Max Player Discussion

[chilledsanity]

Rubabeggar: I don't think reducing the limit would solve the chicken-with-its-head-cut-off problem, it will just be less overall players with the same percentage.

[DarthGreg]

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

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

Coulda fooled me!

[zE]

Hm, maybe i changed my opion is this subject. Maybe there should be a lower limit in servers, i had several dudes that went talk with me sayng lower ur server max slots, tbh i think its a good idea, but that would kill a bit my server because people just join the server that have + people on it.
Good things about lowering server slots maybe to 18 max

> + fps
> less lag
> better gameplay
> + servers with people instead of 1/2 populated servers, u would have 3/4 populated servers so would give the impression that ff have + players playing it
> + servers too choose from
> + server competition = better quality offered
I´ve noticed that when theres + server competition server owners try to run in maprotations + popular maps. I remenber playng in a populated us server some 5 months ago and i had all alphas and betas on the map vote options,like alquimy a1/blitz/conc course/roasted_classic/2mesa3clasic that was really bad, nowadays they run a lot of good maps in their server.
> maybe gives room for specific servers like avd only or clan-style to grow, instead of having newbies and clanners all mixed up.

this from a server owner point of view might be bad, but from a player/ member of the community its a good thing : ), and i think just servers owners in general gonna be against this.

ps* i would say max it to 18 slots : )

[ryu^]

ze finally sees sense ;p

[caesium]

some good stuff, ze.

the points you listed are reasons for lowering the max player limit from what it currently is, but why do you think that 18 specifically would be the best limit? i'm not saying i agree or disagree, i'm just interested, especially given the fact that most maps are designed for a maximum of 8v8 (e.g. almost all CTF maps are designed for 4 offence and 4 defence per team, and most non-CTF maps are designed for fewer players). do you think that in a public server context the max player limit should be slightly greater than the number of players that the maps commonly played are designed for in order to provide a buffer as players inevitably leave/join the server, as most maps are more fun when you have slightly too many players rather than slightly too few players (so if one of those 2 has to happen as players come and go then it's better to have a maximum of slightly too many players than to have too few players when a couple decide to go to bed at the same time)?

[zE]

ye caesium basicly because of that. So if the ideal gameplay is with 16 dudes, 18 would be good to give it a margin to the constant exiting / entering players on server. And some maps are fine with 18 dudes like palermo / redgiant / badlands etc. And its always better to have a bit +players in a map designed for 8vs8 then less players .
But regular popular maps like destroy 2fort openfire aarvdark with 20/21/22 dudes gets a bit unplayable. Even with a decent pc like mine, it gets really crap fps, really crappy gameplay, and gets really spamy . P

[Eon Seig]

If FF maps functioned like BF:2142 and dynamically changed size of the battle area based on the number of max players, then all of your problems here would be solved!

But this is NOT how FF works and there really isn't any way to impliment this. Some (read: most) map makers simply wouldn't be able to work with a system like that because it's not designed to work around FF's gameplay. There really isn't much of any solution to the problem of OvD spam fests. Simply put, if your server has a certain number of people, rotate maps that will be good for that number of people. Have a dynamic map vote system that changes map choices to accomodate players in the server at the time. Hey, more people may join mid-match, but at least you have a period of stability that you can work around.

[Born_In_Xixax]

Just as a 'Platonic form' baseline, I would propose 18 (9v9) as the perfect number of Team Fortress players on a server - that allowing 2 teams of 9 players each: one of each class

That being the ideal, I think there are also sweet spots at 5v5 (openfire/2fort) and 12v12 (palermo/dustbowl?)

If maps could be designed/categorized towards one of those three configurations, and server operators could add scripting to select the map based on the number of current players, then I think the problems raised in this thread could be largely put to rest.

Regarding the 'dynamic map size' idea - I suppose you could simulate that by creating different versions of the map, or just different Lua versions of the same map file. The server-side script would load up the '12v12' version of Palermo instead of the '9v9' version, depending on the number of players. Lua changes could be:
- Open/close gate entities to alternate map areas, secret paths, etc.
- Open/close alternate routes, water routes, etc.
- Make resupply bags more/less available
- Move respawn points closer/farther from the action, more varied respawn points
- Change map timers/limits
- ???

[Eon Seig]

Originally Posted by Born_In_Xixax

- ???

Profit!

But yeah, in all seriousness that actually sounds a lot easier to work with then just having the map itself change border zones based on max players. All Battlefield games have kill zone boundaries on the edges of the maps which either come in closer or move out farther depending on max players. This function (as far as I know) doesn't exist in FF. Maybe there could be instagib walls that are moved in and out via lua commands, but this doesn't really make the maps easier or better to move around in than before. It just makes a bigger yard and promotes more snipers.

I much prefer the idea of having multiple pathways that open or close based on the lua.

[s0undch4s3r]

It's a matter of choice by the server admin. no reason for the dev's to get involved with player limits.