64 Player Count Cap

[Tytonium]

The past few days of RenX matches have been ruined in my opinion because of this test currently going on.

I completely understand what you all are trying to test, but I think the downsides that you get out of limiting server caps far out-way the upsides.

Here is every bit of proof that I can muster up to hopefully convince you that 64 player servers should be the standard.

 

Let's us start off with the pros that you get for limiting player count:

• Matches on small maps (e.g. Islands, Field, Under, canyon, tomb etc...) are balanced a bit more.
  • Infantry rushes are far less effective on those said maps.
  • Sneaking is easier to some extent and now a viable strategy.

That's all I can really think of for the pros.

Here are the cons I can think of:

• Matches on larger maps (e.g. daybreak, desolation, arctic, steppe, eyes, etc...) are ruined completely.
  • It is cripplingly lonely to walk around a large barren map in a game about all-out combat.
  • Beacons are overpowered on these large maps.
  • Sneaking is overpowered on these larger maps.
  • Using any type of rush that is practical will likely result in a win.
• Player counts are fluctuating like crazy.
  • After any match, the player count is expected to drop a little ways as people go off to do other things.
  • Having 48 players as the cap results in player counts dropping to 30-40 players after each match.
  • This slows the game-play down to a crawl during beginning of each match.
  • It takes a good bit of time for player counts to rise up after this happens.
    • During this time it is possible (and very likely) that one team could rofl-stomp the other team because of a lack of players.
      • This in turn causes a self feed back loop, and the server dies for the day. This has been happening, as the servers are dying earlier than normal.
• This system is not healthy for the community.
  • The devs would have the actual numbers, but I estimate that prime-time for RenX usually has up to 70-80 players wanting to play at the same time on a normal day.
    • A server with 64 players will only leave 6-16 people stranded from having fun, and the server will last much longer.
    • As server with 48 players will leave 22-32 players stranded in a separate server to be lonely and not have fun.
      • As discussed before, player counts will likely die off quicker on 2 low-populated servers as well.
  • Dividing a community as small as this one may speed up the process of its collapse.

Let's take a look at this photo here. This was taken 3 hours before the Saturday pug begins on 4/11/2020

So AllNoobs was at 48 players right before they switched to this islands match. It is likely the players got bored because it was getting a bit lonely and took off to do other things.

The other 6 people? Well screw them, they weren't able to get into the server when it was 48 players so they are forced to sit on the sidelines twiddling their thumbs waiting to have fun at a later time.

About 20 minutes later the 6 players were able to integrate into the AllNoobs server but the player count is not doing too well.

This photo was taken 1 hour and 40 minutes before the pug.

Normally at this time of day you could expect to see about 45-64 players on having a good time. But because of the smaller player caps, the servers cannot sustain themselves.

People get lonely with this player count stuff. They want more hectic battles... That server above just changed to Xmountain by the way. Here is another picture literally 5 minutes later...

Down to 33 players when it should be up in the 50's normally...

Here it is 1 hour and 27 minutes until the pug.

Note that I took all these pictures while in the process of writing this post.

64 Players should be the standard for this game. It gives way to larger scale battles where chaos rains supreme. RenX is at its best when teams are filled with large numbers of people going all out to win. With this new style of server player caps, that will be mostly absent. 

I know the servers owners are thinking about possibly making the new standard somewhere in the 50-60 range, but that will still be met with the same problems that the 48 player cap has been subjected too, just to a lesser but still present extent.

Again, I get what you are trying to do. Encourage smaller scale battles across multiple servers to accommodate more players. It will simply not work at this time for the game. We barely have enough players as it is, and the problem with not being able to join a server only occurs a couple hours each day. Why sacrifice the entire community being able to join a chaos filled 64 player fun-zone for a tiny bit better balanced Field match?

Also, at the current state of the game you will never be able to have 2 servers populated to 48 players, unless it is Saturday and the hive mind of RenX players decide to all play at the same time. Even still, having 2 full servers shall be a VERY RARE event.

One other little nit pick before I wrap all this rambling up: I found it interesting that in order to test this new player cap FPI, AllNoobs, and CT all had to join together to lower their player counts. Because you absolutely know, that if one server were to stay at 64 players, that would be the server that the players join for the day. That in and of itself should tell you something about what this community and its players want. You have an inclination to listen to them above all.

