EA Shutting Down 64player Titan servers?

[Again_I_Killed]

Has anyone else noticed that the 64player Titan servers are almost all gone. From the differn't server forums I've gone too, it seems EA is pretty much demanding they drop to 48 or else.

So now EA wants to limit us gamers in how large of games we can have. They'll probably use the "LAG" excuse, if the server isn't good enough and causes LAG we wouldn't play there anyways. I could go on, but Rant over.

[Talus]

Those maps were not intended for 64 players...they were designed for 48.

Also, the conquest maps Fall of Berlin, Cerbere Landing, and Camp Gibraltar were all designed for 32 players max.

I doubt that they are actively shutting down these servers...it is probably because gamers are getting frustrated with the lag and the sheer chaos that cramming that many players into a space that was intended for less players that resulted.

I filter out ANY server that has more than 48 players.

[Casper]

Titan and 64 players just does not work well. Not only do you ge the lag from so many people being in one spot at one time but you also get into the fact that it is almost impossible to take down a Titan from the inside when you have 32 people defending it.

[*FMJ*Power]

yea they will all be delisted after the patch. the problem is there are only one or two servers out there that could actually do it, rubber ducky and cains were about the only ones but the problem was people were trying to put up a higher player count than their server could handle in order to gain server rankim not kidding when i say theres only one or two servers out there that actually had the horsepower to do it.

theres always unranked for uber titans but the problem is you soon discover that 99.9% of people are only playing this game for rank and point whoring, no matter how much fun it would be they must have their precious stats.

[Talus]

Yeah, I played on Rubber Ducky a few times because I have been playing on their servers since Battlefield: Vietnam...and the lag was horrible on the Titan.

If Rubber Ducky can't do it, then nobody can.

[Sneaky Assassin]

I play on a 50 player server and it's alright, they tried 64 player 1 day and it was shocking!

[HG_Eliminator]

it used to be a server admin restricted the # of players to what ever the server could host smoothly.. but like FMJ said, Server ranking was prolly the Driving force to keep higher #'s than the sever could actually handle..

Is pretty bad when EA needs to step in... it should have been common sence all along.....

I stick to servers between 25 and 35 players .. games are smooth and still populated...

[Casper]

One thing they need to consider then is how the 48 players affect the awards for time and in game kills for Titan mode.

[Revoluti0n]

Has anyone else noticed that the 64player Titan servers are almost all gone. From the differn't server forums I've gone too, it seems EA is pretty much demanding they drop to 48 or else.

So now EA wants to limit us gamers in how large of games we can have. They'll probably use the "LAG" excuse, if the server isn't good enough and causes LAG we wouldn't play there anyways. I could go on, but Rant over.

Honestly, I have not really paid much attention to this. I don't usually play on 64 person Titan servers anyway, the lag really sucks and no it's not my computer. I think Talus is correct, the Titan maps were designed for 48 players, not 49 or 57 or 64.

I don't think EA is "demanding" anything. Enough people have b!tched about lag this and lag that so they are providing a solution of sorts. Again, EA is NOT limiting anything on anyone. If you can guarantee a stop to the constant whining and crying about lag, they would mosrt definitely let you have anything you wanted.

If you owned a server then you would clearly understand the other details involved with this topic. No one pays a couple hundred a month for servers so that they can remain empty.

[Deesies]

It's not a matter of whether it was intended for 48 players or not. With such logic, 64 player berlin servers and the like should also be subject to this "ruling"

Nor should it be a matter of whether or not the servers can handle 64 players, this would be none of EA's business.

If it is true that they will literally shut down 64 player titan servers, I can see no reasonable basis for doing so.

[*FMJ*Power]

It's not a matter of whether it was intended for 48 players or not. With such logic, 64 player berlin servers and the like should also be subject to this "ruling"

Nor should it be a matter of whether or not the servers can handle 64 players, this would be none of EA's business.

If it is true that they will literally shut down 64 player titan servers, I can see no reasonable basis for doing so.

because to get a titan to accept 64 players you have to alter some core files, you cant just set the player count to 64 and go. you i have no problem with it, if the server can do it go for it, this is all about fun.

i think thats one of their reasonings behind it, and the enormous complaints about lag about titan in general.

[Ravage]

yea they will all be delisted after the patch. the problem is there are only one or two servers out there that could actually do it, rubber ducky and cains were about the only ones


See here is the prob. Both of those servers are great. There is a reason why they stay full. People enjoy playing there. EA or DICE should not be trying to ruin players fun. Thats exactly what they are doing.
Has anyone been hurt by either of those servers running 64 players? Then why all of a sudden does EA wanna delist 2 of the best servers out there?

