Player Limit Bug

[ShrewdTactician]

The current code limits the max players to 32, and reports 40.

The MaxPlayersAllowed variable is a hardcoded max before things start to break code wise. It should be as high as it can be.

In GameInfo.UC, the variable is set to MaxPlayersAllowed=32
And in RX_Game.UC the variable is set to MaxPlayersAllowed=40

While the RX_Game class is suppose to supersede the GameInfo class, the un-supersede variable still gets used inside GameInfo.uc.

This should be set to 64 at bare minimum, and higher if it can. E.g if its set to 255 and the game still runs, then it should be 255.

The MaxPlayers variable sets the server player limit.

Edited February 23, 2017 by ShrewdTactician

[Fffreak9999]

The servers are capped by the Devs at 40. But can be modified by mutator to a higher value.

[ShrewdTactician]

13 hours ago, Fffreak9999 said:

The servers are capped by the Devs at 40. But can be modified by mutator to a higher value.

It still only lets you do 32 by default (tho it will report 40).

Also why 40?, the game seems to be able to support at least 64 fine.

[Fffreak9999]

The game was initially capped at 64 players, but due to various factors the servers were hard capped down to 40 by the Devs.

14 minutes ago, ShrewdTactician said:

It still only lets you do 32 by default (tho it will report 40).

Also why 40?, the game seems to be able to support at least 64 fine.

The servers will accept a player limit of 40 by default, no mutators need to run to get to this value.

if you try altering configs + server bat files to give you more, it just runs at 40.

The mutator for max players overrides the hard cap when it starts allowing the server to host more than 40.

[ShrewdTactician]

I'm having trouble getting it to do more then 32, but ill give it a more thorough test and see what I can get.

[Fffreak9999]

1 hour ago, ShrewdTactician said:

I'm having trouble getting it to do more then 32, but ill give it a more thorough test and see what I can get.

in the command line use ?maxplayers=40 example below: 

Quote

start UDK.exe server CNC-Field?AdminPassword=password123?maxplayers=40 -port=7777

 

[ShrewdTactician]

I tried starting it with a copy paste of that command and its still limited to 32.

Right now I'm testing it by filling the server with 64 bots, and it stops at 32. 

[Fffreak9999]

You using the Jupiter bot to add the bots?

 

Try using the vote menu.

[ShrewdTactician]

I was using the console addbots command

[Fffreak9999]

Same limitation through RCON/Console. Use the vote menu.

[ShrewdTactician]

right now I'm going to try filling a server with bots, and then try and join a 33rd player. I'm just updating another client now.

[ShrewdTactician]

ok the vote menu method worked. So whats stopping rcon?

[Fffreak9999]

Don't know.

The Devs may know more about how it works,

I just know that it doesn't allow me to add more than 32 bots using Jupiter and the Console.

[boxes]

2 hours ago, ShrewdTactician said:

It still only lets you do 32 by default (tho it will report 40).

Also why 40?, the game seems to be able to support at least 64 fine.

having more than 40 players affects the gameplay, and not for the better

[ShrewdTactician]

Just now, CampinJeff said:

having more than 40 players affects the gameplay, and not for the better

Yeah but the hardcoded limit is for stoping the game from crashing.

Actual gameplay & system resource player limits should be upto the server admins, and players when they choose the server.

[boxes]

42 minutes ago, ShrewdTactician said:

Yeah but the hardcoded limit is for stoping the game from crashing.

Actual gameplay & system resource player limits should be upto the server admins, and players when they choose the server.

Dev specifically said that he did not want the game to be played with more than 40 players

[ShrewdTactician]

If that's true, then a dev can spin up a server and set the limit to 40, and they can experience the game with 40 players, and play the game with likeminded people on that server. No point artificially setting a hardcoded limit.

[boxes]

this is the same issue with EKT having inflated mine limits, it showed that having server customization over gameplay isn't the best move when there's a player base <100. devs want newcomers to experience one consistent version of renx, not server variants of renx that give the wrong impression of the intended result 

[ShrewdTactician]

Then have official servers and they can pay for the hosting. But when your forcing people who pay money for hosting on a whim, its just wrong.

[RoundShades]

Like Jeff said, EKT was given enough rope to hang themselves with it.

Even in light of that, I still supported raising server max to 60 but server default to 40.

But realistically, could you imagine playing TF2/Overwatch/Battleborn/Battlefront/MondayNightCombat with 64 player limit "just because the engine can"? That's RenX in a nutshell...

I'd hope players would, in groups of 30, when a game fills to 50, exodus from a game into another, just to kill the cancerous 60 player match, but there's no telling how much backbone that'd take, or if an average match would have 30 viable spines among it to take that sort of initiative.