You want a solution? Make it so that small maps cannot be voted while above a certain player threshold. Field with 64 players does in fact suck more than if it were just 48 players. But coding something like that would make it so that you do not have to make an entire server for good field matches. If anything, I think a potentially interesting thing to test would be to increase the player count. Yea, raise that shiz up to like 80 and put the map on daybreak and see if it isn't the funnest most chaotic thing ever.

 

I implore you to keep a 64 player count cap as the standard for RenX for the time being. Until we get more players, the community should stick to one giant server so that everyone can have a good time. We also will not gain new players if the matches are boring, lonely, and sad.

Keep 64 because it is the best thing for this community, it keeps the most players around, it keeps the player base healthy, and mostly because it is pure chaotic fun.

-Tytonium

Edited April 11, 2020 by Tytonium
Removed a spam pic

[kira]

I agree, 
so matches were fun but some really felt sad.   I prefer at least 56 players on server.  and as you said until we new players to populate servers, we should have 1 giant server which strong enough for the amazing renx players who just wanna have fun.

[TomUjain]

I really really want 64 players, but...

The reality is it just does not work. As more and more patches are rolled out the harder and harder it is for this fossil of an engine to keep up. Lag, crashes and maps clearly not designed for that cap begin to become more and more apparent.

Unless we shift to a new engine that can handle that cap then all that will happen is you will be forced to take a bigger and bigger performance hit gameplay wise.

[Tytonium]

15 minutes ago, TomUjain said:

I really really want 64 players, but...

The reality is it just does not work. As more and more patches are rolled out the harder and harder it is for this fossil of an engine to keep up. Lag, crashes and maps clearly not designed for that cap begin to become more and more apparent.

Unless we shift to a new engine that can handle that cap then all that will happen is you will be forced to take a bigger and bigger performance hit gameplay wise.

I would gladly sacrifice a bit of performance and the occasional crash for a funner experience. Honestly I'd probably quit playing the game entirely if all servers were capped to below 50. Just too lonely.

[Guest Once Upon the time]

So it seems that the current Ren X generation are quite wimps (not all).
UE 3 has big problems with 64 players and most are aware of it. How often is there complaining about laggs and FPS losses, often.
There are some who prefer 64 players and some definitely less.
Whine about the maps played over and over again, very much like field, under, etc.
The current map selection suitable for 64 realistic is very limited.
In my opinion, now only people whine about (48) because then you can organize fewer slaughter festivals.
There are also people who do not go to certain servers for personal reasons. This also affects the total number of players.
Of course, Field, Snow, Oasis is a pleasure to play with 64 players (irony).
48 or 50 would definitely be the best compromise in all aspects.
Well, have fun and continue to grumble without showing a little willingness to compromise.

[JoeBrogan7]

I agree Ty, and you did a much better job than I would have making the point. I've barely played the past week because of the 48 player cap. Those games are just not as fun and feel very lonely. I've griped about it a few times in the RenX discord, but I'm going to stop so as not to be too annoying. Regardless, I see myself playing a lot less if 64 players goes away.

[Madkill40]

50 - 60 player count imo.

For performance reasons and also not necessarily all the same size player count either. Give players a chance to experience different types of servers and broaden horizon's into what the game once reflected originalRen days. 

Lets have a 32, 40, 52, 58 and a 60 different server player slotted servers. [probably already happening anyways] 

Let players learn how different player caps can affect gameplay here at RenegadeX.

[Madkill40]

7 hours ago, Tytonium said:

you will never be able to have 2 servers populated to 48 players, unless it is Saturday and

It's a fucking amazing achievement to finally have 2 Servers going on ANY day so don't go degrading what a lot of effort members of the community put into encouraging an attempt at Server Runner-up #2 filling up. Ever.

Game is amazing for a FREE GAME , really decent servers [also free], optional donation's only for server operational costs. 

Encouraging players to populate another server - I sometimes wonder what some of the playerbase think starts any of those servers up in the first place [i.e. somebody has to join 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc...]

[Tytonium]

1 hour ago, Madkill40 said:

It's a fucking amazing achievement to finally have 2 Servers going on ANY day so don't go degrading what a lot of effort members of the community put into encouraging an attempt at Server Runner-up #2 filling up. Ever.

