Hello,

Would it be possible to add to the xs4all ffa server that the maps which are chosen are dimensioned for the current number of players on? Most maps can be too small or too big depending on the amount of players. E.g. strogg bunker would be fine for 4-6 players, aerowalk for x-y players and so on. It would be a great addition IMHO.

LittleOmar

It might be a good addition to any FFA server, to have it player dependant. But personaly I'm not sure if that will work out.

Some maps are more popular and others aren't. PKEG1 for example is a perfect map for, let's say 7 persons, but, let's say again, 13 people who are online like it, and therefor join the server. You'll get a disbalanced server issue, they might drop after PKEG1, no matter what the next map is, but you still get a larger map for 15 players.

I'm not sure if you get my point, but I think it's rather useless as a lot of people are getting on the server depending on what map is on at that time. For people who want to play FFA for a certain amount of time this is a good, very good even, thing to add to the server.

But I would like to have some other views about this, not to mention that it should be implementable (if that's a word).

<3

I think it's a good idea to implement this, even though it has it flaws as Flepser pointed out.
One thing more to add would be to disable powerups when there is only a small amount of players on the server.

+1 to disable powerups with small ppl

But not for the map change depending on players number, i really prefer 10ppl dm4 than 10ppl dm3, is funnier imo (that's just an example)

make an automated reconnect to the second ffa server if the first one is too full.
like, implement the filter´, for exampe maxplayers 8 for dm4 and then send people to the second server. or, if that's too strict, display a message that tells them there is another server and gives an easy option to join there. ('this server is crowded at the moment. would you like to join the alternative ffa server?' y -> automatic redirect)

edit: and yes, i *hate* those crowded dm4/whatever games. it's not fun for me at all :/

If players are able to quickly do next_map on maps they don't like (which happens every day), they should as well be able to skip small maps, if they don't like them with given player count.

When there are 10+ players, next_map hardly ever succeeds. Because 3-4 players are of the type that does not read/see console messages.

I think if 16player-ffa on dm4 is the only taste of QW these players get, they will start looking for other games, before they notice any voting going on. You would want to help rookies to avoid dueling/2on2ing on dm3 for example.

I never thought about it before I read what JohnNy_cz said, but I guess if the one entering the map first after map change immediately types 'next_map', it will be executed before the rest has entered the map right?
It has happened many times that when I enter a map the vote is already decided which is kind of frustrating! In that case, what about a delay before a map change can be executed with 'next_map'?

And in the case that a too small or big map is chosen regarding the numbers of players, what about a command, executed manual or from server after approx. 10 sec after first person entering the map e.g. 'check_map'.
Then if the map is too big or small, map change is executed. Good/bad? If this was implemented I would prefer that manual execution of next_map should be disabled.

IMO, server (ffa mod actually) should centerprint "Please type, 'no' in console if you do not want switch to another map" message if servers is crowded and in case of insufficient amount of "no" votes it should change current map to another that fits better for current amount players.

Note that players should vote "no, we'll stay here" instead of "yes, switch it please". Reverse logic is a must in this case.

The problem with this type of thing is that by its very nature, a "Free For All" server has players coming and going all the time. So even if you say, OK, there are less than 8 players, so we can move to map aerowalk, there is nothing to stop more players joining (unless you put some kind of dynamic maxclients thing, which would be bad imo).

next_map currently works well for situations where you have only a few players on big maps. As mentioned it's not so great in situations where you have many players on small maps, due to 'inertia'. That's why I quite like the 'opt out' suggestion above, forcing players to consciously choose to remain on the existing map.

The best way to have 'regulated' games on small maps is simply to have another server/port which only runs small maps and has a low maxclients. Of course this can draw players away from the 'normal' server and make it even less likely to get a nice game on large maps, but that's the price you pay.

At the end of the day different people have different ideas on what is 'too many' players anyway.... for me playing dm4 with 12 players is fine, but I don't like that many on ztndm3.

One change I would like to see would be some way of stopping discharge spamming (can be a problem on busy dm3 servers for example). One option might be to prevent discharge with fewer than 16 cells (meaning you can't just take shaft and discharge straight way without collecting cells/pack). Not sure though as it would be annoying at times when you are genuinely using discharge tactically rather than spamming. Perhaps max 10 discharges per map would be better.

Imo 3 players on dm4 with quad on xs4all is the funniest, there's funny frags like, raket 150 frags, unnamed -10, ruskie 3

raket: Your description sounds fun for 1 player and boredoom for 2 guys.
You forgot this line:
"/sarcastic"

Sounds more like boredom for 3.

quoting hangtime "The best way to have 'regulated' games on small maps is simply to have another server/port which only runs small maps and has a low maxclients. Of course this can draw players away from the 'normal' server and make it even less likely to get a nice game on large maps, but that's the price you pay"

i think maps like dm4/dm6/ts-bunker ect ect would suit 6 - 7 maybe 8 players at most?

i bassically agree with hangtime

ffa is great fun, but somehow everyone tends to join the only popular ffa server all the time and it quickly get overcrowded which just makes it a terrible mess imho. i think most of the maps are most fun to play with about 6-8 players on.

i believe xs4all got a second port with smaller maps in rotation but it's usually empty and that's a shame, but i really like dEus newbie-friendly suggestion of redirection to the second server if the first server is full. putting a lower maxclients and adding a function like that would certainly make 2 good ffa servers, instead of 1 overcrowded server. now that's a function i'd want for christmas )

i've been thinking about exactly what littleomar suggests before with a map selection depending on the amount players. it could easily be implemented into the mod but i dunno... are there really that many good maps that takes LOTS of players? a function like that might make xs4all rotate only a couple of maps in the evening/night time. but then again, why not. 'inet/edome large' was very popular over a long time, anyone remember?