atleast 100 players online
- Thread starter s3b4k
- Start date
For that reason I hope that the sp part of RO:HoS won't simply use MP rules in the game. But messes around with numbers of enemies and how they spawn and move around.
Being in the grain elevator with 150 soldiers assaulting you would be neat
Being in the grain elevator with 150 soldiers assaulting you would be neat
Upvote
0
And I thought that RO:Ost needed a proper chain of command system even with 50 players >_>
With 50 players you could have at least one platoon leader on each side and three squad leaders. Then each squad could have 8 members, including the squad leader.
With 50 players you could have at least one platoon leader on each side and three squad leaders. Then each squad could have 8 members, including the squad leader.
Upvote
0
What will force players to move in squads instead of independent roaming with random members?
Upvote
0
locking communication for every squad is a starting point (like vehicle chat you get a separate channel for your squad). And if a squadleader is able to select spawn at least a squad will pretty much be attacking the same objective from the same side. (especially in for instance countdown, a group will then spawn probably separate from the rest at the same time).
But a main thing I guess would be in communication, you need to be able to yell in a direction, so you could easily talk to an individual. And there should be an easy way I guess to find out someone's name if you want to talk to him.
Since communication is hard generally in a game, it would perhaps be best to have small sized squads rather than big sized ones as that would make people more prone to stay together (as its easier to get to know each other).
I think the introduction of the morale system (whatever it will be) was probably primarily to get people to stick together.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Nothing. Counter-question: What will force the players now to follow orders? Especially since there isn't any chain of command. Delegating orders was almost impossible in Ostfront, with chain of command it would be more than possible.
Such system wouldn't do any harm.
Upvote
0
They will have a possibility to join a leader squad by clicking on him therefore squad leader collects some amount of ppl so those people led by him will definately be willing to listen to his orders beacuse it was their choice to join his command. If there would be 2-3 leaders per team then probably ppl would join more experienced leader if they noticed some leader better than others in a team. But ppl shouldn't be force to listen to commands, it's a still a game and there's a lot of individuals that won't listen just to a stranger cause they not sure if they'll be safe with him or not.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Who said anything about forcing?
This would help in communication, it wouldn't make "artificial" objectives here and there. The platoon leader could tell the squad leaders where to attack, and the squad leaders would tell their squad members to go where he wants them to go.
Upvote
0
long story short, the only people who will make any extensive use of the command system, or for that matter even obey the commands will be clan members, and probably a very small number of pubbers (who will more than likely eventually join/start up a clan)
I say 100 player games would be great if there was a map that could accomodate that many players(maybe 2x the size of Konigsplatz), but even then, the only way it would be any fun would be if it was a 100-player clan match, which has always been a wet dream of mine
I say 100 player games would be great if there was a map that could accomodate that many players(maybe 2x the size of Konigsplatz), but even then, the only way it would be any fun would be if it was a 100-player clan match, which has always been a wet dream of mine
Upvote
0
Fine, be stuck with crappy VOIP that doesn't help organizing the team one bit either
That's why we have a order pointing system which I thought it's great (it can be seen here YouTube - Red Orchestra: Heroes of Stalingrad Gameplay Walkthrough[/URL])
It's gonna completely revolutinise the gameplay, the combat will now look more kind of one guy approaching to the door while other guy is covering behind him and overall more tactical combat. But I would like to see some delay on orders depending on a experience points a leader gained. So that would put a leader in disadvantage over the veteran - leader. Like when you click for soldier to move over there and then next move somewhere else etc, the more moves you set up the longer delay time will be. But the time would be reduced for player with more experience points.
Upvote
0
I think to get the notion of a squad across is that when you join, not only do you have to select what class you go (rifleman, assault etc) after that, you then go to another similar screen of which you choose what squad you want to be in, lead by the squad leader. Of course the person who chooses the squad leader class doesnt have to choose his squad, seeing as he is the crux of the squad.
Upvote
0
I think something similar however slightly different. Per map depending on the amount of players there are X free squad slots.
Say with 32 players (aka 16 per side) there are 3 free squad slots and everybody can just join/leave whatever squad he prefers. In every squad the players within the squad can vote who will be the squad leader.
Of course with a system like this the squad leader would just be a rank and not a class (you don't want like 8 people calling arty and throwing smoke on a single map). Allowing for instance a squad to be formed of solely rifleman with a rifleman as a squad leader. And a squad of smg soldiers.
