Max Player Discussion

[Rutabeggar]

I would like to pose a question to the community, primarily those who run their own servers. Obviously this is the viewpoint of one player, but I would encourage others to weigh in on the matter.

I have noticed that many maps designed for FF are not designed with the 22 max player allowance in mind. Most maps have very cramped flag rooms and or bases in general. In most servers, CTF turns in to a OvD affair and combating an 11 man defense, half of which sits in the flag room is an impossible task. I was wondering why does it have to be a 22 max player allowance? Why not lower it to say...16? You could populate more servers, especially during peak hours, it would lower FPS lag problems in large large LARGE spammy DM battles, and it may be more conducive to the community selecting different servers to play on and populate. With this, you could even have specialty servers that play ADZ or AvD maps only, CTF only, or on a rotation. Anyway, just a suggestion I'd throw out there for discussion.

[cjeshjoir™]

I've been wondering why there aren't MORE slots. Hardcoding a 22 player limit seems weird as hell to me, especially on a 4 team map. 6/6/5/5? I'm sure this has been brought up before.

[Dravyck]

I've been thinking about this a lot recently, and seems like a really good idea. For the reasons stated above and from the stand point of a new player looking at his server browser and instead of seeing 2 or 3 servers, he sees 5 or 6. I think a small detail change like this would allow for better game play and an improvement to the community.

[GenghisTron]

CTF maps aren't really an appropriate map for a pub.

[Dr.Satan]

this is something I'm actually quite interested in...what do people think? Would lowering the servers to max 16player count so that maps are played how they were designed to be played "kill the game?" Or do you think it would be more fun?

[cjeshjoir™]

Originally Posted by Dr.Satan

this is something I'm actually quite interested in...what do people think? Would lowering the servers to max 16player count so that maps are played how they were designed to be played "kill the game?" Or do you think it would be more fun?

I'm speechless... Being restricted to playing with less people would kill the game for me.

I dream of massive matches with large teams battling relentlessly for one flag. Epic battles.

[Iggy]

My opinion is that the server operator should define how many slots are available. Map rotation should be adjusted accordingly, depending on how many people join in. 2fort is a bit small for 32 players, but fine with less. Larger maps would be fine with more players.

Maps are designed for different numbers of players. You can't really judge by grouping them all together.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by cjeshjoir™

I'm speechless... Being restricted to playing with less people would kill the game for me.

I dream of massive matches with large teams battling relentlessly for one flag. Epic battles.

I think we'd all like to see something like that in pubs, when in reality you have 6+ people sniping, 4-5 engies waiting for offense to enter their base, and the rest are mid-map/battlement DM'ing.

Which is why we should have more DM type maps with no objectives, other than to kill people. I think this type of gameplay is much more suitable for pub play than developing CTF maps that are poorly utilized.

[Dr.Satan]

Originally Posted by cjeshjoir™

I'm speechless... Being restricted to playing with less people would kill the game for me.

I dream of massive matches with large teams battling relentlessly for one flag. Epic battles.

See but that's not the question is it?

If it's a matter of a map like A1win's ff_hold, where it's meant to be a free for all to the flag. Then yeah I get what your saying...more is probably better. Murdeball is another example, that map is great as a spam fest map where the server is jam packed and everyone is hunting for the ball. But that is the exception...and even those maps aren't meant to be played with 22 people. But when you change the gametype to anything else, and have games that are meant to be played in a specific way by following specific objectives, once you pass approx. 16 players, you've pretty much broken the game type. Which then leads to new players joining a server and getting a broken experience of this game. Instead of experiencing the game how it was meant (read: designed) to be played...they get thrown into this jumble of explosions and confusion. And then they end up quitting. Even with the current player base, most maps are played broken and end up getting misplayed and then tossed aside b/c people's experience is bad.

Take genesis for example, that map even states in the loading screen that we designed it to be played with no more than 16 players. And yet day 1 of the release of 2.4 there were 22slot servers playing none other than genesis. And as a direct result of that, that map isn't played...b/c people played it in a broken state and had a bad experience with it.

I challenge you to find one map that was created with a 22 slot server in mind...b/c I can't. Every single map out there can handle probably about 16 players IMO w/out breaking the map...maybe 18 but definitely not 22.

