So, bout that player cap.

[Trivirium 62]

I know someone has probably mentioned this already but, a very long time ago. Like guessing maybe 2016, we all had that sexy 100 player 50v50 action that used to pack a district full with mayhem on every corner. 

 

 

I want that back.

 

 

Steam still even says on the store page where they essentially display their product. As the very first "feature" of APB is it's "unmatched 100 players per server, dedicated to massive open-world PVP combat."

 

 

Now I get what you're all about to say "with the servers the way they are right now they wouldn't be able to handle the extra stress" and how the "servers are outdated and with how much 'living life' there is in APB and the way the NPCs react cause excess stress too" or "how we don't have a big enough playerbase for that".

 

Okay sure, but come on. The servers are in crap state right now but they did it once, why not again? Even with the playerbase being semi small I can promise you that with 20 extra slots on each district, it's not going to hurt the game, if anything it'll pack it more for those who have to sit there hitting the "join district" button. And don't say that you haven't done it because I'm almost positive at some point most of you have done it. Even if they want to keep it at 80 for gameplay/population reasons, they should AT LEAST change their product information because there's nothing like selling something you don't have.

 

Now I did see the roadmap post and saying that with version 1.19.6, they'd be making network infrastructure changes to "reduce lag". Which is good and all. But I hope ya'll make a revision of the population caps. 

 

Just my two cents, curious as always to hear what you guys think. Would you rather see the population cap increase to what it previously was or would you rather keep it smaller?

 

[Alani 475]

G1 changed the server cap because their servers were shitting on  themselves all the time.

 

 

After the change the servers still ran like shit.

 

 

 

I would rather them fix the servers or get legitimate servers that work, before they start increasing the loads.

[Trivirium 62]

1 minute ago, Obvious Lesbian said:

G1 changed the server cap because their servers were shitting on  themselves all the time.

 

 

After the change the servers still ran like shit.

 

 

 

I would rather them fix the servers or get legitimate servers that work, before they start increasing the loads.

Hence the Version 1.19.6 addition, they will be tinkering with the servers. (on the second patch after the coming one) So maybe with that they'll either upgrade the servers or maybe with a new serverside engine or something at least. (I'm not entirely sure how their backend works so if anyone wants to pitch in feel free)

[Alani 475]

If they do that, I wouldn't mind restoring 50v50.

 

 

The population is also slowly getting back to the old numbers, so we can easily have 2-3 silver districts and like 5 bronze districts.

 

 

[Fr3e 66]

give me 1k vs 1k 

[Cheeseburger! 47]

A revert to 100 max pop is pretty high on my wishlist.

 

Those 20 extra people make the district feel more alive and chaotic like it's supposed to. Of course, the server/lag issue needs to be addressed first.

 

 

 

Edited June 24, 2018 by Cheeseburger!

[Asparii 50]

48 minutes ago, Obvious Lesbian said:

If they do that, I wouldn't mind restoring 50v50.

  

 

The population is also slowly getting back to the old numbers, so we can easily have 2-3 silver districts and like 5 bronze districts.

 

 

Making plans like this may be kind of pointless.
LO has stated they want to redo the threat system and the servers, so I think they might even change the player pop cap to fit with whatever new system they come up with for threat.
And at the current point in time I don't mind 40 v 40, the streets can get a bit chaotic/troll filled with so many people running around in the district (Which iirc Matt Scott said was an issue as well [Though far off])

Edited June 24, 2018 by Asparii

[Trivirium 62]

2 minutes ago, Asparii said:

Making plans like this may be kind of pointless.
LO has stated they want to redo the threat system and the servers, so I think they might even change the player pop cap to fit with whatever new system they come up with for threat.
And at the current point in time I don't mind 40 v 40, the streets can get a bit chaotic/troll filled with so many people running around in the district (Which iirc Matt Scott said was an issue as well [Though far off])

I think anything above 100 may be too chaotic for the size of the maps. They're not entirely big, so in reality having more than 100 people might cause even more traffic jams that could impact game mechanics like running with the dumptruck/banktruck. And yes they'd said they would redo threat but that's not coming for quite some time. Their priorities were to address network and server functionality as well as client performance and the overall engine upgrade for PC. So, given that within two patches they'll be tinkering with the servers. Can't help but ask for something that we once had. That we should have, that we don't have.

[Asparii 50]

1 minute ago, Trivirium said:

So, given that within two patches they'll be tinkering with the servers. Can't help but ask for something that we once had. That we should have, that we don't have.

That's fair enough.
But you have the yukon in your signature so you're arguments invalid

 

As much as I'd hope the server patch will "fix" the servers, I feel like it's only going to be a small fix to stop the major lag issues, not exactly making the servers good but making them acceptable, adding the extra 20 players may not be a good idea until we're certain the servers will be up to scratch for it. 

[hotbot 16]

I think there are bigger things to handle first

[Dopefish 248]

G1 "temporarily" lowered it to 45vs45, and then "temporarily" lowered it to 40vs40, saying that the overkill servers would raise the player cap again.

 

 

Bringing back 50vs50 would help the matchmaking in the district and make world feel a lot more alive again. Though I'm not sure how viable it would be with the current server and client performance issues.

 

[Karyon 14]

59 minutes ago, Cheeseburger! said:

A revert to 100 max pop is pretty high on my wishlist.

 

Those 20 extra people make the district feel more alive and chaotic like it's supposed to. Of course, the server/lag issue needs to be addressed first.

 

 

 

I totally agree with this, additionally matchmaking would improve as a side effect of having a larger pool of players to choose from.

[Aeronaut 647]

27 minutes ago, hotbot said:

I think there are bigger things to handle first

(hehe.gif)

 

 

i wonder if they still have the "overkill" servers or if they downgraded. they never spoke much about it after the "implementation"

[vsb 6171]

32 minutes ago, Aeronaut said:

(hehe.gif)

 

 

i wonder if they still have the "overkill" servers or if they downgraded. they never spoke much about it after the "implementation"

we’re on softlayer cloud servers or some shit now, there was a whole blogpost about it iirc

 

 

i miss the overkill servers tbh, joker ran pretty ok on them

[Excalibur! 207]

I agree, 100 players on a district is mandatory.

[ninetenduh 40]

The only good tinkering would be to get rid of these cloud hybrid servers and get the amazon servers. G1 picked the cheapest worst servers while the amazon servers had the best performance.

[confront 4]

maybe we sell the game to ubisoft and they fix it