No matter how you look at it, they are hurting the gamers who played on those servers and played fair. They are punishing 2 of the best servers in the world for no other reason, than because they can.
Delisting servers? i mean come on, thats trying to kill the servers.

If lag is the issue? then why do people play there all the time? Its not lag but its because its fun. People pack those servers out for fun and EA says no you cant do that.

I asked this question on EA forums and never got a responce. maybe ill get one here.
If i wanna run a 64 player conquest server and i wanna try titans on the weekends. Do i get a $$$$$ break from the renting company for running 48 players instead of 64 players?

lets face it renting a ranked server isn't cheap as is. But EA should not be worried about player counts for servers that can handle it. Because those servers have communities that help promote the game and the sell of the games. Its not like these servers are running 64 player knife and pistol servers. Its not like these servers are encouraging cheaters. 64 players are for people who love action. Constant non stop action. EA should let players like myself enjoy the game.

[Revoluti0n]

It's not a matter of whether it was intended for 48 players or not. With such logic, 64 player berlin servers and the like should also be subject to this "ruling"

Nor should it be a matter of whether or not the servers can handle 64 players, this would be none of EA's business.

If it is true that they will literally shut down 64 player titan servers, I can see no reasonable basis for doing so.

That makes no sense dude. It's 2 different game modes.

[Deesies]

because to get a titan to accept 64 players you have to alter some core files, you cant just set the player count to 64 and go. you also put yourself at an unfair advantage for server ranking when you have 14 more players than all other titans your competing with, granted i have no problem with it, if the server can do it go for it

i think thats one of their reasonings behind it also besides the enormous complaints about lag.

If that's the case then I guess there is grounds for doing so.

Do you have to do the same to get 64 players on berlin though?

That makes no sense dude. It's 2 different game modes

With all due respect, game mode is irrelevant here.

[*FMJ*Power]

If that's the case then I guess there is grounds for doing so.

Do you have to do the same to get 64 players on berlin though?



With all due respect, game mode is irrelevant here.

no. conquest can go 64 no problem but if you load titan mode on the server bf2142cc will only allow 48 players to be set for the max, you have to do some finagling to override the set 48 player count. i think thats their biggest gripe, people are overriding the admin controls to get that 64 player count.

[Deesies]

I guess that makes sense and in such light, I don't see a problem with shutting them down. It's a shame they don't just allow the option either way but oh well :)

[-Ackley]

the problem is there are only one or two servers out there that could actually do it, rubber ducky and cains were about the only ones

That’s not a problem but more so a great thing, the group I'm in plays 64 man titian all the time (infact its the only thing we play). We play at Cain’s and the Duck alot but more so Cain’s because they have friendly admins and the titian movement restrict rule. I always have fun there but now they have been limited which has truly ruined it. I don't care about points but more so around the most players and the most action I can get my hands on. And so far 64 man titian is the best I have seen. If you find lag it is not the server but more so your home Pc. I lag just the same on a 64 titian as I on 16 man titian, only difference is I get more points on 16 man titian and there is barely if any combat.

48 titian sucks because I can never find anybody to kill on the ground. If I wanted to play 48 man titian then I would re-install Diablo2 cause that is a lot more fun. A few weeks back I was on Cain's server and I was in a helo and was killing through the whole round even after the titian shields go down. When I play at Cain's the people spend more time cappin silos then they do camping titian and I love it cause its like a walker/helo/snipers dream of action. Plus the knife fights are real fun at times. :p

If your server can't handle 64 then hush just because someone else’s can. upgrade or shut-up. Player pops should only increase as games come out not decrease.


EA !!! you got a good game and if you want it to stay you better let us gamers play as we wish cause you will make the same amount of money ether way but if you piss us off we will leave.

-Ackley

[*FMJ*Power]

If you find lag it is not the server but more so your home Pc.

no, its the servers, this has been proven time and time again, the end users machine has nothing to do with titian lag, its a problem in the game mode and the servers, theres a reason server providers warn you when you rent a titan server that it is going to lag and wont perform the way it was designed to, even the server providers know the entire mode is fubar. park two titans next to each other and it doesnt matter if you have HAL the super computer, your game will lag.

[I am RKO]

If Rubber Ducky can't do it, then nobody can.

Ominous Words.. going in the sig.