But also I challenge you to think like a new player;

imagine being tossed into this game on a map like 2fort, where your first impression is the loading screen that says your to get the flag and return it to your base via the different routes. You join, pick your class (whatever seems logical to you), and you go.

Do you actually think that that new guy is going to stick around if his first impression is a wall of 11 guys defending the red base? Do you really think he/she is going to come back and play again if they can't even see the flag, much less actually get a cap and experience the CTF gameplay?

I know not everything hinges on the max server count, and I know that some people actually do enjoy that...but I think your the minority. And I think we loose a lot of players b/c they get put into something liek that and think this game was designed bad and is "shit."

[Gwarsbane]

I don't think forcing a lower number would be good, but allowing server owners to choose anywhere from 2 slots all the way up to the max amount is what should be done.

It shouldn't be up to the devs to dictate that only 16 people can play on a server because thats all the maps was designed for.

They should only tell server owners that they can only have 16, 20, 22, or what ever number because any more then that will cause massive lag and other problems. Course even then if the admins want to run more then that and have massive lag, then so be it.

If the server owner wants to run a map designed for 4 people on a server that has 22 slots open, then there shouldn't be anything stopping them.

I personally like having 22 people on a map (not some of the smaller maps like fight yard, though with 14 or 16 its not bad) but in general.


If the server is fun, it doesn't really matter how cramped the map is. A new person will stick around if they have fun. Even on maps like fight yard, which are clearly not meant to have 11 people on each team (more like 6) you can still have some fun if the group of people are fun people.

[Rutabeggar]

I am surprised with some of the responses in this thread. I think it is the responsibility of the server runners to provide the best environment possible for new/veteran gamers alike. However, I think that the developers have a responsibility to improve the gameplay throughout the community with the patches they introduce. Yes, max player size is set by the owners, but quality of the game resides with the developers. Unfortunately, this issue overlaps both the responsibility (in my eyes) of both the owners and developers.

I find that I have the same experience every time I play now. I join a pub, it's playing O-Fire, or Monkey, or something ridiculously too small for 22 people. I play offense for the first 5 minutes because I know the gettin' is good, if you will. After that, when the yard DMing or 11 people resign themselves to play defense, I too, resign myself to playing defense. I wonder how many new players actually see the other teams base, I guess it's fortunate for us that each base is a mirror of the other. This will be an interesting dichotomy between the competitive players and the pub regulars as well.

More so, I think that the mapping portion of the community should look to expand their horizons and think "big". Red giant, a TFC remake is a great example of a CTF map perfect for a 22 person server.

[squeek.]

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

Which is why we should have more DM type maps with no objectives, other than to kill people. I think this type of gameplay is much more suitable for pub play than developing CTF maps that are poorly utilized.

So remove the scout from the game?

FF is primarily about objectives. Plain and simple. If objectives aren't suitable for pub play, then we need to change pub play (because the game isn't going to turn into a DM game).

[zE]

limit servers to 16 slots, then tell server owners wich maps they are allowed to run then remove crowbars cuse crowbar death is lame.

[Scuzzy]

Make several smaller player count servers, prove the concept that it's a better playing environment that people want to enjoy. When you've proved the concept, then we'd be happy to change our servers. Until you prove that the playerbase will increase I would not support it and agree it will drive people away from the game.

The problem is no one wants to prove it and no one will try.

Scuzzy

[Rutabeggar]

I'm pretty sure that the majority of you are missing the point. This isn't about limiting the server owners to a certain player slot number, this is a dichotomy of what dictates a robust FF experiece. Large amounts of players on a small map, DMing it out or an objective based game, with smaller number of players, actually teaching people the objectives of the game. If it's a CTF map, it should be played as such. If it's an ADV/ADZ map, it should be played as such, correct? This is also a separate issue between classic maps, and new maps. Should they be larger? Are the maps being developed for the community suitable for the current 22 player server limit? You're missing the point. It isn't about taking anything away.

