optimal max player count

[Moat]

10 hours ago, scrin-124678 said:

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?

Very simple, because no one goes to a empty server. If 80 people want to play and the 60 server is full the other 20 do not go to the 40 server. Why are you not going to the 64 server if there still is one? 

10 hours ago, scrin-124678 said:

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.

You see that? How? Can you point it out, I also want to see it. In a 64 server it is much easier to boost up your rank. So a bit of a weird statement. And I believe it is just to try out how it works out, the game is in beta.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Moat

[UFO]

11 hours ago, SilentKnight said:

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

Silent, I think that was an alien

For now voted 41 ppl from Russian community.

[Guest once upon the time]

10 hours ago, scrin-124678 said:

Ok enough of logic questions

Logic questions ?

10 hours ago, scrin-124678 said:

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

So why should ppl join a empty Server?

Some ppl like to play on slightly moderated Server and for some short time they are only 2 exists (CT and FPI). I think this both are still the only once which have moderators.

10 hours ago, scrin-124678 said:

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.

Teamplay is :Offensive and Defensive (Not only Offensive wins a game, like in every virtuell and real Team game)

10 hours ago, scrin-124678 said:

Try to learn from C&C Reborn mod. 

C&C Reborn is not Renegade X

But who cares, because you statet in a older post that you are not interessted in other ppl opinion.

 

43 minutes ago, Moat said:

And I believe it is just to try out how it works out, the game is in beta. 

100% agree Moat.

[Guest]

Just leave the servers as they are ffs. 

As the votes say its not even 80:20, on the forums its 68:32 and ingame pools majority who voiced their votes are for 64 player games. 

Devs should Not dictate how Players want to play a damn game. We Players can choose ourselves. 

Stating that Every server should be capped at 40 since "the server cant handle it" is bs. It has been 64 for about a year now. It literally seems that you just want to run a monopoly with the fpi server. Not everyone likes small games and not everyone likes large chaotic ones, let the players play where and how they want. 

This topic spindles up every 6 months and everyone loses their minds, just for the sake of it leave one server capped at 40, whoever likes bigger games leave them at 64. And saying "there are 80 people who want to play so we'll split them" isnt solving anything. Server full and you dont like large games? Move to another one and let 64player lads enjoy.

Saying that the Players are wrong for wanting to play large games is sounding more like selfishness that EA has and not someone who actually Cares for the Players who play. Players, not devs, not mods, not your "yes men", Sarah. Im fed with this pointless debate 

[Moat]

48 minutes ago, Kaunas said:

Devs should Not dictate how Players want to play a damn game. We Players can choose ourselves.

I started the poll (sorry for that), Devs are not dictating. 

48 minutes ago, Kaunas said:

Move to another one and let 64player lads enjoy

You are very right, but now if the server is full you can not play and there are more then 64 players that wants to play.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Moat

[Moat]

Shall we end the discussion about what max player amount people like or not and start checking if it works or is it to early for that?

 

[Guest once upon the time]

@Moat I think you self could choose, you open the Topic and you can ask a Mod to close it. Peopel was making a Poll (not all, but..) . Some ppl was telling the own point of view.

I dont think that anyone will claime your decision , I accept your decision you will take.

[Eagle XI]

Well, if community is really persistent in wanting 64p, then an 64p-ification project would needed to be launched for most if not all maps, cause most of them arent even really designed for that amount of players. The fun ends when at an sniper perch designed to have 2-3 contains 5-6, or when an team wins the initial push through sheer numbers so that you cant even leave the mainbase ending up getting boxed in for rest of the match, can do only waiting as opposition shoots their way to heroic mammoths.

[Moat]

@SilentKnight I only played yesterday so i don't know if it works or not but I do want to know. I just wanted to shift this discussion to instead of personal opinions about what people like to the discussion if 20vs20 works at this moment because the admins/devs are actually trying it. But maybe it is to early to say.

