15 replies to this topic

[Homeskilit]

What is the maximum number of players the servers can handle in a single game?

Does anyone know or have an idea or what it might be?

[Troutmonkey]

Well currently they're set to do 12+12, but whether they can actually "handle" that is up for debate.

[StraferX]

I do not know but I think MWO needs a plain old death match mode for caustic valley. Even if we could just do it to slay the Dev's friday night. Each man for his own last man standing.

[Homeskilit]

Troutmonkey, on 09 December 2015 - 06:59 PM, said:

Well currently they're set to do 12+12, but whether they can actually "handle" that is up for debate.

So our current 12v12 is the max the servers can handle per game?

[Revis Volek]

Homeskilit, on 09 December 2015 - 08:11 PM, said:

So our current 12v12 is the max the servers can handle per game?

Dunno if its the max, i know they used to be 8v8 and now they are 12v12.

[Sylonce]

I wouldn't be surprised if it can handle more. I've seen private rpg servers handle hundreds of players at a time, and that's pretty much just a server someone keeps in their home.

But, the game isn't designed for more than 12v12 at the moment, and I reckon there would be other issues if it goes more than that

[Ghogiel]

with my experience with CE, I am fairly positive if you had a top kek server with only one game instance being run, everyone had good PCs and ping it would run MWO pretty good with 32, possibly even 36. After that no idea, it would probably run with many players, like 64 or 128, but it would probably be horribad. The problem then becomes map size, you can't really do more than 4kmx4km or you add another problem to the mix.

[Homeskilit]

Ghogiel, on 09 December 2015 - 11:03 PM, said:

with my experience with CE, I am fairly positive if you had a top kek server with only one game instance being run, everyone had good PCs and ping it would run MWO pretty good with 32, possibly even 36. After that no idea, it would probably run with many players, like 64 or 128, but it would probably be horribad. The problem then becomes map size, you can't really do more than 4kmx4km or you add another problem to the mix.

Interesting, thanks for the info, I did not take map size into consideration.

Edited by Homeskilit, 09 December 2015 - 11:26 PM.

[Rezonus]

Ghogiel, on 09 December 2015 - 11:03 PM, said:

with my experience with CE, I am fairly positive if you had a top kek server with only one game instance being run, everyone had good PCs and ping it would run MWO pretty good with 32, possibly even 36. After that no idea, it would probably run with many players, like 64 or 128, but it would probably be horribad. The problem then becomes map size, you can't really do more than 4kmx4km or you add another problem to the mix.

Couldn't you just scale things down to get around the 4kmx4km limitation?
Sounds like a usable idea to me but there is this thought along side it that says it would probably cause issues.

[Ghogiel]

Rezonus, on 09 December 2015 - 11:21 PM, said:

Couldn't you just scale things down to get around the 4kmx4km limitation?
Sounds like a usable idea to me but there is this thought along side it that says it would probably cause issues.

I've seen some games that have done something like that. But you would still lose some precision and physics would be a bit odd, so I imagine there is diminishing returns to doing that.

[Raggedyman]

Homeskilit, on 09 December 2015 - 08:11 PM, said:

So our current 12v12 is the max the servers can handle per game?

doubt it, servers these days are more powerful for less than even a year or six months ago. They are also way cheap and more space for more instances can be bought with easy. I'd wager it more that that's what PGI have the maps for 12 v 12 (which is good number for each round regards queue time and 'from dead to end' waiting) and haven't broken out larger maps due to a combo of population and playability issues.

[Homeskilit]

Raggedyman, on 10 December 2015 - 04:54 AM, said:

doubt it, servers these days are more powerful for less than even a year or six months ago. They are also way cheap and more space for more instances can be bought with easy. I'd wager it more that that's what PGI have the maps for 12 v 12 (which is good number for each round regards queue time and 'from dead to end' waiting) and haven't broken out larger maps due to a combo of population and playability issues.