Yea I saw some of that today. It was right after the PUG ended. The AllNoobs server was almost at max capacity (48), so the people getting off the PUG were forced to go populate a completely empty server. They got it up to about 24 players or so.

It quickly died in about 30 minutes and only about 10 people were left in that backup server afterwards.

This is on a Saturday, which is the most popular day for RenX no doubt. I wouldn't call it an accomplishment in this specific case that 2 servers were up and running because if the normal server was set to 64 players, one server would have sufficed to give everyone wanting to play RenX what the wanted.

I know this is a free game and I am grateful for it. It's the funnest multiplayer game that I have ever played. That's why I made this gigantic post along with other stuff as well, and I want this community to thrive as long as possible. I think it is in this communities best interest to populate large servers where everyone can have fun instead of filling up small divided servers where most people are unable to have fun.

1 hour ago, Madkill40 said:

Encouraging players to populate another server - I sometimes wonder what some of the playerbase think starts any of those servers up in the first place [i.e. somebody has to join 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc...]

That's another good reason to keep the player-base contained to one large server.

It takes a long, long time for players to fill up one server on a normal day. Now if we had double the players we normally have, and two servers were able to build up the player count at the same rate, running two servers would be a great idea.

However, in all practicality, one server will fill up at a time. A second server will require a vast amount of players to be started after one is already at max capacity.

Imagine it, you just opened up the server browser. You have a server with 48/48 players and another with 8/48 players. In all practicality you will likely spam the refresh button until the already full server drops by one so that you can join. That is exactly how it will be for every player if the 48 player cap was set as the standard.

Less players would have the ability to enjoy the game while the community slowly fades.

[JoeBrogan7]

1 hour ago, Tytonium said:

Imagine it, you just opened up the server browser. You have a server with 48/48 players and another with 8/48 players. In all practicality you will likely spam the refresh button until the already full server drops by one so that you can join. That is exactly how it will be for every player if the 48 player cap was set as the standard.

No need for anybody to imagine this. I'm sure we all do it on a pretty regular basis 🤐

[Handepsilon]

1 hour ago, Tytonium said:

Imagine it, you just opened up the server browser. You have a server with 48/48 players and another with 8/48 players. In all practicality you will likely spam the refresh button until the already full server drops by one so that you can join. That is exactly how it will be for every player if the 48 player cap was set as the standard.

You guys really need to stop this tradition,  honestly. It doesn't matter if the limit was 40, 48, 56 or 64. This whole tradition of server browser refreshing is what will keep the game to only be played at 1 server only 

Besides,  server logs were already starting to spit out network channel overflows. The game's already overburdened by your obscene demand for higher playercaps

And just for personal perspective, playing at 20 fps all day is already pretty disorienting. Imagine getting stuck at 10

[JoeBrogan7]

32 minutes ago, Handepsilon said:

You guys really need to stop this tradition,  honestly. It doesn't matter if the limit was 40, 48, 56 or 64. This whole tradition of server browser refreshing is what will keep the game to only be played at 1 server only 

I think it does matter. Re-read Ty's first post. Specifically this bit:

10 hours ago, Tytonium said:

• After any match, the player count is expected to drop a little ways as people go off to do other things.
• Having 48 players as the cap results in player counts dropping to 30-40 players after each match.
• This slows the game-play down to a crawl during beginning of each match.
• It takes a good bit of time for player counts to rise up after this happens.
  • During this time it is possible (and very likely) that one team could rofl-stomp the other team because of a lack of players.
    • This in turn causes a self feed back loop, and the server dies for the day. This has been happening, as the servers are dying earlier than normal.

 

36 minutes ago, Handepsilon said:

The game's already overburdened by your obscene demand for higher playercaps

Obscene demand? 64 players has been the norm across multiple servers for 2+ years. I don't see how asking to go back to that is obscene. Besides, if you wanted to alleviate network overflows, a server owner might consider dropping to 62, 60, or 58 players to see at what point it becomes acceptable. Dropping instantly down to 48 players (a 25% decrease) seems like quite a heavy-handed and arbitrary approach to take. 

[Handepsilon]

I'm sorry,  maybe I should rephrase it. It's an obscene demand for a deprecated and very limited engine such as UDK. A healthy number for that engine would've actually been 32, as far as I know

Besides,  the game was fine back when it was capped to 40

[Xtractor]

Questions :

-In peek hours is there  enough players wanted to play but  not been able because the server is full   ?