Taking a popular TS3 used EVERY DAMN WEEKEND, being FREQUENTLY EMPTY during busy RenX hours, I'd calculate the absence of sufficient backbone or initiative, to accomplish a server split without a gentle kick in the arse or a limit. I also suggested the gentle kick in the arse via closing server with 60 limit when reached so some 40 limit servers can be filled.

Sad, that players will do a 4 hour Under map to themselves, and then come to the forums to complain about what they've done to themselves.

Spoiler

 

[ShrewdTactician]

I actually agree that 40 is probably the best value to have as a normal maxplayer count.

I'm just not  a fan of hard limits, and I actually have a real need for it to be higher. I have a 50+ lan tomorrow that I'm setting up the servers for, and I'm trying today to raise the (what I thought was 32) limit.

Set the hardcap to whatever the game reasonably supports. I think the ui can handle 64, so set it at that. Then set the normal default max to 40. and even recommend it/make it the official player count,etc. Hell, you could even make it so that you don't appear on the ladder when there is more then 40 people. Just don't force 40.

Edited February 24, 2017 by ShrewdTactician

[RoundShades]

5 minutes ago, ShrewdTactician said:

Set the hardcap to whatever the game reasonably supports. I think the ui can handle 64, so set it at that. Then set the normal default max to 40. and even recommend it/make it the official player count,etc. Hell, you could even make it so that you don't appear on the ladder when there is more then 40 people. Just don't force 40.

The launcher used to not show servers that exceed 40. It was what the dev wanted to do as well, to ward off the mutator raising it to 60 (the mutator lets you raise the player limit btw, look into it for your lan).
 

 

[Fffreak9999]

If you need to raise the player limit to 50 you can use the following.

Max Players Mutator

[ShrewdTactician]

1 minute ago, Fffreak9999 said:

If you need to raise the player limit to 50 you can use the following.

Max Players Mutator

O wow, that's exactly what I was looking for.

 

Also thanks YagiHige you suggested it aswel.

Edited February 24, 2017 by ShrewdTactician

[Agent]

I've removed the mutator from the downloads section.

I had written that mutator originally for a specific purpose (experimenting with high player counts in the PUGs), and specifically intended that the mutator not be publicly available for other usage. We'll raise the MaxPlayersAllowed if and when we desire it.
 

Player counts above 64 are ignored by the launcher, and servers with player limits above 64 will be dropped by the server list in the future.

[Sn4ke]

14 minutes ago, Agent said:

I've removed the mutator from the downloads section.

I had written that mutator originally for a specific purpose (experimenting with high player counts in the PUGs), and specifically intended that the mutator not be publicly available for other usage. We'll raise the MaxPlayersAllowed if and when we desire it.
 

Player counts above 64 are ignored by the launcher, and servers with player limits above 64 will be dropped by the server list in the future.

Is this is any kind related to the mentioned Dev discussion here:

On 15.2.2017 at 8:37 AM, RypeL said:

When a server split feature like Agent suggested could be implemented then sure higher numbers could be allowed to suppport that feature.

@YagiHige: If you want to suggest raising the limit to 52 i think it should be done the proper way with a CD/Dev discussion in the CD section. You could open a thread there. Discussion in this thread could continue aswell to see if people find some proper arguments for raising it.

60 players in a server is cancer and also gave us bad press from new players. Some didnt like the decision against it back then and unsuprisingly some wont like it now. That doesent change the fact that it was a clear dev decision and that it would need a clear dev decision again to change this.

or in other words: did you agree to a compromise regarding the permitted max. players / server?

[Agent]

There has yet to be a full discussion on this (I think there's been a short one, but I haven't participated in it yet on account of being busy). I do completely agree with @RypeL however that there needs to be an automatically enforced limit -- starting with 64.

The mutator being posted up particularly rubbed me the wrong way -- I wrote that for the particular purpose of being used in the PUG and if I recall correctly, @DoctorB0NG, @yosh56, and myself agreed that it shouldn't be used on public/regular servers. It was then later decided not to be used during the PUG, because it negatively affected gameplay. Nothing has changed since then. Taking my internal/private work and posting it publicly, claiming they had anything to do with its authoring, and then using it for a purpose that's clearly out of the original scope definitely irritates and offends me @Ukill, @Fffreak9999.

[Sn4ke]

30 minutes ago, Agent said:

There has yet to be a full discussion on this (I think there's been a short one, but I haven't participated in it yet on account of being busy). I do completely agree with @RypeL however that there needs to be an automatically enforced limit -- starting with 64.

