How many people will be able to be on a server at once?

[Nezzer]

i remember a couple weeks ago i was talking with zets about something and i remember the concept of maps having sectors. depending on how many players are in the game, maps could balance to unlock portions of the map to have the right amound of space for the right amount of players. idealy i'd like to have the majority of the maps be designed to work around 32-40 players in pub play so that they could work for 16-24 players in clan play. however, some nice large CA maps for 64 player pub matches, those would be fun.

Great idea. Like Battlefield 2, with 16 players-size, 32 players-size and 64 players-size maps, but changing size according to the number of players. Something I have in mind is a large urban map like Gorlitz in ROOST but with more than one respawn point so the forces would be divided in groups, which would be organised automatically by the server. The more the players the more the sectors. That way it wouldn't be boring to play with only 16 players.

 

[Pvt.Skoko]

I'm thinking as many people online at once as possible, and too avoid the congestion of close quarters combat the map sectioning idea would work so one half of each time would fight in differant sectors to divide the fight.

 

[Apos]

So far what we could see on the video footage of RO2 that number of players isn't huge. I know it was single player but map probably will be the same for multiplayer. What we could noticed there was medium building with the cap zone inside next to the railroad station. Spawn point on both sides. In my opition that map is for 8 vs 8 or 12 vs 12 players. For 30+ players it might be too crowded.

Its too soon to jugde. I think TWI still hardworking on gamecode and they probably still don't know what they put into game. Its TWIs first big project and first contact with Unreal 3.X engine.

 

[Capt.Cool]

I really hope we see some maps with at least 64 players!

 

[Zetsumei]

i would like the ability for mappers to open sections of a map based on playernumbers and put more randomity in maps. However it shouldnt become more than an option to use. And those that prefer should just focus on one certain player amount.

As maps that try to please all ranges of player amounts probably wont pleasy any players at all. Sometimes focus is better.

 

[Hartsock]

Please don

 

[EvilHobo]

The problem with a lot of large maps is that they tend to feel empty even with a high amount of players. Maps shouldn't just be able to accommodate a large population, but should also reflect a proper troop density to add to the believability of the scenario. Smaller sized maps can work as long as they are designed well.

 

[RiccardoTheBeAst]

i think that 64 players are good for the RO's big maps.......someone said: no, no 64 no, with 64 players the server will lags etc......but, wait.

RO:OST can easily support 50 players, i think that wont be a problem if the players will be increased to 64......for PS3 came out a multiplayer game with 256 players for each server (4 teams, 64 men each team) and the game doesn't lag......

 

[Zetsumei]

It depends on implementation. For me most 50 player servers are close to unplayable. (its not my fps as i got solid 90fps). But its like bullets dissapearing sometimes (no packetloss and 50ms ping).

Remember that in ROHOS you have a lot more to calculate than in a lot of other games, a really close fitting hitzone, different hit areas, penetration, bullet drop and bullet speed, realistic rate of fire (1200bpm actual firerate for the mg42).
Stuff like that can increase the serverload, and different engines have a different net code.

64+ players could be a possibility due to multithreading of UE3 but it would need to be thoroughly tested. And its better to have the player cap at a rate that most servers can support, rather than having loads of underperforming ****ty servers.

 

[Floyd]

It depends on implementation. For me most 50 player servers are close to unplayable. (its not my fps as i got solid 90fps). But its like bullets dissapearing sometimes (no packetloss and 50ms ping).

Remember that in ROHOS you have a lot more to calculate than in a lot of other games, a really close fitting hitzone, different hit areas, penetration, bullet drop and bullet speed, realistic rate of fire (1200bpm actual firerate for the mg42).
Stuff like that can increase the serverload, and different engines have a different net code.

64+ players could be a possibility due to multithreading of UE3 but it would need to be thoroughly tested. And its better to have the player cap at a rate that most servers can support, rather than having loads of underperforming ****ty servers.

+1
Even on some of the current 24-36 man servers there are often rounds that vaporize and disappear into thin air. Game Server Providers are in it for the money. Often times one's purchased fps "server" will end up on a box that quickly becomes over taxed as the other games on it become active.