-enough to fill another servers ?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Yes ...What if something like a Queue list was started in the launcher  when the server is full like a countdown to be obtained .

A Server B will start automaticaly at 50 players in queue  Do you want to Queue in ? yes /no

present queue is 35 ..

present queue is 36..

present queue is 37...

 

 

[Guest Gliven]

On 4/11/2020 at 1:08 PM, Tytonium said:

The past few days of RenX matches have been ruined in my opinion because of this test currently going on.

I completely understand what you all are trying to test, but I think the downsides that you get out of limiting server caps far out-way the upsides.

Here is every bit of proof that I can muster up to hopefully convince you that 64 player servers should be the standard.

This is the whole point of testing. Server owners can only hypothesize so much. They need to actually see what happens when setting caps to whatever number. Players will leave because its set to 64, and other players will leave when its set to lower. This is the teething phase of server fine tuning.

Hopefully the new launcher being worked on will help out with the ability to fill more than 1 server. It looks pretty promising to me.

[Calvin]

I think it should go back to 40 again, people just need to get used to change at first they didn't like the 64 

[Tommy]

Performance wise 64 players is actually horrendous no matter on which machine played or which settings are used

[Tytonium]

17 minutes ago, Cynthia said:

Performance wise 64 players is actually horrendous no matter on which machine played or which settings are used

I'm running a GTX 970 which is out of date compared to some of the things offered on the market today. I also live in the U.S. and consistently have around 160+ ping. Even with all of that, my game play is absolutely acceptable. I get a consistent 60 fps running high graphics at all points and times.

If your computer can't handle RenX at 64 players, I can't imagine it plays any game well. If you really want to game as a hobby you should give serious consideration to upgrading some of your specs. It isn't crazily expensive to get a rig going that will run this game fine. Just invest a couple hundred and you'll be able to do a ton of crazy things on your computer. Hit up newegg.com if you want to upgrade some aspects of your rig.

Anyways, I really don't think we should sacrifice game-play enjoyment and community involvement just for a small bit of players that have sub-optimal rigs. It's akin to being the fat kid on a hiking trip and demanding everyone else walk slower so that one kid can keep up. Don't get me wrong, if every kid is a fat kid and wants to go slower I'll quite down and hike elsewhere, but I am sure the majority of players want to keep what we have going for the time being.

[Handepsilon]

You forgot the fact that RenX uses single core performance. I can play a more recent game just fine, mind you

The engine itself is pretty much the biggest 'fat kid' here. 64 players is pretty much an unhealthy number for it. Sure you can upgrade your own rig, but you can't change the rig of the server you're playing or the limit of the engine itself

[Tytonium]

44 minutes ago, Handepsilon said:

You forgot the fact that RenX uses single core performance. I can play a more recent game just fine, mind you

The engine itself is pretty much the biggest 'fat kid' here. 64 players is pretty much an unhealthy number for it. Sure you can upgrade your own rig, but you can't change the rig of the server you're playing or the limit of the engine itself

Well for me the game runs buttery smooth for the most part, and this holds true for others I am sure. If we got to a point where tanks were teleporting fifty feet every other dozen seconds and frames were dropping by the hundreds constantly, then yea maybe the game should scale some aspects back. Although at that point perhaps remaking the game into a large online multiplayer text adventure style zorg game would be the best idea.

But I do not think we are anywhere close to it being that bad. The game runs fine for me and many others, so why try and fix what isn't broken.

[Handepsilon]

Well... we did have a server crash in Arctic Stronghold last month. I forgot where I downloaded the log from the server from, but I vividly remembered that the last lines of it were spams of out-of-channels warnings. Had to scramble about to check what would cause it before someone in the dev team informed me that such thing would be common in some maps when servers were full and the game lasted for some hours

[ex_member]

Hi,

I know many of you guys play with older or weaker hardware than you will find in the post below and it works for you. Nevertheless, I heard too many times statements like this:

7 hours ago, Tytonium said:

If your computer can't handle RenX at 64 players, I can't imagine it plays any game well. If you really want to game as a hobby you should give serious consideration to upgrading some of your specs. It isn't crazily expensive to get a rig going that will run this game fine. Just invest a couple hundred and you'll be able to do a ton of crazy things on your computer. Hit up newegg.com if you want to upgrade some aspects of your rig.