I was only online between 18:00 and 20:30 and for the most part in the 64 server because the 40 was full. And I think that yesterday in this time period it was not a succes. There could be easily enough players to have two fun active servers but no one is willing to start joining a new server. There was a moment where I saw about 9 or 10 different player names joining and immediately leaving in only 15 minutes of time. If they would just stay and wait for just 15min more people would also come and we could start a serious match. So even that I am on the 20vs20 camp, yesterday between those times it did not worked.

So I am curious if it was also like this the other days. If so there are not enough players yet and the devs tried and we can close this topic. And for the 20vs20 matches maybe focus on pugs or something for people who like that.

[Moat]

12 minutes ago, Eagle XI said:

Well, if community is really persistent in wanting 64p, then an 64p-ification project would needed to be launched for most if not all maps, cause most of them arent even really designed for that amount of players. The fun ends when at an sniper perch designed to have 2-3 contains 5-6, or when an team wins the initial push through sheer numbers so that you cant even leave the mainbase ending up getting boxed in for rest of the match, can do only waiting as opposition shoots their way to heroic mammoths.

There are players that likes these situations (a lot actually, if you can vote for snow a lot times it gets half the votes). Sometimes you see the same player shooting with an mrls or arty to a easily hittable building for hours, non stop not doing anything else and they just like it. My point for now is, are there already enough active players to split up the camps? Do people already have trust that the second server will fill up if they just joined. 

Edited October 19, 2018 by Moat

[Guest once upon the time]

@Moat You must not explain me why , like i wrote its your decision

In this point Kaunas was right every year this point is coming up and we still stand like years before (number of players). Some still prefer 64 some whatever.

Your Topic was /is OK.

A lot of things changed in the last years /time and some ppl like or dislike it. Look like the discussion about the Tanks , it is the same (I have my personal view in this case too). I could write a lot of things whats coming up every year, but that is not the right Topic for it.

So it is still your decision (open or close) and dont feel under pressure, you arent.

[scrin-124678]

6 hours ago, Moat said:

1.Very simple, because no one goes to a empty server. If 80 people want to play and the 60 server is full the other 20 do not go to the 40 server. Why are you not going to the 64 server if there still is one? 

2.You see that? How? Can you point it out, I also want to see it. In a 64 server it is much easier to boost up your rank. So a bit of a weird statement. And I believe it is just to try out how it works out, the game is in beta.

1. ofc no one will go on a empty server the past told us. Before the 60 player servers was re-implemented there was only a 40 players server and all other servers was empty. means all players just waited till they was able to join that 40 player server. So no point there this will help community.

And about why i dont join the CT server with 64 players, because the ping goes bad at that server when 64 players on it (maybe to that fact because the vehicle limit got raised there idk), on fairplay it was compared to that server very good.

 

2. I stated the point already out in my post you answered. (btw rank and leaderbord are 2 different things.)

 

 

And silent, about that tank question as a stated there there is no need make tanks more weaker. And ofc i dont care about people opinion because when there nothing to fix, then dont fix it. I just want to point out that when someone dont like it how it is you will only hear his opinion, not the opinion of those players who liked it how it was. (i mean nobody would post a topic how good that feature is).

And its also funny to see that someone is reading my old comments just to find somthing to hurt me, sorry if my last post was offensive to people (for real) but to be honest when i come from work I dont want to waste 10 min on hoping to join a full 40 player server and then join a 10 people server in the hope that it will reach 20 players.

 

And before I go off I just want to say I agree with kaunas at most, he finds better word to explain the whole situation that the most of us.

 

Edited October 19, 2018 by scrin-124678

[Guest once upon the time]

@scrin-124678 I dont wanna hurt you , but you hit the point that your post was in my opinion very offensive. I show only a mirror.

In my case its now the  past and i hope you have more luck next time to join faster.

[Fffreak9999]

Just as an FYI: There is no CT specific vehicle limit increase, They are all default and always has been.

[Moat]

49 minutes ago, scrin-124678 said:

(for real) but to be honest when i come from work I dont want to waste 10 min on hoping to join a full 40 player server and then join a 10 people server in the hope that it will reach 20 players.

Even if all servers are 64, one need to be the first and that person probably also waited 10 or more minutes. This sounds a bit selfish

[Moat]

Before every one goes crazy just lets see if it works out. If not they probably change it back. If you never try something you come nowhere.