[FPS[VT_NERD]]

It's not a matter of whether it was intended for 48 players or not. With such logic, 64 player berlin servers and the like should also be subject to this "ruling"

Nor should it be a matter of whether or not the servers can handle 64 players, this would be none of EA's business.

If it is true that they will literally shut down 64 player titan servers, I can see no reasonable basis for doing so.

I totally agree.

because to get a titan to accept 64 players you have to alter some core files, you cant just set the player count to 64 and go. you also put yourself at an unfair advantage for server ranking when you have 14 more players than all other titans your competing with, granted i have no problem with it, if the server can do it go for it

i think thats one of their reasonings behind it, the unfair advantage in the server rank issues and the enormous complaints about lag.

I thought server ranking was how full your server was over a period of time. For example, if a 16 slot server is 100% full for 30 days then on game-monitor it should be ranked near the #1 slot even though it only has 16 players. You do not gain any advantage by having extra slots other than players want to play on 64 slot servers so you are able to attract and keep players more easily.

[-Ackley]

no, its the servers, this has been proven time and time again, the end users machine has nothing to do with titian lag, its a problem in the game mode and the servers, theres a reason server providers warn you when you rent a titan server that it is going to lag and wont perform the way it was designed to, even the server providers know the entire mode is fubar. park two titans next to each other and it doesnt matter if you have HAL the super computer, your game will lag.

So explain to me how I can play 64 man titian (flying driving shooting and knifing) and not have any problems or complaints other then my ping. I run a P4 1.25 ram and an X800 GTO (which isn't even overclocked lol) and I have great game play and enjoy myself ?

Yes if you park them next to each other its gonna lag, you ever play CS:S ? on a 32 man CS:S server when everyone spawns and starts moving it causes lag cause they are so close it LAGSS until they break apart. If other 64 man servers followed Cain's titian movement rule then the 64 man servers would be a dream and that is why I play there. Cain's Lair is 1 of 4 servers I will play on and that is it. The admins are nice to me and the members are a great specially after I first bought the game cause I had played wit a few of them in BF2 and they were a great help. I have very few problems when playing on a 64 titian and support their use.

If you have problems playing then you need to A) make sure your computer is togther properly B) clean up sypware or adware C) upgrade your pc cause I run old tech and I have no problems.. or I suggest you restrict titian movment on your server sense I see you little "server owner" tag.

Nothing personal but people take this way overboard when alls it take is a simple rule and game play is great.

-Ackley



PS if the 64 man server is more fun ? and it has a higher rank ? then I would say you need to upgrade cause people seem to be having more fun.

Grass is always greener on the otherside.

[Ravage]

I think if you rent a 64 player bf 2142 server. You should be able to run what you want on it.

I would not care if it was a 128 player server, as long as its fun. Ill be there.

If EA wants servers to be exactly how they want them, then let them host there own servers. Now granted i dont run a server, but if i did. I would be a little miffed about this.

Imagine if EA said conquest has to only be 48 players after the patch and anyone caught running 64 players would be delisted. Well thats how stupid it sounds for doing it to titan mode as well.

[FPS[VT_NERD]]

Titan "lag" is a combination between user graphics settings, user hardware, server hardware and a poorly coded game engine. You can't point to any single thing and say "that's why Titan mode lags" and have it be a universally true statement.

Yes, if a server is running on inferior hardware the playing experience will be worse. However, there are solutions available to rent that can (and do) run Titan mode fine. They are more expensive, but if a group rents a server capable of running Titan for 64 players then why does EA/DICE feel the need to stop this? If you get 70 fps in conquest with everything on high, you can't just switch to titan mode and expect the same performance so turn down your graphics or upgrade your components. Titan mode is just buggy, our server crashed at least twice a day when we had Titan maps in our rotation. We took them out so we didn't have to deal with that and server crashes are much less frequent now and our hardware isn't top of the line but it's still very good.

[paceman]

When a large company does something that makes no sense. Follow the money trail. With the same number of players it takes more small servers to satisfy the customers than a few large servers. Smaller servers, more servers, more money......

[*FMJ*Power]

When a large company does something that makes no sense. Follow the money trail. With the same number of players it takes more small servers to satisfy the customers than a few large servers. Smaller servers, more servers, more money......

contrary to popular belief, the server owners don't act like the whinny little stat happy b!tches that play the game, none of us could really care less about rank and we all support cain and ducky, their servers are big dogs. this change has nothing to do with anyone, its most likely because of the new upcoming titan mode for the booster allowing 64 people and i wouldn't be surprised if you dont see a few exceptions being made for machines that can do it.