Sorry, but  you don't know what you are talking about !

I started playing RenX 3-4 years ago on my old laptop and it worked good @40-60 fps with 40 players. I introduced RenX to several friends and they started playing and it worked good for them too.
One of them had even a 2 core intel desktop pc and he could play.

Dring the upgrades and updates, at some point the problems started. Some of us decided to buy new hardware some of my friends just left.
I purchased a new gaming PC (it is the Spec 2 in the list).

RenX worked good again for a while. But again after some updates and patches, at some point the performance was affected somehow.
Since that point in the past (I cant remember when, the performance was more and more affected). RenX never again worked good as before.
I tried almost everything possible but could not get it run smoothly.

I was about to buy a gaming PC for my family, so I gave my Spec 2 away and buy for me Spec 1.
My friend decided to buy a new PC too as he like to play games and he likes RenX. He purchased Spec 3.
He is so upset, bcs he cannot enjoy playing RenX.
It works only good up to 40 players but on full 64 servers, on most maps it doesn't. And he leaves, what else should he do ?

For the majority of time, on these 3 specs, RenX performs bad on any of the rigs I listed.

Due to the DDOS situation, we had a chance to play on 40-48 players cap and lower populated servers.
I can confirm that the game works much better at lower player limits than on 64.
Same goes for my friend.

So, for some players the game is fine and super @64, and for some it is very hard to play or it turns to be unplayable.
But I would not say that everything is fine and no need to fix something that is not broken ! 

Important: no such problems with other games !

Spec 1:
CPU i8700k
RAM 32 GB @3200 Hz CL 14
GPU 2080ti
Only SSD disks
2x27" Monitors 2560x1440p @144 Hz and @240 Hz

RenX performance:
- relative high FPS, depends on number of players and the duration of the match (at start it can be even >200, on full server load it is around 110)
- smooth at the beginning of the map but not for long, after 10 min fps drops and the longer you play the less you get and the hitching get worse
- @64 players terrible to play, fps hitching and drops, massive input lag, hit detection problems, stutter, like the whole fps flow is desynchronized and delayed
- @40 players it performs way better and with much less issues

For comparison other games:
- any other FPS game I own works perfect, e.g. Overwatch can run at constant 300 fps but it is capped to 240 to fit the refresh rate of my faster screen

Spec 2:
CPU i7700k
RAM 16GB @3000 Hz CL 16
GPU 1080ti
Only SSD disks
1x27" Monitor 1920x1080p @ 144Hz

RenX performance:
- experience same as above with even less fps

For comparison other games:
- any other FPS game works perfect, e.g. Overwatch can run at constant 240 fps but it is capped to 144 to fit the refresh rate of the screen

Spec 3:
CPU Ryzen 5 2600x
RAM 16 GB @2600Hz CL 18
GPU GTX 1060
Only SSD disks
1 Monitor 1920x1080p @60-70 Hz

RenX performance:
- at the beginning of the game 60-70 fps and is smooth
- smooth at the beginning of the map but not for long, after a while it starts to stutter and lose frames, the longer you play the worse it gets
- @64 players from the mid of the game till the end on most of the maps it is unplayable 
- @40 players it performs way better, it is playable and smooth with occasional spikes during large rushes

For comparison other games:
- no issues in Overwatch or CSGO or any other game, all run smooth at constant 60 fps

 

 

 

[Calvin]

Why would anyone that’s not a casual player want to play a game where they get 30fps on maps like Eyes - hourglass - lakeside - under - walls. 

When they can get 144 FPS constant FPS in apex legends or 200+ in overwatch? Or even in the newest call of duty over 90. I also have a 970 and a decent cpu I don’t get constant 60fps on 60 playerlimit even when I play on 800x600.

It blows my mind that people think it’s better with 64 players, even the devs keep saying its not supposed to be this high and I don’t understand the devs that they keep accepting it the game is SOOOO much better with 40 player anyone that plays since the closed beta would agree with me 

It not only effects the FPS but also the ping, people really need to stop thinking about what they like but what’s healthy for the game and to make it grow again renx was in its prime on a 40player limit and I’m sure a lot of players left when they suddenly got stutters FPS lags in the game when the 60player cap came around. Ffs a lot of people love this game but the performance for casuals and competitive players which you NEED to grow a game and keep it running are leaving because of it.

