View Poll Results: Should the server switch to a smaller map size?
- Voters
- 31. You may not vote on this poll
-
Yes, switch to either a 16 or 32 player map size.
27 87.10% -
No, keep it at a 64 player map size.
4 12.90%
Results 41 to 50 of 60
Thread: Do you think the server should switch to smaller map sizes?
-
-
- Join Date
- 02-20-11
- Location
- Maryland, USA
- Posts
- 268
- Post Thanks / Like
- Blog Entries
- 2
12-05-11, 12:04 PM #42Re: Do you think the server should switch to smaller map sizes?
The server got cooking for a bit this past Saturday (not Friday, not sure about Sunday as I was buried in books - Porgy and Bess this time around ;-D). I believe for a bit we got up to 40 players on the server... but for quite a long stretch, it was about dozen players total.
ADMINS - could you add any remaining 32 person maps; In particular I would enjoy seeing Harvest (both teams have uncaps in 32 player version, making the game different). Frankly, seeing how the "patient"/server is on life-support, I would strongly welcome having some 16 person maps available. Even with the 32 player maps, rounds often timed out at 45 minutes.
regards,
donfede
-
-
12-05-11, 04:42 PM #44
Re: Do you think the server should switch to smaller map sizes?
Yeah played a couple of rounds Saturday night and it was really fun. The 32 player maps were awesome except some of them are really not different enough from the 64 player version to make a difference. Kubra is one example; the only difference between the 32 and 64 player versions of that map is the lack of Supervisor Base on the 32 player version. This still leaves a shitload of flags for 20-24 people to run around in. There are a couple of other maps like that and it'd probably be a good idea to pull those. I too welcome the addition of 16 player maps.
-
-
12-07-11, 08:09 PM #46
Re: Do you think the server should switch to smaller map sizes?
The 16 player map is fun. Different spawn points. Different strategy. Not much of a change with the 32 and not fun sitting at a cap point and realizing there is no flag there...kubra dam
Also - can the minimum player size to start a round be reduced - down to 6 or even 4 on the 16 player map would be good. Gets the server going faster.Last edited by badprimer1; 12-08-11 at 08:33 PM.
-
12-07-11, 08:36 PM #47
Re: Do you think the server should switch to smaller map sizes?
Why are we still on 64 player maps? Two maps back to back at 64 size and only 8 players. Now the server vacated and waiting for it to prime again. Until the server starts getting back to play, can you please set all a combo of 16 / 32?
donfede692 liked this post
-
12-09-11, 04:31 PM #48
Re: Do you think the server should switch to smaller map sizes?
This has been a bit experimental. Keep the feedback coming.
What maps work on the smaller scale? which ones don't work?
I put pretty much a full rotation on starting today......a bunch of 16rs followed by a bunch of 32rs. I still have most of the 64 player maps on just in case. Let me know what you guys like.
-
12-09-11, 10:01 PM #49
Re: Do you think the server should switch to smaller map sizes?
dex-
If priming with a 16, you may want to look at reducing the minimum number of players for a match from 8 to 6 or even 4. That is one of the problems is that it take a while to get to the magical 8 number. People lost patience and leave. When it is up and running and a game is on, I think you will find players are more readily to join.
Primer
-
12-09-11, 11:15 PM #50
Re: Do you think the server should switch to smaller map sizes?
I was about to chime in, then i realized this thread was for BF2... I feel sorrow.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks