84 slots, we need more

[150GCT_Veltro]

Any chances for some more “love” for multiplayer even if we are only the 5%?

TAW is almost unplayiable for a lot of people because of 84 limit.

 

 

[SCG_Wulfe]

Would love to see this made possible!

[Heckpupper]

Also, looking at optimising the AI and assets weight on the server performance would be great for multiplayer too.

The Great Battles look very poorly in that department compared to previous titles of Il-2.

Maybe renaming to Il-2:Moderately Sized Skirmishes would be a good decision.

[Jizzo]

But you do know, that the player limit got almost doubled already, right?

[Heckpupper]

13 minutes ago, Jizzo said:

But you do know, that the player limit got almost doubled already, right?

 

So what?

That doesn't mean that it cannot be improved again, does it?

[56RAF_Roblex]

Doubling it to 168 would be fantastic as it would get rid of all the trouble my squad has finding a server that has room for 6 of us to join.  We could mostly fly one server each squad night and that means we could start using the servers own TS instead of our own so there would be more scope for coordinating with other players.  If you wonder why the two go together,  it is because several of our squad, and I am sure this true elsewhere,  cannot alt-tab out of BoX without causing the game to crash or lock up so if we use, say, the TAW TS server,  then switching to the KOTA server that means those people have to stop their game completely before they can move to KOTAs TS server (and we might find when we get there that there is a problem so we have to go to another server)     

The problem is that doubling the number of players means increasing the efficiency of the code by 100% which is a tall order.  It is not impossible though;   the original Cliffs Of Dover only allowed about 32 players and a bunch of amateur programmers without access to the source code found a way of increasing it to 100 players!   Obviously not by optimising all the code,  just some sort of tweak to the networking code.

[150GCT_Veltro]

Originally it was planned as 120 if i remember well.

We know multy is "only 5%" but this is not the right way to do i think, budget or not budget.

 

This 5% in the online competitions is more often than not cut off. We know that probably we would need more than 100 slots for tournaments like TAW, but some more slots would be better than nothing, 96 - 100 may be.

 

This "5%" to me does seem is growing up online.

 

Edited February 21, 2019 by 150GCT_Veltro

[=WoVi=cercataa]

22 hours ago, 150GCT_Veltro said:

Any chances for some more “love” for multiplayer even if we are only the 5%?

TAW is almost unplayiable for a lot of people because of 84 limit.

 

Being only 5% of the users means there is a lot of grow potential for the multiplayer, many customers could come if the hear de multi is amazing ... so they must have this as a long term goal :)

[Royal_Flight]

On 2/21/2019 at 10:16 AM, =SFF=_cercataa said:

 

Being only 5% of the users means there is a lot of grow potential for the multiplayer, many customers could come if the hear de multi is amazing ... so they must have this as a long term goal

 

It does seem a bit shortsighted. 

‘Very few people play multiplayer, we’re content with that’, instead of ‘very few people play multiplayer, what can we do to attract new customers’.