Question on the Official Epic Servers

[Aemi]

Why don't the Official Epic Servers support the maximum amount of players, which I think is 32.

Or why aren't there different sizes?

Like the 24 player Vehicle CTF server and a 32 player one ?

[Nightmare85]

Because 32 players are not suitable for any game mode.
I don't know how long you've been playing but 32P and vCTF simply don't match.
It's a massacre, most times not tactics at all especially if the server uses the Titan mod.
32 players are perfect for Warfare, however, not for every map.
Playing Sinkhole or Market District with 32 players is also pretty senseless.

I think even 24 players could sometimes be too many for vCTF.
Long time ago, I played on a vCTF server with 16 players.
Great matches!!
So don't think the more players the better.
It depends on the gamemode and on the maps.

Cheers!

[Aemi]

Because 32 players are not suitable for any game mode.
I don't know how long you've been playing but 32P and vCTF simply don't match.
It's a massacre, most times not tactics at all especially if the server uses the Titan mod.
32 players are perfect for Warfare, however, not for every map.
Playing Sinkhole or Market District with 32 players is also pretty senseless.

I think even 24 players could sometimes be too many for vCTF.
Long time ago, I played on a vCTF server with 16 players.
Great matches!!
So don't think the more players the better.
It depends on the gamemode and on the maps.

Cheers!

Sinkhole is no fun with any amount of players. Market District is fun with any amount in my opinion. Also some people like a massacre. I think it depends on the person.

[azurescorch]

I have to make an echo and repeat, because 32 players are not suitable for any game mode.

Half the time you get killed by a rocket that wasn't even aimed at you. I've lost count of the amount of times on 32-player servers I've fired at some one and missed only to kill some one I didn't even see.

[Nightmare85]

Aemi, it does not even depend on the person.
Whenever you have the chance, try to play a match with an amount of around 12 players.
You will see that those matches are the most interesing matches.
Those people, who like massacres, can play DeathMatch.
Even there, there is no need of a huge amount of players since you can shoot whatever you see.

Just try it, play any matches with less players and say if you really want 32p servers anymore.

I'm not the only one who is fascinated of the small player matches.
Most times, the other players also write that is was a great match.
No trace of this after playing on huge servers - most of the matches aren't as nice as the other I mentioned.

And especially on vCTF: What do you want with 16 players per team?
On some maps you cannot even touch the enemy flag because 8 players or more are camping near the flag.
Yes of course it's possible, but I think it's not the sense of this mode to play with that many players.

Cheers!

[demoniac]

Whenever you have the chance, try to play a match with an amount of around 12 players.

Yeah, why haven't you joined #mpukut3.warfare on quakenet yet to play 5vs5 pugs?

[Nightmare85]

I will remember this, mate

Cheers

[oldkawman1]

In my experience, all servers start to get lag with more than 20 players. Not enough cpu or network bandwidth for this game to run right.

Maybe if they dedicated more resources per server it would be OK with more players. But, these places make more money if they run more servers per cpu than the other way around. Cheap servers = **** performance.

So, even if the server had the resources, most maps are too small and not designed with that many players in mind. Sure some maps can handle more players than others. Now what kinda match would you have with 32 players on a DM map? Even most, if not all, stock WAR maps are too small for 32 players. Large custom WAR maps can handle more players because there are more places to attack/defend and keep the players separated so you do not simultaneously have 10 players shooting the core on Torlan, while 4 mantas are doing the spawn rape dance and the spma and goliath score ultra and mega kill over and over.

I remember the 64 player WAR servers. They only had certain maps Tank Crossing, Sink Hole, Market place, and Serenity are the maps I remember. There is a reason those servers only lasted a short time. If you played on them you know why. Tank Crossing is bad enough with 24 players, but 32 or 64, it's just plain silly.

[Venom2001]

In my experience, all servers start to get lag with more than 20 players. Not enough cpu or network bandwidth for this game to run right.

Maybe if they dedicated more resources per server it would be OK with more players. But, these places make more money if they run more servers per cpu than the other way around. Cheap servers = **** performance.