[zE]

imo thats all very relative, some small maps with 16 players = spam fest, some large maps with 14/1516 players like flare or redgiant are too big. But by other side i bet if ff had a 30 limit slot i bet would be 30 slots server around : p

[MonoXideAtWork]

Originally Posted by Rutabeggar

I'm pretty sure that the majority of you are missing the point. This isn't about limiting the server owners to a certain player slot number, this is a dichotomy of what dictates a robust FF experiece. Large amounts of players on a small map, DMing it out or an objective based game, with smaller number of players, actually teaching people the objectives of the game. If it's a CTF map, it should be played as such. If it's an ADV/ADZ map, it should be played as such, correct? This is also a separate issue between classic maps, and new maps. Should they be larger? Are the maps being developed for the community suitable for the current 22 player server limit? You're missing the point. It isn't about taking anything away.

I would feel cheated if my server was suddenly unable to support the amount of players that I was accustomed to. This is the same kind of thing that pissed off so many people about Modern Warfare 2. I don't feel the answer is in limiting the max players on the server.

I do realize that my server traffic would improve by the displaced players, but would still feel cheated that if I wanted to have a large playtest of a map, that I could not due to limitations imposed on me because the game isn't being played how it's "meant to."

[Rutabeggar]

Originally Posted by MonoXideAtWork

I would feel cheated if my server was suddenly unable to support the amount of players that I was accustomed to. This is the same kind of thing that pissed off so many people about Modern Warfare 2. I don't feel the answer is in limiting the max players on the server.

I do realize that my server traffic would improve by the displaced players, but would still feel cheated that if I wanted to have a large playtest of a map, that I could not due to limitations imposed on me because the game isn't being played how it's "meant to."

Shouldn't maps be designed with 22 players in mind? Correct me if im wrong, but most maps being played in pubs today can accomodate 22 people, but were intended for use in leagues. My point is map designers should look to create larger maps with the 22 player count in mind.

In regards to feeling cheated, do you not feel cheated when your server isn't typically populated during peak hours? Your are essentially paying for a server to test maps on and occasionally fill up with around 6 players.

And the game isn't playing how it was intended. You can't deny when you join a pub it is no longer an objective based game, but more of a DM game. HL2DM was made to be a DM game. FF is objective based, and the objectives are largely being ignored. Only when do you have a few experienced players on a server do objectives actually get accomplished. Once again, the point was missed. Lowering the player count is just an part of a larger conversation which is: Has FF lost it's objective based gameplay due to maps that don't promote 22 players collectively pursuing objectives?

[MonoXideAtWork]

Originally Posted by Rutabeggar

Shouldn't maps be designed with 22 players in mind? Correct me if im wrong, but most maps being played in pubs today can accomodate 22 people, but were intended for use in leagues. My point is map designers should look to create larger maps with the 22 player count in mind.

I don't dispute this at all.

Originally Posted by Rutabeggar

In regards to feeling cheated, do you not feel cheated when your server isn't typically populated during peak hours? Your are essentially paying for a server to test maps on and occasionally fill up with around 6 players.

Because I don't pay for a server to provide play space for public players. And yes, I am paying for a server to test maps, practice with the team, and other private functions. If I want to play dm_squeek, I do.

Originally Posted by Rutabeggar

And the game isn't playing how it was intended. You can't deny when you join a pub it is no longer an objective based game, but more of a DM game. HL2DM was made to be a DM game. FF is objective based, and the objectives are largely being ignored. Only when do you have a few experienced players on a server do objectives actually get accomplished.

I don't deny this, but how people play on pubs is none of my business.

Originally Posted by Rutabeggar

Once again, the point was missed.

Please make your point clearly and we will try not to miss it.

Originally Posted by Rutabeggar

Lowering the player count is just an part of a larger conversation which is: Has FF lost it's objective based gameplay due to maps that don't promote 22 players collectively pursuing objectives?

Maybe you should put that in the first post or in the title, because I can't read your mind.

Here's the skinny:

Yes, in some situations, gameplay becomes stale because of lack of teamwork or cooperation on public servers.

I do not believe the change you requested would change this, as people play the way they do because they like to play that way.

This problem exists on ALL maps, as any map big enough to accommodate the 22 player max comfortably, is still full of newbs that do not care about objectives.

[KubeDawg]

32 would be the traditional way to go, although it is possible to get up to 64 slots in source, right? Lets got 64. I'd like to see if an actual game can be played with 64 people in it at one time. That would be epic.

But 32 is probably the best, IMO. Allowing for more choice would be better for server owners and possibly better for the community.

A 32 man server on Dustbowl when it's full was fun as hell in TFC.