[NodSaibot]

6 hours ago, Kaunas said:

Just leave the servers as they are ffs. 

As the votes say its not even 80:20, on the forums its 68:32 and ingame pools majority who voiced their votes are for 64 player games. 

Devs should Not dictate how Players want to play a damn game. We Players can choose ourselves. 

Stating that Every server should be capped at 40 since "the server cant handle it" is bs. It has been 64 for about a year now. It literally seems that you just want to run a monopoly with the fpi server. Not everyone likes small games and not everyone likes large chaotic ones, let the players play where and how they want. 

This topic spindles up every 6 months and everyone loses their minds, just for the sake of it leave one server capped at 40, whoever likes bigger games leave them at 64. And saying "there are 80 people who want to play so we'll split them" isnt solving anything. Server full and you dont like large games? Move to another one and let 64player lads enjoy.

Saying that the Players are wrong for wanting to play large games is sounding more like selfishness that EA has and not someone who actually Cares for the Players who play. Players, not devs, not mods, not your "yes men", Sarah. Im fed with this pointless debate 

So what I am reading is you’ll seed CT’s 64 player count server. You can decide where you want to play. 

Also, not everyone agreed for a 40 player count server on the FPI mod team, pretty sure it was like a 4/3 vote to let it be tested. The main point of FPI wasn’t to monopoly, it was to allow more than just CT, after AGN left RenX. And I’m not saying people are wrong for liking 64 player count servers, that’s just not the way the game was meant to be played. That’s not realistically possible on UDK. Unfortunately we don’t have the liberty of deciding what is possible and what isn’t possible in RenX sometimes.

 

My biggest and most painful issue with 64 player servers is my ping and FPS. If it’s at 64 players or near that, I will get close to 200 ping and no higher than 40 fps. Meanwhile at 40 players, I can get 60 steady fps, and my regular 130 ping 

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, < blank > said:

And I’m not saying people are wrong for liking 64 player count servers, that’s just not the way the game was meant to be played. That’s not realistically possible on UDK. Unfortunately we don’t have the liberty of deciding what is possible and what isn’t possible in RenX sometimes.

 

My biggest and most painful issue with 64 player servers is my ping and FPS. If it’s at 64 players or near that, I will get close to 200 ping and no higher than 40 fps. Meanwhile at 40 players, I can get 60 steady fps, and my regular 130 ping 

its been like that for months. leave it be.

your biggest issue, you will get more ping and less fps.  As you said its Your issue, not everyones. Accept that people like and enjoy playing on a real full server (as in 64) As much as smaller games. Stating that "you dont care and will test it out anyway reguardless what we think" is absurd and selfcentered.

if you can bare the lag and +40ms of ping for a warzone between Nod and GDI then you should. Not having an option to do so just because You dont like it is selfish.

im all for testing new things, but this akjeiuhogrn topic was debated over and over again.

[Tommy]

40

Runs best, works best.

FPS gets cancer at 60 even with better performing PCs.

[limsup]

8 minutes ago, TRRDroid said:

FPS gets cancer at 60 even with better performing PCs.

Physics and AI are single threaded. Does not scale regardless of how many extra cores your system has. It affects all.

[Moat]

I never noticed huge performance problems but I also dont have a fps counter. Maybe I am used to bad performance (old gpu atm) almost a gtx1060

So my personal conclusion out of this topic for now: 40 is better, the teamplay is better, (personally) more fun less chaos. But I am also in doubt if it is the right time. Dont think that there are enough players willing to start a new game in a still empty server. 

[JoeBrogan7]

The poll numbers are interesting, especially if you combine the Russian poll with the one on this forum:

Out of a combined 87 people who voted, 43.7% prefer matches of 40 players or less. 56.3% prefer matches of 50 players or more. If you consider the polls Ryz created in-game, then the gap seems to widen a bit. Granted, we don't know how many people who voted in-game also voted in the forum, etc. so we should take that into consideration. But it appears that the 40 player crowd is not in the majority.

