SERVER ADMINS: 32 or 48 slots please, not 64!

[brain]

This game can't handle 64 players - hit registration gets noticeably worse and framerates drop across the board. Think your performance is bad and hitreg sucks? Join a 32 man server and be amazed at how both improve.

In addition, the maps simply aren't made for 64 players. TE-Barracks with 64 people is a giant cluster****, same goes for Grain Elevator. You'd be amazed how much more fun the game is with fewer people - the game is less campy, more teamwork-oriented, and you can actually pop your head up without getting sniped. The only map we've seen so far that can handle 64 players is maybe Fallen Fighters on TE, and that is ignoring server/lag issues.


64 player support has become a big selling point as it is a uniquely "PC" feature that has been cut out time and time again by recent console ports... But that doesn't mean we should diminish our game experience by pushing the engine beyond its limits. Just because we can doesn't mean we should - RO's maps and netcode were clearly designed for fewer than 64 people. PLEASE lower your servers to 32 or 48 capacity, everyone will have more fun (and you might save some money!).

 

[Kenobi]

50 cap please... Worked fine in RO1, works great in RO2.

 

[Dest]

I'm only doing 64p yo!

 

[HLudwig]

Sorry, but we need 64 slots for the bigger custom maps that are in the works.

If you don't like the maps then by all means create your own. What do you think the UDK is for?

 

[Hillstorm]

I agree with OP, I wish there were at least a few more servers that capped at fewer players, 32, 40, whatever. Not only do they run smoother, but sometimes I'm just not in the mood for a crowd.

 

[BigMorgan]

Sorry, but we need 64 slots for the bigger custom maps that are in the works.

This will be great, as I do feel TWI has (smartly) balanced their maps for roughly 32-40 players.

However, the hardware requirements for a 64-slot are steep. I think I remember the devs stating somewhere they tested for 64-slots on a server with a Xeon E3-1270 overclocked to 4.4ghz.

So if you can afford it, enjoy it. :IS2:

 

[Wodin]

The game plays at a slower pace with less players...64 is to many...between 32 and 50 is about right....64 players on say the Apartments is instakill....not sure if thats a word..but I like it.

 

[drjoez]

I was thinking the same thing last night as I was server browsing. The game runs just fine on my machine with medium settings. When I play in a 64 player server just as the OP stated the hit detection gets worse and the game just becomes less fun. I guess like most people I will find my dozen or so servers that have the settings/size I want eventually and add them to my favorites.

 

[Kenobi]

Sorry, but we need 64 slots for the bigger custom maps that are in the works.

If you don't like the maps then by all means create your own. What do you think the UDK is for?

We had much larger maps in RO1 with 50 slots that worked perfectly fine. RO:II performance requirements is insane at 64 slot, especially when the larger maps are released.

 

[HLudwig]

Once again, let the map makers decide the optimal number. I can tell you right now that a lot of the RO1 map portsand custom maps are too small for anything under 64. I honestly don't like people dictating to me how I should play the game.

 

[hockeywarrior]

Sorry, but we need 64 slots for the bigger custom maps that are in the works.

If you don't like the maps then by all means create your own. What do you think the UDK is for?

He's not saying to remove the 64 player limit from the game ... that would be stupid. He's simply asking server admins who are running STOCK MAPS to lower the player counts in order to provide a better experience.

Undoubtedly there will EVENTUALLY be custom maps that work great with 64 players, and that limit should be kept in the game for people to use for those maps. All the OP is saying is that the current stock maps don't play well with 64 players and I whole-heartedly agree with him.

Going from 64 to 32 players was a breath of fresh air and played like a totally different game when I was Ro2ing yesterday. I actually manage to stay alive more than 20 seconds, and that's taking into account that I've been playing RO in one form or another since 2003. The game is just too damn spammy with so many players on such relatively small maps. All forms of teamwork completely break down, and Territory games completely dissolve into TDM with optional objectives, which I know isn't the developer's intent.

 

[NightriderAOF]

64 player games can be really, really fun when people cooperate. Unfortunately it does take a good PC to run them well, which is why I limit myself to 32 or 40 player servers. I imagine they'll be a little less resource intensive after the optimization patches, but still, don't expect to get very good frame-rates on those servers with an old dual core processor.

And it's been said before, you can always learn to make your own maps if you prefer smaller ones.

 

[Sheps]

Yep. I'm playing in strictly 55 player or less servers. 64 player servers are unbearable.

 

[BigMorgan]

Once again, let the map makers decide the optimal number. I can tell you right now that a lot of the RO1 map portsand custom maps are too small for anything under 64. I honestly don't like people dictating to me how I should play the game.

The hardware requirements for 64 players are, basically, that you need a top-of-the-line, 2011 Intel Xeon chip. Or to rent one.

The OP is just asking admins to set up their servers to match their hardware.

 

[NightriderAOF]

We had much larger maps in RO1 with 50 slots that worked perfectly fine. RO:II performance requirements is insane at 64 slot, especially when the larger maps are released.

Well, yeah. RO1 ran off Unreal 2.5 and wasn't nearly as resource intensive. But if you've got modern hardware then 64 player servers shouldn't be much of a strain.

 

[Oo.k.]

64 Players server are awesome, it's really good for this type of game when you can hear all the guns cracking, echo, people yelling left and right... bullets whizzing. The sounds in this game are amazing. I wouldn't play on anything lower than 50, it kills the mood for the game and the WW2 setting.


You have the choice to play on what server you want, don't spoil it for others.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

The hardware requirements for 64 players are, basically, that you need a top-of-the-line, 2011 Intel Xeon chip. Or to rent one.

The OP is just asking admins to set up their servers to match their hardware.

^^^^ This

I think many server admins have too many slots for the hardware they are running and should scale accordingly.

 

[XAAL]

I don't want to play anything else than 64 players. Upgrade your hardware.

 

[Mr_Cossack]

Matter of opinion and hardware, i personally like 64 player servers.

 

[Vyllis]

Assaulting a grain elevator full of 32 Russians is just an awesome immersion moment, sorry.