So, even if the server had the resources, most maps are too small and not designed with that many players in mind. Sure some maps can handle more players than others. Now what kinda match would you have with 32 players on a DM map? Even most, if not all, stock WAR maps are too small for 32 players. Large custom WAR maps can handle more players because there are more places to attack/defend and keep the players separated so you do not simultaneously have 10 players shooting the core on Torlan, while 4 mantas are doing the spawn rape dance and the spma and goliath score ultra and mega kill over and over.

I remember the 64 player WAR servers. They only had certain maps Tank Crossing, Sink Hole, Market place, and Serenity are the maps I remember. There is a reason those servers only lasted a short time. If you played on them you know why. Tank Crossing is bad enough with 24 players, but 32 or 64, it's just plain silly.

Agreed, Dedicated Servers for the Win..My server never goes above 9% Cpu with 22 Players @ 80 Tick On VCTF, War is defiantly more CPU intensive. Buying servers from Gameservers etc sucks Been there done that. They Oversell everything and Pack as Much as they can on 1 Box therefore killing your gameplay.

[r4du1234]

besides the servers being crowded, it's also because they lag at so many players. even if torlan, for example, is big enough to accomodate 32 players pretty well, it's a big map + a big amount of players = gigantic pings and a failed game.

so crowded+lagy, these are the 2 reasons.

about the crowded thing, it can sometimes be fun to let yourself carrier away by the rush of adrenaline and jump right in the heat of battle with an orb, dodgeing the rockets, cores, link plasma, flak shards that fly everywhere just barely missing you, while approaching your target, evade the paladin core so close to turning you to jibs, then agilely escaping from the combo of doom while laughing in the face of the shadow assassin that failed at stopping you, evading the last couple of meters made of a dangerous mix of projectiles and capping to your opponents tragedy and distress while you team mates come from behind like an avalanche eliminating the last of the fools that dared to stand against you....when a deemer from an opponent hits the node you just captured, you lose it, all your team mates die and you have to start again ¬.¬ ...aaah

about Sinkhole, that map might be the only one where crowded is acutally better. i truly belive it was made for intense fighting and a big amount of players because the map just sucks with a not so big number of players, and becomes a ****load of fun when fairly crowded(not exagerated of course, more than 16 vs 16 is just tooo much).

so, crowded has it's benefits, but the best are still 24 players servers.

i have to go now dammit.

[«MechikTåj»]

...10 players shooting the core on Torlan, while 4 mantas are doing the spawn rape dance and the spma and goliath score ultra and mega kill over and over.

Ahh the UT2k4 demo servers... good times, good times.

And yeah, I'd say lag is the main reason why servers shouldn't have a 32 player limit. But that's the only reason. I loved 32 player Onslaught with humongous maps as well as Spambox.

[Pemphigus]

PP don t learn playing on 32 server....... it s just spamming. When u try to do something u re all the time 1vs3-4-5or more i like difficulties but sometimes it s impossible cause they are all spamming with roquet and minigun.....
But i ve some fun moment too(or i ve to stop playing) expecialy when there s some pp who know play this game. So as long there s decent player pub isn t dead

[BlueCloud]

besides the servers being crowded, it's also because they lag at so many players. even if torlan, for example, is big enough to accomodate 32 players pretty well, it's a big map + a big amount of players = gigantic pings and a failed game.

so crowded+lagy, these are the 2 reasons.

In my experience, all servers start to get lag with more than 20 players. Not enough cpu or network bandwidth for this game to run right.

Maybe if they dedicated more resources per server it would be OK with more players. But, these places make more money if they run more servers per cpu than the other way around. Cheap servers = **** performance.

In my server admin experience, it's the server CPU lag for Warfare more than network bandwidth issues. And it's not just server providers that are to blame, ONS didn't have such CPU requirements(and other games out there don't have such insane server CPU usage). ONS on idle takes 0% CPU but Warfare servers take 8 to 9% when no players are playing. You need a dedicated fast server to go above 16 players which is very expensive to operate/rent in a data center environment. Epic needs to fix the server CPU lag issue for Warfare and we can easily have fun with 32 player matches on Torlan.

[Ultron]

I am still a big fan of 32 players on some maps, and gametypes - as it can make for a war of attrition. That said, it's rare that I've seen that with UT3.