 

 

Edited April 13, 2020 by poi

[Guest Once Upon the time]

I know some ppl who stopped completly because of 64 player ;).

The facts are clear to everyone: btw, Hande and Ex-member explained it well.
UE 3 is not the best base for games (performance-related).
Maps: Few offer a reasonable base for 64 players
Players: Many new players no longer know the gameplay as it was with 40 players.
Game changes: yes, the game has changed by adding certain new things (such as Commander Mode and VP). But that doesn't mean that you can't play it with a smaller number of players.
Fun fact: Some people write on behalf of the entire community, even though they are only part of it. There are some who think that way and there are others who think completely differently.
The desired screenshots are posted to support arguments, whereby other things are consciously or unconsciously not mentioned. During the Ddos attack, some played on a small server for several hours (up to 20 players, max server players) until Ddos ended it. So that means there are also players who have no problem with it.
For years, Saturday has been the day (due to PUG, compliments) where 2 servers are usually fully occupied, so nothing new.
Server owners introduced the increased number of players, Devs didn't like it very much but accepted it. Now they have a problem where they are guilty of it,too.

Stay healthy ;)

 

[Tommy]

10 hours ago, Tytonium said:

If your computer can't handle RenX at 64 players, I can't imagine it plays any game well. If you really want to game as a hobby you should give serious consideration to upgrading some of your specs. It isn't crazily expensive to get a rig going that will run this game fine. Just invest a couple hundred and you'll be able to do a ton of crazy things on your computer. Hit up newegg.com if you want to upgrade some aspects of your rig.

I've been playing this game since Beta 2 at the beginning of 2014 and been playing on GTX560 Ti (midrange GPU from 2011) + Intel Core i5-3570 everything maxed out and it ran smooth (60+ FPS). Later I upgraded to a 1060 and later also upgraded the CPU to an Ryzen 5 2600x, which has more single and multi core power than the i5. And guess what? Performance has improved 0%. Why? Cause you simply can't improve it at 64 players. Most of the time I'm still at 60-70 FPS but it fluctuates a lot more and often below 60 FPS. 40 players definetely was the smoothest experience. If you look at other games even with official UE3 licenses which allows modification of the engine's source code you won't find that many games which allows higher playercounts.

Not to mention that 64 players servers are also pretty expensive to have powerful enough hardware to run without lags and high pings for everyone, which isn't attractive for potential server hosters either.

Edited April 13, 2020 by Cynthia

[Jenzuj]

18 minutes ago, Cynthia said:

 If you look at other games even with official UE3 licenses which allows modification of the engine's source code you won't find that many games which allows higher playercounts.

Thats is not true, like at all.

[ex_member]

34 minutes ago, Jenzuj said:

Thats is not true, like at all.

You can pick parts out of the context but you cannot make the whole picture disappear !

It does not change the fact that there are problems of different nature in RenX that got introduced with 64 player count ! 

[Jenzuj]

10 minutes ago, ex_member said:

You can pick parts out of the context but you cannot make the whole picture disappear !

It does not change the fact that there are problems of different nature in RenX that got introduced with 64 player count ! 

have i really tried to do that? no, pointed out a false statement. Whats up with peeps here that cant see that?

This thread doesnt change the fact that there is games that runs with 64 players on both UDK and UE3 just fine.
Dont use the engine as an scapegoat.
Lack of budget, ye fine that is indeed a valid point, use it.
Lack of manpower, yep that is indeed again a valid point, use it.

[roweboat]

Personally I think at 64 player count, this FPS-RTS hybrid loses most of it's strategy and just becomes an FPS slaughter fest.

Lower player caps allow for more strategy and more clever planning. 

Heck one of the best matches I played in recent memory was about 15v15.

NOT every point of the map should be covered at every second. It can be alot more thrilling.

And lonely? I don't buy that, if the map is that big. It should have wide open spaces. 

Not every renx experience should be a clusterf*ck like Snow.

[Tytonium]

2 hours ago, roweboat said:

Personally I think at 64 player count, this FPS-RTS hybrid loses most of it's strategy and just becomes an FPS slaughter fest.

