optimal max player count

[Moat]

I was just wandering, maybe it can help grow the number of players. I could not play a few times because of a full server. And I found 30vs30 to chaotic, I personally have more fun when there is teamplay.  

Edited October 15, 2018 by Moat

[Henk]

40-50 players is my preference for most maps, some smaller maps are better with lower playercounts.

[Moat]

I did not wanted to give to much answer possibilities so it is a bit of a global preference. 

[Fffreak9999]

I still feel the player count should be the same as it is (64), the server is stable at this level and allows for some of the larger maps to be played, which was an issue on 40-50 player servers.

[OTT]

It's bearable up to 40,the higher it gets from there,the more cancerous it is,with the exception of the few large maps available.

[isupreme]

I do not like the larger player counts unless it is on a large map.

I really do not like 64 most days.

[NodSaibot]

40.

[RoundShades]

Short answer: 40.

Long Answer: at least 4 maps are entirely comfortable with 60 players, the majority with 40 players, and some are comfortable enough with 8-12 players. Would be nice to get a map-vote with the feature to offer vote-options based on a map's suggested playercount.

[TK0104]

40.

 

Most maps are just too small for 64 players. Outposts, Tunnels and Toxicity are an exception but the rest of the maps are too small for 64 players. You can't do anything solo without bumping into 3-4 players

 

And I notice my fps goes down because of the huge amount of players. 40 was fine for me :)

 

[Guest Gliven]

If you are in-game when its 32v32, make a poll asking who wants to join the second server. And then migrate. It cant be that hard to get 11 people to follow you, to make a 6v6 game. Then just vote small maps until more people come. And they will come, if they see more than 10 people in a server. Wouldn't be the first time we had 2 servers going.

[NodSaibot]

class FPI_ServerTravelMutator extends Rx_Mutator
config(FPI);

var config string ServerDestination;
var config bool bAutomaticallySplitServer;
var config int PlayerAmountSplit;

function InitThisMutator()
{
    `log("################################");
    `log("[Server Travel Mutator] Successfully inited!");
    `log("################################");
}

function FPIServerTravel()
{
    local string NextMap;
    local Guid NextMapGuid;
    local PlayerController c;
    local int i;
    local int PlayerCount;
    
    PlayerCount = `WorldInfoObject.Game.NumPlayers-1;
    NextMap = string(WorldInfo.GetPackageName());
    NextMapGuid = GetPackageGuid(name(NextMap));
    
    if(bAutomaticallySplitServer == true)
      	{
      		if(PlayerCount > PlayerAmountSplit || PlayerCount == PlayerAmountSplit)
      		{
      		    foreach WorldInfo.AllControllers(class'PlayerController', c)
      		    {
      		        if(Rx_Controller(c) != none && i == 0) {
      		            C.ClientTravel(ServerDestination, TRAVEL_Relative, false, NextMapGuid);
      		        	i++;
      		        	`log("[FPI Server Travel] Sending someone to other server. Int: " $ i);
      		        } else if (Rx_Controller(c) != none && i > 0) {
      		            i--;
      		    	    `log("[FPI Server Travel] Not sending someone to other server. Int: " $ i);
      		    	    return;
      		        }
      		    }
    		}
      	}
}

FPI has had the functionality for sending people to other servers for quite some time. It would be extremely easy, with some coordination, to move any specific amount of people to wherever we need. The code is pretty rough, since it's old, but the main thing to look at is where ClientTravel is called.

[Calvin]

The games were so much more fun with the 40 player limit.. I suggest bringing that back

[NodSaibot]

FPI will be 40 players tomorrow, let's see how it goes.

[limsup]

To be honest, in my humble opinion, 64 players is perhaps pushing the engine a bit too much... How my FPS is cut by half when a game's population grows from 30-40 to 64 players...

Potentially could reduce the frequency of the memory-related crashes too, will be interesting to see!

[DeadAccount]

The problem to me is that it only ever reaches 64 during peak hours, which to me is fine since you get to play with all your friends of the day. 40 kinda segregates the community and I don't know if there will be the energy to keep two servers built up daily instead of one.

 

Part of the reason i like the 64 player server is i get to play with all my friends. ._.

