The 73rd Rangers HQ|Site Info
Page
of 2

Ouch....

Mark Unread · 11 replies
699 posts
+27 battle scars
With the new gaming engine we have no idea how the performance is going to be and what hardware will be required and what resources each player slot is going to take. I still have contact with a retired admin of 73rd who in my many years of server management has been unmatched even against myself, with the current server administrators of our regiment, and the past willing to help, and the many minds we carry, we can always make something work better than others do, as we always have in our TRUE dedicated server environment that many of us have not had the enjoyment of actually experiencing.

Lets continue this discussion so we get the viewpoints, but know that we will hold a meeting to see which steps we take and the way we will progress and our plans.
eboy.pngEboy65.png
Posted Oct 7, 11
0 battle scars
356 posts
+9 battle scars
discharged
[73rd] SSG D.Tustin wrote:
i have found in the past that 64 man servers are a bit laggy weather they have corrected this prob not sure but i always found that 32 man run smoother this is just my 2 cents

It comes down to the quality of the server. Anyone can go out and get a 64man server but what it comes down to is the hardware behind the server and the company you're buying it from.

I have been playing the battlefield series since Battlefield Vietnam and the ONLY way to play this game is on a 64 man server. But I do agree with Reids argument about starting off with a 32man server to see if our Rangers will, one, keep it populated, and two, be able to financially keep it afloat with donations. After those two aspects can be maintained I hope we can upgrade to a 64man server as soon as possible so we can start building our user base.
450ac06115df6e09.png
Posted Oct 7, 11 · OP
0 battle scars
Page
of 2
Check Po!nt
Online users (1)
HeadShots
Announcement of