I was secretly hoping it would be something along these lines. I think 8v8 or 12v12 is perfect for the solo que experience but I always felt CW needed to be more like a battalion level battle. It does not necessarily have to be that big, but I do not feel like the 4x waves that CW currently is does not capture a large scale battle very well (it is more like 4x solo que matches in one). I also think taking different mechs into a single CW match takes away from the immersion experience because you are no longer a "light mech pilot" or a "heavy mech pilot" with a specific role and tasks to complete for your team.

Granted this is all a pipe dream (and my personal opinion), but I was just curious if anyone else felt like CW would be better with bigger drops and no respawns.

[Raggedyman]

Homeskilit, on 10 December 2015 - 12:20 PM, said:

I was secretly hoping it would be something along these lines. I think 8v8 or 12v12 is perfect for the solo que experience but I always felt CW needed to be more like a battalion level battle. It does not necessarily have to be that big, but I do not feel like the 4x waves that CW currently is does not capture a large scale battle very well (it is more like 4x solo que matches in one). I also think taking different mechs into a single CW match takes away from the immersion experience because you are no longer a "light mech pilot" or a "heavy mech pilot" with a specific role and tasks to complete for your team.

Granted this is all a pipe dream (and my personal opinion), but I was just curious if anyone else felt like CW would be better with bigger drops and no respawns.

Bigger drops would be interesting, but without the respawn you get the problem of "what does dead player 1 do whilst waiting for player 104 to die" which is really off-putting. People get annoyed enough with that in quickplay, and if it's larger forces it's a long time to the drop so people would be really frustrated by it.

Larger, more complicated missions and objectives would also be interesting, but they suffer from people learning how to 'perfect route' them and becoming more dull than a blunt 'charge-in' like we already have. The only way you can get around that is some really heavy randomisation of missions (which is hard) or putting in more logistics to the game so that you get organisational tactics as well as battlefield tactics (which kills casual play and often results in 'whoever doesn't sleep, wins'),

None of which is to say its not possible, just that it's a swine to do right, there are a load of hidden problems involved, and it'll cost a lot to produce a less accessible game.

[Homeskilit]

Raggedyman, on 10 December 2015 - 12:40 PM, said:

Bigger drops would be interesting, but without the respawn you get the problem of "what does dead player 1 do whilst waiting for player 104 to die" which is really off-putting. People get annoyed enough with that in quickplay, and if it's larger forces it's a long time to the drop so people would be really frustrated by it.

I think people would just disconnect like they do now, no big deal. Though if it were interesting to watch they might hang around and watch the battle unfold.

Raggedyman, on 10 December 2015 - 12:40 PM, said:

Larger, more complicated missions and objectives would also be interesting, but they suffer from people learning how to 'perfect route' them and becoming more dull than a blunt 'charge-in' like we already have. The only way you can get around that is some really heavy randomisation of missions (which is hard) or putting in more logistics to the game so that you get organisational tactics as well as battlefield tactics (which kills casual play and often results in 'whoever doesn't sleep, wins'),

I agree that randomly generated maps would be the way to go (is this even possible?). If the map is always different a drop commander would have to read the terrain and respond to different positioning by the opponents and objectives every match (this would also make scouting so much more important). I thought solo que was for casual play and CW was for the "immersion"? I think limiting the number and time the matches are held would help the "who can play more wins" thing by turning CW weekly/weekend events instead of a constant thing.

Raggedyman, on 10 December 2015 - 12:40 PM, said:

None of which is to say its not possible, just that it's a swine to do right, there are a load of hidden problems involved, and it'll cost a lot to produce a less accessible game.

Totally agree, it is a pipe dream, but I enjoy floating ideas and discussing them, thanks for entertaining it a bit.

[Viges]

Homeskilit, on 09 December 2015 - 08:11 PM, said:

So our current 12v12 is the max the servers can handle per game?

I wonder how many mechs your PC can handle

Edited by Viges, 10 December 2015 - 01:00 PM.

[Homeskilit]

Viges, on 10 December 2015 - 01:00 PM, said:

I wonder how many mechs your PC can handle

My rig can handle it, but I see your point that not everyone's could and that would limit their experience.