The mutator being posted up particularly rubbed me the wrong way -- I wrote that for the particular purpose of being used in the PUG and if I recall correctly, @DoctorB0NG, @yosh56, and myself agreed that it shouldn't be used on public/regular servers. It was then later decided not to be used during the PUG, because it negatively affected gameplay. Nothing has changed since then. Taking my internal/private work and posting it publicly, claiming they had anything to do with its authoring, and then using it for a purpose that's clearly out of the original scope definitely irritates and offends me @Ukill, @Fffreak9999.

Then any server owner should refrain from using that mutator until the devs reach a decision in an internal discussion. I didn't know that the script was originally written by you...

[ShrewdTactician]

I do actually have a need for the player limit to be higher. So if the issue is solely that the specific mutator didn't want to be posted by the author, there should be no problem if I write a new one.

If the problem is, more then 40 players is not what the devs intended, then why have any mutators at all. The whole point of a mutator is to change the game play. Its a bit silly, to have a download section on the site for mutators, have example mutators, and then say, but we don't like people changing the game.

If the problem is, its not the "authentic" renegade x experience, then the mututor reason applies, but also the devs can host their own official server with the "authentic experience".

If the problem is, its not what the players want, then it really shouldn't be an issues anyway as players will join 40 player servers (and new players will follow the crowd)

 

[boxes]

1 minute ago, ShrewdTactician said:

I do actually have a need for the player limit to be higher. So if the issue is solely that the specific mutator didn't want to be posted by the author, there should be no problem if I write a new one.

If the problem is, more then 40 players is not what the devs intended, then why have any mutators at all. The whole point of a mutator is to change the game play. Its a bit silly, to have a download section on the site for mutators, have example mutators, and then say, but we don't like people changing the game.

If the problem is, its not the "authentic" renegade x experience, then the mututor reason applies, but also the devs can host their own official server with the "authentic experience".

If the problem is, its not what the players want, then it really shouldn't be an issues anyway as players will join 40 player servers (and new players will follow the crowd)

 

That was the original intent, but views have skewed overtime given the effect on dividing the playerbase and as additional development members stepped in.

I understand your situation, but you have to take into consideration that the game has always been freeware. It's still in beta and devs need to effectively observe how their changes to C&C mode will play out with their preferred circumstances, and will perhaps be more open for customization after they're satisfied with the finished game. 

[ShrewdTactician]

What i'll do, since I do actually need to raise the limit, is I'll write a new mutator, since the original mutators author doesn't what that one floating around. For now I wont post the mutator, for the reasons you just mentioned. I might post it after the game goes to release. If anyone else actually has a need for the player max to be higher, they could probably work it out from the 2 values I put in the OP, and from the udk/ut3 mutator guides that float around the net.

I do actually agree that 40 players is probably the optimal max, but I'm not a fan of hard limits because of situations like this. For instance if players end up playing on 64 players servers, a lot, then the game should be balanced for that anyway. Its also a bit interesting since the gameplay can vary greatly when there's only 2-4 players on a server and 40; so varying player counts should already be part of the thought process.

There's also the niche situations like I'm in as well to consider. Where its either higher or it doesn't get played at all, and given those 2 options, I think raising the player limit should be the choice to make. I wont be putting the mutator on my public Australian server for now, since it doesn't need it. But if for some miracle it constantly hits the 40 player limit (and I hope it does someday),and the choice comes down to having to pay another $140 a month for a second server, or slightly effecting the gameplay, ill raise the player limit on the public server as well.

I would also like to say that organised matches (of any game) are always going to play differently then what normal players experience, so don't use them as the sole input into game balancing. Devs should also be easily able to filter the info they get from the dev bots that they use for gameplay balancing stats, by looking at the player count or other mutators on the server. Essentially "pure" mode only servers. And if most servers arnt pure, then they should be taking that into consideration anyway.

[RoundShades]

On 2/24/2017 at 6:54 AM, Agent said:

I've removed the mutator from the downloads section.

I had written that mutator originally for a specific purpose (experimenting with high player counts in the PUGs), and specifically intended that the mutator not be publicly available for other usage. We'll raise the MaxPlayersAllowed if and when we desire it.

 

On 2/24/2017 at 3:25 AM, ShrewdTactician said:

I'm just not  a fan of hard limits, and I actually have a real need for it to be higher. I have a 50+ lan tomorrow that I'm setting up the servers for, and I'm trying today to raise the (what I thought was 32) limit.

Really, I'm entirely against sticking it to Lan-players. We're not EA.

After taking a shower, I just thought, since CT already has it, and it would in fact be unfair to keep it from other servers or lan players unless CT will volunteer not to use it for public servers... if you can't provide a download link, can you at least create a "download" that's a text file with your email so you can personally provide the file upon request? I don't know what more that would do, but it'd at least make it accessible by people seeking it.