So ???

[Cain]

Should we get 1 64 player server, or two ??

[goldenfooler]

do one and see how it goes.. you can always get another one.
I just remember not finding many people I know to kill when BF2 had more then one server.

Though if you are going to run karkland then you have to have the DLC. Not sure if you would want to run more then one server because of this.

[Caddys83]

one

[Duke{CLR}]

Two. I think there will be a whole bunch of family coming home for the holidays.

Put one of them on the east coast or Chicago.

[pigworthy]

Just played tonight for a bit over an hour. Very nice game. I think 2 is worth considering, maybe 1 with the idea of 2 in a couple of weeks after if all goes well. Better to work out kinks on the 1st.

[K PhaNTOM]

One.

[BlackArrow]

Two would attract two different geographic sets of players and more advertising for the Lair

Worth a try since most people's favorites are established very early in a games life

And if there is no waiting qeue to get on a server we risk losing players to another server

[Cain]

Two would attract two different geographic sets of players and more advertising for the Lair

Worth a try since most people's favorites are established very early in a games life

And if there is no waiting qeue to get on a server we risk losing players to another server

Agreed on all points. I'm thinking two, with the possibility one will be vanilla and the other HC.

One in Dallas, and the other in NJ or Chicago.

I need you folks to be checking out Gamservers.com servers in NJ and Chicago.

Also, just take a look at the number of players in our Platoon!!

I am going to send out another mass mailing today, and see if we can get more BF2 players to come back home.

[juneau]

One.

I'd prefer 1 jam packed, always full server, than 2 servers that we're jumpstarting for hours everyday.

But you never know, maybe this game will hold peoples gnat like attentions spans a little better, and we won't have a massive player drop off after 2 months. Therefore i'd say 2.

[Duke{CLR}]

NJ gameserver #256 has an awesome ping (2 for mini and I. I'll give the Chicago one a try later on.

[Zantheus]

I would like to see 2...I think we will be able to keep them both going strong with the right TLC

[FrOgM]

start with one and see from there

[paceman]

I'd agree with one, after all it is 64 players.

[{CLR} Cobalt]

Couple of things you need to consider. If you get 2, geographical location and ping come into play. Poeple will usually migrate to the lowest ping server near them. That splits the people at the lair up right from the start.

That can be good and bad. Good in the fact that there are Lair people on both servers to try and help people join, have fun and maybe stay. The bad is that we might not be able to play with some poeple we like playing with. I know I enjoy playing with certain squads. Mainly because I know how they play and we communicate well. Just makes it more fun. Least for me.

I think starting out with one would take the pressure off of us having to decide which one we want to play on. But if you have to run a second one later, it wont be established from the start and my be harder to keep populated. It's a catch 22 either way you look at it.

One other note kinda related. After playing the Vanilla server in the Beta, I can say that I like that better than hardcore. At least in BF3. Seems BC2 was just too crappy on Vanilla. But I think they have a good balance with the hit counts and damage for BF3. And remember, I'v been a HC advocate the whole time in BC2. But that was that game. This is different. More like the old BF games.

Lastly. I know there is a continued debate about the location of the server and where the best pings are. I know the folks that live back east wish you would put it close up there. Folks in Texas like it were it is. Folks in CA. wish it would be on the Left coast. I really dont care where we play. But I will tell you this. Some servers just play better even if your ping is bad. And vice versa. You can have a good ping and still the server plays crappy. I had one server I played in CA. that would be better than Tx sometimes. It just depends on the server.

Playing in a central location might not make everyone happy, but I think it's all about the server more than ping. Cain can correct me if I'm wrong. But I hope we take that into consideration wherever we put them.

[Cain]

Thx for the feedback guys.

Many of you may not remember but at times I had 3 BF2 servers and all stayed FULL. As the game dropped I kept dropping back on servers and it condensed our folks into one server that stayed very busy for about a year.

I am stunned by the number of people we have had join our platoon. Remember to get a good server going, particularly with a new game only requires about 1/3 of the server. ATM we have enough people in our platoon to keep 3 servers busy.

I have not ruled out three servers for this game at the start, perhaps more. Back in those day one BF2 server cost $250.00/month, I was spending $750.00/month on game servers and donations were not covering all of them.

Now I can buy three BF3 servers for the cost of one BF2 server, or less!

Cobalt from my testing and my many years of experience, Central US Servers whether they be in Chicago or Texas, tend to stay busier than East Coast Servers. some notable exceptions were DOD and COD4 which were both East Coast Servers.

Texas servers work best for anyone below the mason dixon line all the way to Californy, and Chicago servers work best for everyone above the mason dixon line, the NE, pacific NW and Canada. Of those two groups more live north than south, but many of my old timers are in the south or southeast, plus me.

I'll almost definitely try two at first, maybe three. My preference for BF games is always the base mode, minus the kill-cam for a ton of reasons -- and more people play the vanilla version.

When a game is new most play base mode, when it ages to the old timers they often prefer HC.