Edited October 16, 2018 by MintLemonade

[NodSaibot]

14 minutes ago, MintLemonade said:

The problem to me is that it only ever reaches 64 during peak hours, which to me is fine since you get to play with all your friends of the day. 40 kinda segregates the community and I don't know if there will be the energy to keep two servers built up daily instead of one.

I will put forth energy to seed a second server. But it's kinda unfair for the 40 players to have their game ruined by the other 24, if you want a 64 limit. (64 players fundamentally breaks the game, not to mention the huge ping increase of 50+ for some people, and insane FPS drops). 

[OTT]

I'm up for seeding another server (preferably an AOW server )

[Snips]

For server size players, I don't mind, however 40 players is better than 64 players. The performances of my fps is better when it is 40 players counts (around 40 to 70 fps) than 64 players (around 30 to 50 fps). If I my settings on medium or low the performances; it will go higher in any amount of players in game. We can try 40 players and see how that goes. Mind you I did play old ren with less amount of players which I don't mind at all. 20v20 or 32vs32 which is crazier? I'll say 32v32 because Nod you'll find yourself with 8 sbhs running around doing nothing or something . Will again this is pub, so some players won't care about teamwork and such. So I'm saying for 40 players, but with 64 players is good when there is a large map like outpost.

[limsup]

About "playing with friends": there is room on both teams, fail to see how it would seggregate, as there would be more than one non-empty to play on. I myself would love to be able to play on a second, non empty server if I'm fed up for any reason with the one I am on at any given time (stack cancer, snipers, etc...)

[limsup]

On 10/15/2018 at 5:21 PM, Fffreak9999 said:

server is stable at this level 

Clients aren't necessarily so fortunate.

[yosh56]

We... still haven't had anyone try toggling relevancy to see if it offers any boosts for clients in an actual practical setting. 

[Moat]

9 hours ago, < blank > said:

FPI will be 40 players tomorrow, let's see how it goes.

As an experiment, all the servers need to be set to a max of around 40. Just to see if two servers will fill up and if people will have more fun. So not only one, don't know who all the admins are.

And if it is not a succes players should mention it here on the forum.

Edited October 17, 2018 by Moat

[Eagle XI]

think 48 players would be optimal.

[SvN91]

40. I stopped playing when the servers started to have 60 players. With 60 players the game is really spammy, so much going on everywhere, players running around and dying/exploding/flying all over the place while the teams get nothing done.

[Moat]

26 minutes ago, SvN91 said:

40. I stopped playing when the servers started to have 60 players. With 60 players the game is really spammy, so much going on everywhere, players running around and dying/exploding/flying all over the place while the teams get nothing done.

Time to come back and join this experiment 

[Madkill40]

Every time players vote for snow or field that should split the server 50 50 and send 50% of the people to another server. (Everyone who votes for snow, stays)

[Goku]

Id rather send the snow players away

[Guest]

64.

After a match that takes time to finish, around 4-8 people quit after it.

On a full server with 64 people you have enough "meat" to supply defences, offences, tanks, infantry, sneaking.

A full server with well balanced teams feels like a huge warzone(if the map is big enough ofc). The match itself doesnt feel dead and empty.

Teamplay is much more efficiant with more people. More people in a server = more people will actually want to work as a team, while the solo/new players dont "hamper" the gameplay much.

4 afk/semi-afk people on a team with 32 people dont have much weight and the team still can be solid, what you couldnt say on a 20v20 (and before you say people shouldnt be afk, life happens and we shouldnt leave a match to go to the toilet for 5minutes)

 

I started playing on a 20v20 server, wasnt my thing. And im glad the standart now is 32v32 like most "other" war games.

[Redarmy]

18 minutes ago, Kaunas said:

And im glad the standart now is 32v32 like most "other" war games. 

Get with the times, the standard is now 50v50. 32v32 is in the past.

Anywhere from 40-48/50. Anything over 50 is too much and I don't even play public games anymore because of that.

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Redarmy said:

Get with the times, the standard is now 50v50. 32v32 is in the past.

Anywhere from 40-48/50. Anything over 50 is too much and I don't even play public games anymore because of that.

99v1.

Just stating my opinion, no need to burn it

[Moat]

can we say that 44 or 46 is a good consensus out of this poll?

