QW's Player Limit fixed

(kamikazee) #21

I think this needs performance testing to see if the increase has a negative effect on server hosting 24 slots. So 32 sounds reasonable for an initial release, though maybe it could be raised to 48 without too much loss of performance. (Nobody has said 48 but I just mention it to suggest a new value.)

I think though that by the time an update is due, we’ll have stronger servers able to handle 64 players. (Without crashing, that is. Don’t tell me it won’t lag.) So when updating, this value could as well be increased to 64 if servers don’t go belly-up when hosting only 24 slots.

(B0rsuk) #22

This is like saying that xp shouldn’t reset after 3 maps.

(space) #23

I would say you have to assume that for competition the game will be 6v6. Not many games are successful in competition that have more.

It would be interesting if the maps supported different player sizes specifically (a la Area 51) so you play a smaller version of the same map 6v6 then you would 12v12.

(SCDS_reyalP) #24

In RTCW / ET style gameplay (which from all accounts, ET:QW resembles) map size isn’t as much of an issue as you might expect. Combat remains focused on specific points regardless of how big the maps are. A huge ET map like mlb_temple may not be ideally suited for 3v3, but it still works far better than a BF2 64 player map would with so few players.

BF2 needs different maps for different player numbers because the objectives are strewn all over the maps, and there are more of them on the larger versions.

(carnage) #25

I would say you have to assume that for competition the game will be 6v6. Not many games are successful in competition that have more.

It would be interesting if the maps supported different player sizes specifically (a la Area 51) so you play a smaller version of the same map 6v6 then you would 12v12.[/quote]

although i am not a developer i cant say 99.99999% certain that maps will not change size based on how many players are present. if you look at the maps the wya you have to progress capturing territories as you go to reach the final objective i cant see any easy way to make them shorter.

it has been said that there have been fun 6v6 and smaller matches played as well as Todd Holstead saying that they would like the game to be good for competition play because of the rather unique teams and way the game plays. also clans have been recruited for a beta test perhaps to test how well the game plays in the sort of competition environments that could happen. And if we are lucks perhaps a QWpro mod?

(Kendle) #26

Valve capped DOD:Source to 32 max. for a similar reason, except they weren’t so much concerned with the Source engine not being able to handle >32 but with the maps not being playable beyond 32. But the thinking was the same, if they allowed the game to be played beyond it’s intended limits players would blame the game rather than the server operators.

I think as it’s a retail product SD etc. have an obligation to cap player numbers at whatever they believe is viable, regardless of whether anyone wants more and claims to be “OK” with whatever the consequences may be.

(einer) #27

24 + 4 for example, so that the server won’t fall to fast under 24. I don’t know if 32 is really needed. But no way more than 32!

(**MJ**) #28

from my experience of online gaming i recommend the devs to ship the game with 40 to 46 slots max.

(Ifurita) #29

And your experience would be what? Just trying to understand what your baseline is for the recommendation of 40-46 slots.

(Diecast5) #30

I would like to see more player in a server like 34 or 64 , the more you have I think would be more fun ! ! !

(carnage) #31

even if they allowed such higher numbers to be playable i expect it would be rare that servers would hold such large number of player slots and regularly fill to that capacity. as has been said extreme player number has been an interesting niche but hast rely gone to anything more

i think the main reason they would cap at 32 is because they can better optimize the game if they only ever need to account for max 32 players. if they had the option of allowing 64 players without effecting performance on games less than 32 players then i don’t see why they wouldn’t

(NoControl) #32

64+ players server would be insanely heavy for your pc, atleast i think it would be. 24 players for me is just fine.

(signofzeta) #33

I kind of find overcrowding gives defenders an edge based on Wolf ET experience. In ETQW, it may play out differently and I have yet to see if defenders have an edge in crowded servers.

(Nail) #34

big servers will nearly always give advantage to defenders in ET, you know where attackers are coming from, short spawn to objective runs, no need to plant, etc.

small servers…ya gotta think

(carnage) #35

big servers there is just too many people spamming to get though any choke points

(signofzeta) #36

I remember playing siwa oasis with 25 people per side. I was allies, there were 5 people in the old city tunnels, as you go down the ladder, you will definitely get shot. They were all medics too with the occasional field ops handing out ammo.

In the normal route, 20 people are guarding that place. Impossible to get past. You need a team of flamethrowers and panzerfausts.

I heard of some servers who disable flamethrower and panzerfaust, but is also a 50 person server with balanced teams. Those server rules ensures that the defense always wins. Which is kind of lame.

When such things happen, DEATHMATCH.

(murka) #37

well a team of fieldopts give support and all of 25 players are dead

(signofzeta) #38

true, not unless we allies have a team of dumb ass field ops.

I was field ops, try to throw airstrike or arty, the guy says too many airstrikes requested, or insufficient fire support.

Even if I get a chance to throw one, the 5 guys in the tunnels are useless, and the other 20 guys in the outdoor area is impossible to get to, because when they see blue smoke, they disperse, and quickly reform. I also can only kill a few vs all 20.

So if it is crowded at chokepoints, defenders always wins, with the occasional victory for the attackers around 10% of the time.

(murka) #39

well big servs should have big maps with much outdoor area, and maps must be designed that the attacher have an advantage(like respawn attacker:20 defender:30=

(signofzeta) #40

Well maybe I’m playing a pub server with spawn timers as 15 seconds each. I don’t find a game fun when you lose all the time. I find it totally fun when you win all the time, but I don’t mind the occasional loss, but when I lose all the time, I get very frustrated. Frustrated as in escape key german kid frustrated.

  1. I feel like a loser for joining the team that has a better chance of winning and not helping the losing team.

  2. If I joined the losing team, I get frustrated because I hate losing.

  3. If the tables have turned, and the losing team gets a really good member of the team, while the winning team loses their good member, then, if situations are brutal for the opposing team, I place ammo packs or med kits near the spawn so they can have a chance.

I remember in goldrush, I was axis, the time is around 5 minutes and they haven’t got past the second tank barrier. I was considering helping them, teams are already even and I can’t join the other team, or else it says allies has too many players. So I was considering giving them ammo, then I realized I might be kicked so I didn’t.

Games aren’t fun if you always lose, and if you don’t have a challenge.