 

[Capt.Cool]

RO:OST can easily support 50 players, i think that wont be a problem if the players will be increased to 64......for PS3 came out a multiplayer game with 256 players for each server (4 teams, 64 men each team) and the game doesn't lag......

whats the name of that Ps3 game?

 

[Xendance]

whats the name of that ps3 game?

mag.

 

[-[SiN]-bswearer]

+1
Even on some of the current 24-36 man servers there are often rounds that vaporize and disappear into thin air. Game Server Providers are in it for the money. Often times one's purchased fps "server" will end up on a box that quickly becomes over taxed as the other games on it become active.

yeah and gameservers almost has a monopoly on the server market....i've also seen when they move server locations and the hassle it can cause, but i can understand from a business standpoint why they do it. of course that's the risk you take when your paying a 3rd party for hosting.

thing is gameservers doesn't support 50 player servers and when those couple 64 player servers were up, i can gaurantee you it wasn't gameservers. they only go up as far as 40 players. that said i've really never had any bad experiences on any of their servers so long as it was under 40 players. i forget the name of the company that hosts the 50player and 64player servers....oh no wait i think it's "art of war" or something like that, if Jim Miller sees this he'd know.

a prime example of 50player server lagfest is the 29th DH company server. i believe it's based in NY but my ping from USA westcoast is around 160-190, whereas i can connect to every other 40player or less NY server at around 110-120. not saying that server/organization is a bad or anything, it's just typically really laggy, due to the server hosting, the ammount of players etc...

if hosting companies can support 64 players without excessive lag, it would be great to see some large CA maps like a berezina in HOS for 64 players.

 

[NoxNoctum]

64 limit would be nice.

I don't know what's going on with you Zetsumei but I've never had packet loss problems or anything of the sort and I've played RO almost since it came out, and most of that time spent on the 50 player servers.

A couple of those years were spent in North Africa too so you must have a REALLY bad internet connection

I certainly hope they don't limit the number to something less just because some people machines/ISPs can't handle it.

 

[Lucan946]

So far what we could see on the video footage of RO2 that number of players isn't huge. I know it was single player but map probably will be the same for multiplayer. What we could noticed there was medium building with the cap zone inside next to the railroad station. Spawn point on both sides. In my opition that map is for 8 vs 8 or 12 vs 12 players. For 30+ players it might be too crowded.

Its too soon to jugde. I think TWI still hardworking on gamecode and they probably still don't know what they put into game. Its TWIs first big project and first contact with Unreal 3.X engine.

Yes, because if there were any people in the server at all during the video, that means it was full! :downs:

 

[WickedPenguin]

I do remember back in the Mod days there was a update mappack called Summer Offensive and it included a enormously large map called "RO-Perekop". Some friends and me decided to discover the map by foot! We were walking - nonstop - still it took us 45 min to get from one end of the map to the other end. Sadly the map came out so shortly before the mod was succeeded by Ostfront and it was never really ported.
If a map at this size is set up for RO 2 please get at least 64 out there, otherwise it will be a real run around in order to find one enemy to shoot at.

Thank you for bringing up that amazing map, a true piece of RO history. Koetje did an incredible job recreating a real world peninsula on a 1:2 scale, based on accurate maps from the period. Unlike most RO maps, where you're fighting on a single front line, Perekop had three or four front lines throughout the entire map. It even had a train line running through it.

Think RO-Berezina, but about 5 or 10 times larger, and you might start approaching the scale of this map. Don't know if Koetje is still around, but that map of his was ahead of its time. Phenomenal piece of work.

And what you say is true: the map was too large for a mere 32 people. 50 may have been a much better experience, but we'll never know now.

 

[Moyako]

I've never had packet loss problems or anything of the sort and I've played RO almost since it came out

Well, I've played RO for years too, and packet loss was a common issue for me (about once a week). The problem was worse in TWB servers... sometimes made the game unplayable for me. Once I asked my cousin [Vzla]Vassili to stay in front of my and I spent the whole clip on him and nothing happened

 

[Zetsumei]

I don't know what's going on with you Zetsumei but I've never had packet loss problems or anything of the sort and I've played RO almost since it came out, and most of that time spent on the 50 player servers.

Thing is it wasn't packetloss or net related at all (if it would be net related it would actually state packetloss). Its more like a similar effect to packetloss, as if the calculations and the handling of the packets go incorrectly.