Personally, I voted for 60, though I'd be okay with 50 as a compromise. 40 might be okay in PUG matches, but in regular matches there's always going to be a few people who are AFK, turning your 20-person team into a 17 or 18 person team at times. I just don't think that's enough for most maps.

Also, consider that 64 player matches help mitigate team stacking and elite players who have the skill and ability to control a game on their own. In a 20v20 match, a single elite player can have a huge effect on the outcome of a game. In a 32v32 match, that effect is less pronounced as it becomes more difficult for a single player to dominate any particular area. Teamwork usually becomes the deciding factor rather than the skill of a handful of players on each side, and each team usually has a decent chance of winning, regardless of how the elite players are divided in a match. And at the end of the day, isn't that what RenX is all about? Teamwork? 

 

[CoreDefender]

This was a vote I saw in-game today:

 

[roweboat]

4 hours ago, Moat said:

I never noticed huge performance problems but I also dont have a fps counter. Maybe I am used to bad performance (old gpu atm) almost a gtx1060

So my personal conclusion out of this topic for now: 40 is better, the teamplay is better, (personally) more fun less chaos. But I am also in doubt if it is the right time. Dont think that there are enough players willing to start a new game in a still empty server. 

In game you can hit, f5 stat fps , to show fps

Yes I agree. That's the source of the problem. Most people aren't willing to join a match if it only has a few players (that % goes down with 0 in the server).

 

Frankly I don't think this topic can go anywhere now. We need a larger player base first.

[NodSaibot]

The thing is, I can make servers with people... make one 64 and put it into 2 32 servers.

[RoundShades]

The biggest problem isn't what people want. It's what they don't want. Some want 40, some want 64, nobody wants 0.

Solving that problem, by providing servers with a form of mitosis, lets there be more than 1 server at any given time. Who knows, with enough room, it might have been possible to get 3 60 player servers full this whole time, sans the human element.

[Moat]

But are there like already results from these few days the max at 40? Except that the pernormance improved. Did people still had fun? Where there complains? Did two servers fill up or people did just not play?

Edited October 20, 2018 by Moat

[Syntharn]

All about what map is being played.
Smaller maps suffer more from having 64 players than a large map does from having 40 in my opinion.
Id rather have my team resources stretched thin than have the match turn into a spamfest.

Otherwise big chaotic 64 player matches on large maps are awesome.
Have absolutely zero performance issues unless theres like 3 chinooks filled with people exploding at the same time in my vicinity.

Edited October 20, 2018 by Syntharn

[The Great]

64 Players; many times i open the RenX launcher and i find that the server is full!

Imagine how it would be with 40 players 

[Moat]

@The Great there is more then one server. Just join an other one, the full server also started with just one player. Mabe if the max is 40 it is easyer that there are enough players to have two fun games. As you said sometimes the 64 is allready full, so enough players.

We need to change the mentality about joining empty servers. Think we also own that to the devs that gives us such a nice game for free. And maybe it only takes two weeks to get the trust that more people will join. 

[The Great]

13 minutes ago, Moat said:

@The Great there is more then one server. Just join an other one, the full server also started with just one player. Mabe if the max is 40 it is easyer that there are enough players to have two fun games. As you said sometimes the 64 is allready full, so enough players.

We need to change the mentality about joining empty servers. Think we also own that to the devs that gives us such a nice game for free. And maybe it only takes two weeks to get the trust that more people will join. 

U r right.. I voted 64 players can i revote?

[Moat]

@The Great no worry the vote looks like a tie anyways (there where more votes) and it even differs per map.

I just saw the server full more often lately. And to make space for new people we need to stimulate playing on two servers. But it turned out to be a difficult thing with lots of different opinions

[Moat]

@Fffreak9999  @limsup @YagiHige This topic can be closed. The community has spoken and it was a good discussion. Big thanks to the devs for giving it a try, hope the results gave good information to use in the future. This same maxplayer and how to fill server up ideas and discussions will probably come again within a year but at that time there are probably more active players and opinions can be changed. With that situation it would be better to start a fresh topic.

Thank you all!