it's too bad Ramm goofed up on the pol. if he just gave us two choices, i think the 50 player server would have won out. i hope he thinks about that when he makes his decision.
Upvote
0
it's too bad Ramm goofed up on the pol. if he just gave us two choices, i think the 50 player server would have won out. i hope he thinks about that when he makes his decision.
Actually, reducing the player count has 168 votes overall, where's keeping it only has 140.
So that's 54,55% for reducing and 45,45% for keeping
Which means the majority of people who voted want to have reduced player counts
The thing is, if some server operator doesn't have a good enough server, but still goes for 64 players even though he knows, his server can't handle it. This results in players either not playing at all and maybe bashing on the one who hosts it OR they come to the forums and bash on the devs for not having a 64 player support (even though a majority of servers can run 64 players fine)
Just my 2 cents
As a person who is admin to two servers at the moment, I'd say leave it alone for the server admins to judge. A good admin can determine if he is driving a server too hard and pull back accordingly. The players will let him know soon enough if he doesn't. Most issues are tied up in either low-budget broadband or unrealistic hardware expectations loaded on old systems. I love the fact that the server software is being optimised for a fifty player count, but for heavens sake, don't drive us into a one-size-fits-all cage by threatening to diminish ranking to 50.
I would probably quit the game completely because it would give me an entire different idea of "problem solving" by TWI.
I would say leave it as is.
Put a disclaimer that Tripwire recommends up to 50 players.
Beyond 50 players, server admins must run the highest end cpu hardware.
I say this because I have not seen any issue with 2fgj server and they are always full @ 64 players.
But besides that, I don't mind the cap at 50.