 

EDIT:

maybe 46 is a number that there are not enough players to fill up a second server enough for a good match. But admins/developers knows that best.

Edited October 18, 2018 by Moat

[Guest]

To be Frank, since ftp is capped at 40 and ceetee is at 64 leave it as that. Chaotic good players will go 64 and true neutral will go 40. Both wins

[Ryz]

Two days ago, when this was mentioned, I did a poll ingame.

From the 50 players 19 answered.
The choice was 40 or 64. All 19 chose 64

I am not saying that ONE poll ingame proves something, but I have a feeling there is a big gap between 'pro players / old renegade players' here and the majority which plays the game and is not active on the forums.

Deciding purely on forum poll results might go directly against what the 'public' wants cause a lot of them aren't represented here... 

[Guest once upon the time]

I know that 64 players are to much for the most maps, thats why I vote for 40.

I think the players who are not active in the Forum or Discord they are not saying anything because they wants to have fun.

@Ryz i think you are right that the "Non-active player" (some of them) have a different view and that a big gap between "pro players/old renegade players exist. But to be realistic , you got answers from less than 50 % like here in the Forum Poll too. So we all only can say : We see a tendency.

2 hours ago, Kaunas said:

To be Frank, since ftp is capped at 40 and ceetee is at 64 leave it as that. Chaotic good players will go 64 and true neutral will go 40.

In this case i agree with Kaunas, but if its a real win for Ren X i am not sure.

[RoundShades]

To be fair, could wait until 56 players, and as suggested, have 1 gameserver migrate clients to for all intents and purposes an identical sister server, 28 | 28, two servers of 14v14, to build up population again.

If there's already a starting blueprint for doing that, then I remember that being successful in older games for sure.

If people want, they can leave and rejoin the sister server or vice versa, if they were split from players they wanted to play with or something. Moving players would just make it 18v18 and 10v10, still acceptable.

[roweboat]

Maybe put a notice in-game on the server to vote on the poll here on the official forum?

[NodSaibot]

37 minutes ago, YagiHige said:

To be fair, could wait until 56 players, and as suggested, have 1 gameserver migrate clients to for all intents and purposes an identical sister server, 28 | 28, two servers of 14v14, to build up population again.

If there's already a starting blueprint for doing that, then I remember that being successful in older games for sure.

If people want, they can leave and rejoin the sister server or vice versa, if they were split from players they wanted to play with or something. Moving players would just make it 18v18 and 10v10, still acceptable.

https://renegade-x.com/forums/topic/76285-optimal-max-player-count/?do=findComment&amp;comment=171192

[RoundShades]

That was literally higher in this thread, and is what I labeled "as suggested". If that can be done then it's totally the way.

To be fair, it wasn't the first time suggested, just the first time provided with a foundation of code to utilize.

EDIT: I forgot the link is in a community devs thread from like 2 years ago or more. Still, I suggested the bootleg way of servers just providing a 60 player server, and writing an IRC script where if player count exceeds 56, to close the 60 player server and open two 40 player servers and in-game announce the closing. Then, Agent suggested coding an auto-migration tool for two-60player servers to dump 28 players in the other server when it reaches 56 players. I was always a big fan, if it can be done then may it rain blessings.

[SMayhew]

40. Easily.

I think having 64 players on one server is not only hectic, but it also it means only one server is full up and the rest of the servers aren't filled, which goes against wanting this game to grow tbh. 20 v 20 is more fun.

[Ryz]

Did a vote ingame again
1 person chose 40 / 9 chose 64

Will do these polls a few more times... 

And another poll by someone else
2 for 40, 18(!) for 64

Edited October 18, 2018 by Ryz

[limsup]

Statistically irrelevant in this instance if indeed 30 out of 40 did not vote for either (assuming a 40/40 server population).

[Ryz]

12 minutes ago, limsup said:

Statistically irrelevant in this instance if indeed 30 out of 40 did not vote for either (assuming a 40/40 server population).

Well, even with a surrender vote or map change half the people do not vote.
Thinking the poll on the forum represents the majority of the gamers is is also statistically wrong... 