[paceman]

contrary to popular belief, the server owners don't act like the whinny little stat happy b!tches that play the game, none of us could really care less about rank and we all support cain and ducky, their servers are big dogs. this change has nothing to do with anyone, its most likely because of the new upcoming titan mode for the booster allowing 64 people and i wouldn't be surprised if you dont see a few exceptions being made for machines that can do it.
I hope you didn't think I meant server owners were the ones making the money! I know very well what it costs a server owner to run a server, they certainly aren't making money.... I believe that EA is trying to artificially inflate their bottom line.

[paceman]

It's really pitiful that one server owner, in fear of losing his #1 ranking, has a hissy fit to EA and has the best Titan servers in the game threatened with delisting if they don't immediately drop back to 48 players. One guy has now ruined the game for hundreds, if not thousands, of players for an ultimately meaningless ranking.

Way to go.

:rolleyes:
+1 - A favorite server, that was hard enough to get into before, is now next to impossible to join.

[FPS[VT_NERD]]

It's really pitiful that one server owner, in fear of losing his #1 ranking, has a hissy fit to EA and has the best Titan servers in the game threatened with delisting if they don't immediately drop back to 48 players. One guy has now ruined the game for hundreds, if not thousands, of players for an ultimately meaningless ranking.

Way to go.

:rolleyes:

You registered on the server to post this nonsense?

The people who said 64 man Titan servers are going the way of the buffalo were DICE, not any server owner's at all.

If you really and truly don't know what you are talking about then don't post nonsense like it's truth.

[paceman]

You registered on the server to post this nonsense?

The people who said 64 man Titan servers are going the way of the buffalo were DICE, not any server owner's at all.

If you really and truly don't know what you are talking about then don't post nonsense like it's truth.
How do you know what he said is not true? Maybe.... You should look in the mirror about posting nonsense......

[Ravage]

Titan "lag" is a combination between user graphics settings, user hardware, server hardware and a poorly coded game engine. You can't point to any single thing and say "that's why Titan mode lags" and have it be a universally true statement.

Yes, if a server is running on inferior hardware the playing experience will be worse. However, there are solutions available to rent that can (and do) run Titan mode fine. They are more expensive, but if a group rents a server capable of running Titan for 64 players then why does EA/DICE feel the need to stop this? If you get 70 fps in conquest with everything on high, you can't just switch to titan mode and expect the same performance so turn down your graphics or upgrade your components. Titan mode is just buggy, our server crashed at least twice a day when we had Titan maps in our rotation. We took them out so we didn't have to deal with that and server crashes are much less frequent now and our hardware isn't top of the line but it's still very good.


Good post :)

[FPS[VT_NERD]]

How do you know what he said is not true? Maybe.... You should look in the mirror about posting nonsense......

Right, when you have 1k+ posts that add content to the site then you can tell me that I post nonsense. Now back on topic....

Look into the real situation behind the scenes before you call it nonsense. Seriously. An owner paying EA for several popular, highly-ranked servers has a lot more clout than you might think.

Unfortunately for the players.

First, no server owner directly pays EA. We pay the people who provide our servers and they pay EA for the ability to rent out BF2 and 2142 servers. To the best of my knowledge, EA makes the exact same amount of money for a server that is ranked #2000 and a server that is ranked #1.

Second, you are posting pure speculation as if it were fact. I would not wish misfortune on FMJ, RubberDucky, >mace< or any other popular server even if it meant that my server would be ranked higher. Furthermore, based on the interactions I see in forums that you can't read, I highly doubt any of these high ranked server owners would wish misfortune on one another just to get a higher rank and FMJ went so far as to post this a few replies up from this one.

The bottom line is that FMJ didn't go whine to DICE that other servers had high ranks and DICE said "ok well let's get rid of them so you'll have less competition." This entire "kill the 64 player Titan servers" originated with EA/DICE and many SO's (including me) have expressed their disagreement. FMJ never even posted in this thread that they were afraid of losing their rank nor did they start this thread. I honestly don't know where you got this idea that "#1 server complained so something is being done" because it didn't come from this thread and it has no supporting evidence anywhere else that I'm aware of.

[spork32983475938]

i can say,
i must be really fortunate, because i have never ever lagged on any 64 player titan, or conquest map period..

why that is ..

