Bigger server?

Joined: Nov 11, 2005 Posts: 74 Location: Peterborough

Hello all just wondering if we are going to get a bigger server now as we have 42 full paying members? Very Happy

I guess this ones for you Mrix!

Community Founder Joined: Jun 30, 2005 Posts: 2546

This is another poll Question

I have spoken to a few members about this and was suprised that some members I have concerns and explain that they would not like a bigger server, reasons being .....

1)They just dont like 64 player maps

2)they lag more on bigger maps

We maybe next time around could get a 64 player server Question

but do we really want it?

Personally I feel the 42 players on a 32 map is perfect and the % of members we see most night is a fraction of the members we have.
One Idea I had was to focus funds on another game maybe? for members that like to play other games and at times would like a break from BF2 the great game that it is Question

But as usual any idea`s greatly appriciated - please post away
also I have a poll started here
http://www.battlefield-2.biz/ftopicp-5566.html#5566

Cheers

|2es-mrix

Joined: Oct 04, 2005 Posts: 193 Location: Leeds, UK

I don't know what costs are involved but howabout a special forces server?

Joined: Nov 18, 2005 Posts: 242 Location: Thorsager, DK

You took the writing out of my mouth Laughing

Joined: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 309 Location: Yorkshire

I play 64 player servers most of the time usually Karkand and city maps, thats just my preferance cos' I'm not keen of the smaller maps. TBH I get very little lag even on the US side servers I occassionally get kicked because my ping gets a little high. Personally I think 64 player servers if managed correctly are a great boost for your clan Moongamers, ModersKarkand, NOB Modersghost etc are full most of the day and night, and they're just playing spacific maps. Just my personnal feelings on the subject Wink

Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:48 pm

My main worry is keeping people on the server, i realise that our clan is expanding fast, must be cos we are all super cool n stuff!! lol! So eventually we may need a bigger server, but like mrix says, when is everyone on the server at the same time, not in my time anyway. i think it is a good idea to have another server for something, i dont play any other games but i am not in the majority in this area and i am more than happy for people to play cod2 etc.

My favourite idea is to have a spec forces server, that seems to cure the idea of having a spec forces night, plus it is basically the same game, i dont mind which one i play as long as it is not the night missions!! lol!

i think most 64 players servers that are always full tend to be city map servers, which are fun to a point!

Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:40 pm

SoulCruiser wrote:

I play 64 player servers most of the time usually Karkand and city maps, thats just my preferance cos' I'm not keen of the smaller maps. TBH I get very little lag even on the US side servers I occassionally get kicked because my ping gets a little high. Personally I think 64 player servers if managed correctly are a great boost for your clan Moongamers, ModersKarkand, NOB Modersghost etc are full most of the day and night, and they're just playing spacific maps. Just my personnal feelings on the subject Wink

our server generally dies at arround 01:30am~ due to most |2es members leaving and people not being interested in playing on unranked servers which means its a bit of a waste having the server even bigger
plus not sure how long it would take to get a 64 player server populated

Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:07 pm

i dont get it, our server is ranked, what do you mean java? but i do agree with what you are saying, bigger server harder to populate in my book!

Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:09 pm

LtColumbo4 wrote:

i dont get it, our server is ranked, what do you mean java? but i do agree with what you are saying, bigger server harder to populate in my book!

once the sever goes below 11 players the remaining dont stick about long since the chances of the server going back online are practically nill