[NodSaibot]

If anyone is wondering, this is basically the final version of the code I would be using.

function OnMatchEnd()
{
    local int i;
    local Rx_Controller c;
    local string NextMap;
    local Guid NextMapGuid;

    NextMap = string(WorldInfo.GetPackageName());
    NextMapGuid = GetPackageGuid(name(NextMap));

    if(`WorldInfoObject.Game.NumPlayers-1 > PlayersToSplitAt)
        foreach WorldInfo.AllControllers(class'Rx_Controller', c)
      		{
      			if(c != none && i == 0) { c.ClientTravel(ServerDestination, TRAVEL_Relative, false, NextMapGuid); i++; }
      				else if (c != none && i > 0) i--;
      		}
}

 

[RoundShades]

Both are statistically wrong. What people WANT is also statistically wrong. The game can PLAY with 40 player servers, especially so with migration filling new servers too. The game plays WORSE with a player cap not allowing a new server to populate, or with a player cap so high that a fraction of unwilling players go play god-knows-what-else instead.

Democracy is good, but I support a pretty logical right answer. I doubt anyone playing in 60 player servers, are going to leave the moment it gets down to 38 players. There is thus no associated risk with keeping servers populated but not intentionally at constant-60.

A close-second option, is map-voting that chooses vote-options that are good for playercount, and maps having a number-setting to compare to playercount. That way, low-pop servers are playable, and high-pop servers are playable.

There are 2 right answers, and neither of them are a 40 or 60 player server without additional work.

[NodCommander]

Dusted off my old forum account to protest against this. 40 players always felt empty; it did back when we simply did not have higher capacity servers, and it does now.

64 players is necessary. Without that, the maps are empty. Sure, Snow is not playable on 64 players, but it isn't on 40 either. Some maps require even more than 64 players, such as Eyes.

 

Had several polls run in-game tonight on the FairPlay server, consistently scoring 0-4 in favour of 40 player limits, and I kid you not, 15-25 votes in favour of 64 players.

[Guest once upon the time]

only as a additional information , someone starts a vote in the russian Forum too. I dont know who, but i think that was a good idea too.

Dont ask me for the actual status of the votes (I am not registered in VK)

https://vk.com/renxgame

[RoundShades]

64 players can function, but not offering for vote the choices given. Snow cannot run with 64 players, it should stop being offered when servers reach 64 regardless. It's a simple fix imo, 64 players would be playable with that change.

[isupreme]

Quote

map-voting that chooses vote-options that are good for playercount, and maps having a number-setting to compare to playercount. That way, low-pop servers are playable, and high-pop servers are playable.

Best Option.   Allow the map choices to suite the player count.

[scrin-124678]

After i saw that the fairplay server is now a 40 player server, I guessed the reason in 1 sec. again people that try to change somthing.(maybe for a advantage?)

 

There are 40 player servers, why dont you go play there.

Instead of that people play on the 60 player server and dont like 60 players? hows that?

 

Ok enough of logic questions,

In my opinion 20vs 20 servers was quite empty, in fact when i saw back in the day a server where it was like 36-20 players i never jointed because it was just a match where player sneaked into a low defended base and made recommendations like crazy (Maybe thats why you guys want that back..), and yeah thats unfair why you ask? lets look

because there is a team that does good teamplay and locking down a base with tanks and then suddenly your buildings blow up! why? because someone sneaked in. 10 players lock up a base and there are no defenders. perfect for a ego sneaker. And this is why it sucks lol this game only helps people that are egoistic and dont do teamplay while the other team that do teamplay getting fucked and that is frustration for those who do teamplay.

 

And saying things like 60 players are bad, you cant do a rush there because nobody listen to you is just stupid. the last days shown us that teamrushes ended games, you guys are just frustrated because when there are 60 players you cant sneak easily in a base without getting seen.

 

In fact i see only this suggestion is just made to make it easier for people to sneak in and getting many recommendations because you want to see your name very high in the leaderboard.

 

 

So, what are we learning today? people suggest something and try to hide up the real reason because they see they can change a game and the community believe them,but then in some years its the community that is asking whats wrong why there are no players here?

Try to learn from C&C Reborn mod.

 

[vandal33]

40 players is decent. 60 just feels too crowded and chaotic. I prefer 2 20 vs 20 servers than 1 30 vs 30.