I'm sure many people are going to ask..
this is why..

and i have pos computer btw compared to most of you..

i have a 13 mbit connection with 1 meg up...

nothing special about my connection most of you have cox also


i have 15 processes running on my pc..

it starts up at 88 megs of ram..

after loading basic programs its stable at 120 megs of ram steady..

this probably doesn't mean much to most of you because your computer stars up and runs at probably 350 ish with 30 something processes..

its a big deal in my world because i only have 1 gig of ram..

part two to this, is that i run my battlefield on lowest settings possible...

thus my ping is nearly always around 30 something...

i also run my video card on performance only not quality..

due to the fact i have a raideon x700 pro 256 ddr3 and i dont over clock my stuff ever..

this card is not even shader 3 compliant..

i have a old processor

Athlon 64 3000+ running at 1.8GHz with 1MB of L2 no over clocking ever..

my whole point here is this..

my system blows, and my game and everything runs perfectly fine,

not one single crash to desktop,

not one single lag spike,

not one single anything except master server disconnects once in a while...

which, they are less frequent then the red blue bug we have now in the game..

happens when they are working on there stuff anyway...

for those of you that cant belive it ..

and think he must be fibbing..

I've attached a screen of my pc,
containes its processes and ram status,

this will actually run even faster without the windows blinds skin i have..
i get as low as 88 megs of ram without it.....

i have no reason to be fibbing..

and here is a comparison to a normal windows xp user screen shot also

----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok now i have explained why my computer doesn't have this issue..and now ill attempt to help a good portion of you that are having this problem..

because i have helped some people and this is the main causes of the ctd and lag and everything else..so i do agree there is lag..for some people..not me...

first common problem..ctd

this happens 9 times out of ten most users have anti virus running while trying to play a game online ..its not going to work..and if it does its a huge resource hog..

i know some of you guys out there are huge security freaks,

but solution 2, would be to disable fire walls and anti virus,
spy wares programs etc etc ...

and don't be fooled, just because you turned off the programs like i suggested,

does not mean the processes don't exist any more ..

look in your process manager and see what is exctaly is running ..

if you have more running then 15 or 17 processes running, you need to disable all that garbage because u do not need it, and it is clearly bogging your computer down..

also i say 15 or 17 because some of you guys out there require wireless connections with there programs installed to connect etc etc should be around 17 ish processes...

also have a look into the services part of your computer and find out what you don't use ...

windows printer and fax service
ie: myself i never ever have used a printer..so i turned all that stuff off...

windows fire wall
ie: i don't use window fire wall because i hardware router fire wall

windows update
ie: i don't use windows update because i built my own...


there is so much crap inside windows that u dont need its unreal..

anyway ill just shut up now and upload my screen here for you guys..

i hope this helps thats all i was trying to accomplish here..
my screen->
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/1628/screenzp4.th.jpg (http://img232.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenzp4.jpg)

anonmyous xp pro users screen->
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/7928/untitledjw9.th.jpg (http://img232.imageshack.us/my.php?image=untitledjw9.jpg)

[paceman]

Right, when you have 1k+ posts that add content to the site then you can tell me that I post nonsense. Now back on topic....



First, no server owner directly pays EA. We pay the people who provide our servers and they pay EA for the ability to rent out BF2 and 2142 servers. To the best of my knowledge, EA makes the exact same amount of money for a server that is ranked #2000 and a server that is ranked #1.

Second, you are posting pure speculation as if it were fact. I would not wish misfortune on FMJ, RubberDucky, >mace< or any other popular server even if it meant that my server would be ranked higher. Furthermore, based on the interactions I see in forums that you can't read, I highly doubt any of these high ranked server owners would wish misfortune on one another just to get a higher rank and FMJ went so far as to post this a few replies up from this one.

The bottom line is that FMJ didn't go whine to DICE that other servers had high ranks and DICE said "ok well let's get rid of them so you'll have less competition." This entire "kill the 64 player Titan servers" originated with EA/DICE and many SO's (including me) have expressed their disagreement. FMJ never even posted in this thread that they were afraid of losing their rank nor did they start this thread. I honestly don't know where you got this idea that "#1 server complained so something is being done" because it didn't come from this thread and it has no supporting evidence anywhere else that I'm aware of.
My point is/was I don't know TD_2142, you don't know TD_2142, how can you just say he has no idea what he's talking about? 64 player servers are being told to back off by EA/Dice, that is a fact. Either someone is causing problems for them, or EA/Dice are just being idiots and/or greedy. I apologize that my post came off a little harsh, I didn't intend to.

[TD_2142]

As it turns out, my earlier posts were based on misinformation from an angry fellow player who was under the misimpression that Ducky was shut down because of the recent 64 player change. Having looked into the situation I have discovered it was nothing more than a provider change and have removed my posts. My apologies, I shall go from here and flame no more.

