just a little opinionative here

[WingsofIntegrity]

does anyone agree with me that they should make the server sizes larger for Dod? I mean the eGO servers are always full. 33 players a server is just not enough if you consider how many are part of eGO=PPPP Going to none eGO servers when all else is full sometimes is annoying cause people are just always like "what is an eGO here for?" "why do the constantly join non-eGO maps, what the heck?" man its real dumb, unneeded, and immature. just let people play.


not to mention it'd be so much more epic with like 40 or more on a map

just a thought

 

[GumBa11Machine]

more people means more lag.

 

[Allster]

Yeah but, there are times when servers have little people or none at all, usually during the night.

 

[StringMan]

You have to realize that the server seems crowded when it fills up to a 16-16 map now putting more players on the map would cause more clutter and its not fun when you cant run around and do something. And as allster said, there is no point in moving a server up to 40 players when at night we run about 15.

 

[BraveLittleToaster]

On top of this, the more player slots there are the more expensive it gets to run a server. It goes up by leaps and bounds the higher you get.

 

[Blasphemy]

yup, and i believe its maxed out at 16v16 anyway by DOD:S standards but aint possitive by this.

 

[bobtheworm]

DoD maps are big enough for more then 32 people.

 

[Dr.Compton]

Flash sure aint, We'd all get jammed up in the middle.. Oh man I'd wish to be and MG if that happen Oh man.

 

[jeod66]

Flash sure aint, We'd all get jammed up in the middle.. Oh man I'd wish to be and MG if that happen Oh man.

Just remember that they would also have MGs thinking the same thing on the other side. Avalanche would be insane with that many people; the fountain is already no-man's-land, much less with 20 on each side :blink:

 

[SleepyMe]

With the length of games as they are now, I would recommend against having more players on the servers. Haha... Can you imagine how long it would take for one side to win if there were more people? Lmao...

 

[WeaponX]

i personally like a server with around 6-16 people in it...whixh for ego usually happens early morning or late night which is perfect for me...i would agree that more server spots could easily be filled, but i would disagree that we need them...more spots = more money, more lag, harder maintenance

 

[Guile]

i think that they should have 64 player maps, you all say its no fun but you cant say anything until you have tried it, it couldnt support the small maps but places like strand would be amazing

 

[Blasphemy]

strand map would be ok.

but any other map 32 is still pushing it, i like the 15-20 player map times, easier to cap and stuff without getting killed as often n having a more relaxed and fun gamming enviroment.

 

[RIOT.inc]

ohh man couldt be fun with 64 on DONNER my thompson wouldt never get hungry and my fist wouldt need ice every night but still the cluddering wouldt be to much :chair: 16 on a map is to littel if you like 16 online you proberly snipe and fear the fist in the back of the head 32 at a time is perfect:chair:

:chair:coolest smiley ever

 

[PiPbOy]

i dont see the harm in upping it up to 40 man server on certain maps like ava would be decent STRAND would be amazing i hate running around 5 minutes and not seeing a guy donner is fine or another guy or two on each team idk a few extra spots wouldnt hurt

PS: Riot your awesome but im pipboy not you find your own damn avatars and sprays

 

[VizierKane]

hmm. done! if you pay for it and maintaine it! lol,jk

 

[I SURVIVED LONDON BLITZ]

I don't think the dod maps are big enough to take more players all map's have points where you would all get in one and others way, as stated Flash would bog down at the 3rd flag, Kalt would get crowded in the sewer's, Avalanche would never get middle flag. I think who ever made the 32 player's in a map was experienced to know this.
I SURVIVED LONDON BLITZ

 

[Emerican]

PROS: fun, more exciting, etc.

CONS: more money to upkeep servers, clutter, only one good big team map,etc, etc....

take your pic?

 

[Hooftrot]

With the length of games as they are now, I would recommend against having more players on the servers. Haha... Can you imagine how long it would take for one side to win if there were more people? Lmao...

That's what I was thinking. I couldn't imagine the rounds getting any longer. I barely have time to play through a round before I have to log off haha.

 

[Blue Stealth]

a 64 person server is not a bright idea. its too crowded, too laggy, and framerates drop quite a bit. plus, when you have that many people playing it takes the fun out of the maps that we use. our maps are too small for 64 players. if you want 64 players go play BF2.

-Blue