Lower player caps allow for more strategy and more clever planning. 

Heck one of the best matches I played in recent memory was about 15v15.

NOT every point of the map should be covered at every second. It can be alot more thrilling.

And lonely? I don't buy that, if the map is that big. It should have wide open spaces. 

Not every renx experience should be a clusterf*ck like Snow.

On small maps I completely agree with you. That's why you will see me screaming and going ape-shit on the voting screen whenever I see Field match #46765 being voted for by 64 players.

But what about a map like daybreak? Or deso, eyes, steppe, or even Field X to some extent? Surely you find these matches to be much more enjoyable with a larger amount of players.

Having a server run with 64 players would give the people who want large all out matches what they want. It will also give those who desire smaller matches what the want at the beginning and later times of the server throughout the day when it begins populating and when it starts losing people to the night. On weekdays smaller matches are more commonplace anyways because of the smaller amount of players going at it.

I think the RTS style of game-play can always be present if both teams have voted a good commander, no matter the player count. Unless it's 64 Snow, then proceed to bash keyboard into face repeatedly.

[kira]

all those people who say "udk\ue3 is old and weak , the devs should port it to new engine " 

 
you are all wellcom to try it your self, just even make a simple multiplayer game, i dare you.

 

im pretty sure the dev team are busy already already with their infinite tasks on their schedule along with bugs in game and RL matters.

every information about UDK ,UE4 is available on the big white web ,  you got in the community professionals in variety of stuff\topics (what ever that word is) and for free or cheap price (udemy ,lynda and such ).   recently i found very good tutorials on UE4 C++ topic and im enjoying it because I love coding, maybe you like something else.
so pick up the god damm glove and start on your own private time to get to know those tools which help to develop the game,  
or port it to a new engine.

again i suggest limiting to 56-58 players for better ping and perfromance and gameplay.

 

 

Edited April 13, 2020 by kira

[Handepsilon]

Pretty sure nobody was saying that,  Kira. Everyone just said to lower the playercap

 

I can live with 56 tho,  maybe

 

PS : Eyes felt fine at 40 for me,  so I dunno what you're talking about

[Calvin]

Every map on 40 player count feels completely fine they just don’t want to adapt to the so called “less action” player count anymore ~ 

I hope the devs/server owners are finally just gonna work on the game performance instead of what a couple people want.

Edited April 14, 2020 by poi

[JoeBrogan7]

6 hours ago, poi said:

I hope the devs/server owners are finally just gonna work on the game performance instead of what a couple people want.

Interesting choice of words. Take a poll in-game and see what players prefer. The last few that were taken that I can remember, most players voted for >40.

According to this poll, people who prefer 40 players or less is at 49%. So your position isn't even in the clear majority. Calling our position "a couple people" is misleading at best.

[Calvin]

1 hour ago, JoeBrogan7 said:

Interesting choice of words. Take a poll in-game and see what players prefer. The last few that were taken that I can remember, most players voted for >40.

According to this poll, people who prefer 40 players or less is at 49%. So your position isn't even in the clear majority. Calling our position "a couple people" is misleading at best.

I don't take polls seriously ingame, i know that a lot of people just press f1 for the lols.

I know there are more people. but certainly not the majority and the 40 player supporters mostly already left the game ~ 

[roweboat]

@Tytonium respectfully, I still feel, if a map is made extra large and open (daybreak, outposts, eyes, etc) they should remain that way. 

With large player counts basically all maps play the same. 

Without going into details, I feel as the player match ups get above 20 v 20, the game play experience gets watered down, so to speak.

 

I mean it would be great if we simply had enough players to cater to everyone's tastes, but at the moment we really don't.

Like back in the day when both Marathon and Timed matches were readily available. Sometimes it was great knowing I could go in to a match and not give a care when it would end or how it would end... or other times... beating the other team by 100 points when the timer hit zero. What a thrill =D

[JoeBrogan7]

2 minutes ago, poi said:

I know there are more people. but certainly not the majority and the 40 player supporters mostly already left the game ~ 

It's about a 50/50 split according to the poll I linked. So ≤ 40 isn't a majority, either. That was my point. So to say something like "devs should focus on x instead of placating a couple of players" is a bit disingenuous and dismissive, and ignores the reality that the community is quite evenly split on the issue.