[paceman]

As it turns out, my earlier posts were based on misinformation from an angry fellow player who was under the misimpression that Ducky was shut down because of the recent 64 player change. Having looked into the situation I have discovered it was nothing more than a provider change and have removed my posts. My apologies, I shall go from here and flame no more.
Well, now aren't I the horse's ***! Last time I play devil's advocate. :(

[« R²» HKS]

I really don't understand this decision. They can delist 64 player titan but they can't delist knife/pistol servers?

If a server that can handle 64 player wants to play 64 player titan what's the big deal? Its not as if those people playing get more points its all about choice. Those servers that are ranking whores without the grunt to support 64 player titan won't last before players play eslewhere.

Then there is the mixed mode problem. Want to play 64 conquest so you pay for a 64 slot or even a fully dedicated server. Then want to switch to titan and you can only run 48 then it costs you a lot of money that is just going to waste.

Way to support the server owners. Just another kick in the guts!

[Revoluti0n]

With all due respect, game mode is irrelevant here.

I assume you understand now then right? It makes every bit of difference.

I guess that makes sense and in such light, I don't see a problem with shutting them down. It's a shame they don't just allow the option either way but oh well :)

[BrokenPhoenix]

I really don't understand this decision. They can delist 64 player titan but they can't delist knife/pistol servers?

It's because one is easily automatable while one is not.

It's easy to look at two variables 'Game Mode=Titan' and 'Max Players=64' and disallow the game from being played. But K&P servers don't involve variables. Basically the only tell is that 'Knife' and/or 'Pistol' may be in the name. But even still, those words being in the name doesn't guarantee it's a K&P only server.

For banning K&P servers to be feasible they'd have to manually look and not allow them... Which wouldn't be that hard but they probably don't feel like paying someone to do it.

[Whiteplague]

those servers lag really badly but...

i dont see why they should shut them down

[ultimate]

those servers lag really badly but...

i dont see why they should shut them down

It's because when the game was released, EA/DICE announced that ranked servers were not allowed to go above 48 players on titan mode. A couple GSPs didn't follow this rule and modified some of the game code to allow more than 48.

[« R²» HKS]

It's because when the game was released, EA/DICE announced that ranked servers were not allowed to go above 48 players on titan mode. A couple GSPs didn't follow this rule and modified some of the game code to allow more than 48.

So on that basis they should shut down every server that is streaming to Punksbusted and pbbans as they have some form of FTP/write access to the PB folder which is against the ROE and "against their current policy"

Anyone remember the BF2 demo? There were a ton of servers who edited a python file to allow unlimited game time (instead of the demo limited 15 minutes) and also to allow all unlocks. EA then said they would delist any servers doing this and they did but some were never touched. You would think they would have done this based on server settings but that didn't seem to be the case. The smart servers (or dumb depends how you look at it) continued to have these modded settings. How did they get away with it? They changed their server name to not include any mention of No time limit or all unlocks.

It would take 5-10 minutes per week to delist any server with P&K,Knife, Pistol, Shock paddle in the server name. A quick search on gamemonitor, copy the IP's and delist those servers. Not a hard thing to do. I believe that DICE have stated before that even having those words in a server name is not on even if its a fully legit server.

[Stryker]

I play on 64 man titan mode, with everything hyped up to the highest possibile setting and no lagg.

2142 is weird, if you want the best 64 man play for your money go BF2, even today there is awesome firefights, as LONG as you DONT play KARKAND. :laugh:

[LahLahSr]

Whoa wait a minute - did I miss something here?

These titan maps "were not designed for 64 players" ??? Unless the maps have changed since BF2142 was released, Titan mode with 64 players was advertised heavily before release. These maps were designed with 64 players in mind - now whether that was clever or not is another matter of course.

What I can't quite get is WHY this wasn't properly tested and optimized before release.

Going lower than 64 players is a step backwards - average bandwidth is higher across the board, average PC performance is increasing nad you would think that experienced developers get better with time.

Joint Operations with bigger maps, foliage, land, sea & air units, 1KM+ draw distance etc. etc. had 128 players, for example - and that was several years ago.

I wonder if it's some sort of obsesssion with eye-candy or a new genration of coders who never got properly slapped at the back of their heads for not optimizing their code. Maybe it is the Quality Assurance guys who need a kick in the butt...who knows...

But overall I think it's pretty depressing that things are moving the wrong direction - this kind iof game would go from "good" to "great" if there were 128 player support.