigger maps are being played more frequently we can also look to make more larger maps which in turn means more people are likely going to want to play the game and see a lot of the hard creative effort that goes into a map and the creators (both current and future potentials) of those maps are more likely going to want to continue to create content for this game.

However don't think we are leaving you without the smaller game alternatives, We still have the PUGs and there are servers out there that appear to manage far better on smaller player counts (where hardware is likely to be a limiting factor), plus CT hasn't made all the servers larger just marathon + Event servers, this means that if we start getting overflowing amounts of players we can start to fill the AOW server as well where possible. If it comes down to it I may reduce the player limit of AOW to 32 to support a smaller game style.