FFA Server Player Limits

[sixers_]

yeah there are maps that would be very fun to play a 16 person FFA on but also some small maps with 16 players would be chaos. (definitely fun at times)

If there won't be a /callvote playerlimit on ffa servers then maybe we can have multiple FFA servers; some with 8 players max, 12 players max, and 16 players max respectively. Not necessarily limiting the maps, but at least this way the max number of players are set so they can callvote w/e map they want.

[sperglord]

I like my FFA like I like my women, full of players and messy.
I voted 16. It's not like just because there CAN be 16 players there WILL be 16 players at all times.

[TheMuffinMan86]

Sync, to quote you from the other thread:

...Some players prefer larger servers (16), some prefer small servers (8). The current default of 12 was an acceptable middle ground that we found the majority of people were happy with. ...

Some players prefer 8v8 CA spamfests, others prefer 4v4, 1v1, etc.. So if you go for an 'acceptable middle ground' approach to FFA instead of a player limit callvote system, then why didn't you do the same with team games instead of adding teamsize? I can't vote in this poll since I would like to see people either have a choice over player limit in-game, or go back to the system that was in beta with the player limits per map. There's no sense in voting since, for example, 8 players might be fine on dm7, but it might not be enough for dm12.

[umbert0ec0]

I voted 10, my favourite game would be a 8 player game with a average skillrating not lower then 97.

Instead of talking about number of players, i would rather discuss armours and weapon balance. I would personally like a quake world type of armour system. A game with kind of equally skilled players (95+ average skillrating, nothing else can be considered "skillbalanced") is just a mg cesspool. In all other games, lower skilled players rely on nothing but rl abuse. Armours should be strong enough to make a difference.

A 95+ average skillrating server with more than 8 players is horrible. MG is far to strong a starting weapon. Armours dont mean anything in those games. Most important factor is pure (bad)luck with spawns. In 85- average skillrating games, those players who have a 98+ skillrating will take advantage of armours (possible since general aim of players with 80- poses no threat). In 85-95 skillrating games, 3-4 95+ players struggles to get the upperhand - most of the time, a guy who is lucky enough to hold 50-100 armour at just the right time (when grabbing quad) wins.

[Yakumo]

The player limit per map system really REALLY did not work.
All that ever happened was people graduate towards servers with more players on, and then suddenly you find yourself endlessly playing the only 16 player map.

My concern with this vote is most FFA players simply don't bother with the forums, I believe the majority of forum users to be CTF/Duel/CA (could be wrong, but that's the overall impression from most posts I see)

[nkh]

I guess, there is that risk if it's limited per individual map. I reckon a few 'Small FFA' servers, and a few 'Large FFA' servers with dedicated map pools could work though. That way, it will cycle, but avoid a game with 4-5 players on Dredwerkz, or 10+ players on Tourney4...

I still think your idea of having a callvote player limit, but still allowing people to join to spectate would work. There are always rage quits during FFA so people could jump in to replace players. Given the fact there would at times be a number of spectators some kind of queue system (like what exists in duel) would perhaps be handy... it would avoid you waiting 5 minutes to join in, and then someone jumps in ahead of you! ;D

[pikaluva13]

...queue system (like what exists in duel) would perhaps be handy... it would avoid you waiting 5 minutes to join in, and then someone jumps in ahead of you! ;D

First of all, sorry for going off topic in this post, but I just wanted to reply to this portion.

They need to include this in every gametype. I'm tired of jerks joining a CTF server and demanding that they be allowed to join before the people that are in the server earlier. Then if someone leaves you've got the problem that anyone is able to join and then even the latest joiner can take the slot (even if you were in the server before them)

However, I know this system would be with flaws, such as if a player went afQL and was browsing the web. Then if they are auto-joined they would just be an afk player and they probably wouldn't notice that they are playing.

[coveryfire]

I think 12 is fine for FFA, although some sort of voting system for # of players is necessary.

[Flake]

Like Sync said, 16 is too much and 8 is not enough therefore 12 is the acceptable middle ground.

We all know voting the player limit is the way to go but it isn't listed in the poll. Unsurprisingly both 16 players and 8 players are getting lots of votes which confirms what Sync said above and now we are apparently re-treading old ground. Once again 12 is the compromise and we are still at square one because everyone says there should a vote but it isn't an option and the merry-go-round continues!

[AXxXxO]

I don't play much ffa but 12 wasn't too much and not too less...the players which want less they should use pro servers or you should make servers with 8 and 12 player size and test them for weekend...