The class with the smoke and stuff that is currently the squad leader would be renamed to platoon leader (which doesn't sound too far off especially if you consider that there are reinforcements).
Upvote
0
Reality check time, guys.
1, populating a 32 player server in Ost happens about once a week.
2, due to original game design, map designs are intended for small player counts. 100 people on a 32 player map means nade spam. Satchel spam. What have you, you'll have it.
3, increased player counts equal increased client side processor/memory loads, slowing performance and decreasing the graphics ceiling allowed by most hardware.
4, increased player counts increase server side loads, meaning potentially increased processing time for simple requests, slowing response times.
1, populating a 32 player server in Ost happens about once a week.
2, due to original game design, map designs are intended for small player counts. 100 people on a 32 player map means nade spam. Satchel spam. What have you, you'll have it.
3, increased player counts equal increased client side processor/memory loads, slowing performance and decreasing the graphics ceiling allowed by most hardware.
4, increased player counts increase server side loads, meaning potentially increased processing time for simple requests, slowing response times.
Upvote
0
I don't live in the USA so there are a lot more populated ROOST servers, but this thread isn't even about Roost, its about RO:HoS.
This thread isn't about roost aka nobody knows how big or small maps would be. If the game would be designed with a 100 max player amount as a target then there would be maps to accompany that player amount.
Nobody knows at what balance for players the game is made, tbh I personally wouldn't be surprised if twi allowed the max of 64 players on ROHOS. And would make more maps aimed at higher player amounts than currently in Roost. (Sadly for me because the main thing I care for is clan gaming which would mean that smaller maps like the current roost maps would work the best).
Nothing has been shown about the current ROHOS net performance, although I indeed highly doubt that 100 players are within a logical short term possibility with ROHOS. Yet we don't know how it performs currently so its impossible to say what would be the max possible amount of server slots.
------------
In current RO I hate 50 player servers most of the time, but in ArmA I for instance love the 100+ player servers. It all depends on how things are set-up and work, and how much space there is to move around.
But a lot of the discussions in here are not even specifically applying to only 100 player servers, but to the bigger servers in general. Like for instance 50-64 player servers.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I like your idea with free squad slots but you have to consider that during the battle, squad will be constantly splitting and losing it's members. I see this like this - if you want to cooporate with others, you simply click on a squad leader, or even a regular rifleman if you accept him to command you. And a mini fire team is created. So you can anytime establish contact with anyone around you in the middle of a map. If you die or he dies fireteam is closed. So you have to go find your squad and join it again. Also if leader dies, then whole squad is closing up with all the players in it. So the players lose a lot of benefits by not being within range of his leader anymore.
Upvote
0
True with respawning game types it would be nice to create a squad with people you see on the fly. Although I think if squadleaders could select a spawn position from a few spots, that then squads wouldn't mix too much.
I mean if you play with your friend there should be a way to play with him within your squad the entire time, although I dunno how that could be realized.
I mean if you play with your friend there should be a way to play with him within your squad the entire time, although I dunno how that could be realized.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
what about having new squads form from KIAs... i don't know the rest would work out but it would be cool... i think that would make ppl make smarter choices so the squads aren't broken up.
if a SL is in a a spawn with a shot up squad then the old player spawns with the them... if they are still fighting... then the new squad is formed from other ppl and they are then sent it like reinforcements to the battered squad(s)
...just an idea
if a SL is in a a spawn with a shot up squad then the old player spawns with the them... if they are still fighting... then the new squad is formed from other ppl and they are then sent it like reinforcements to the battered squad(s)
...just an idea
Upvote
0
Must be lovely to be European. *considers moving*
Suffice to say, we can expect populations to improve with the release of the new game, but that does not mean that they will remain constant. You can reasonably expect a population drop over the course of the game's lifespan, meaning populating these servers would become difficult. With population figures less favorable to a given audience (us poor Americans), we will have some desolate, barren maps if in fact they are designed to accommodate city populations with an actual population of a ghost town (see Ost).
Given my trouble evangelizing Tripwire's games, I wouldn't expect much success in obtaining large player counts.
Which would have the unfortunate side effect of NOT accommodating player counts significantly smaller than 100 players.
64 is a great number. I vote half 64, half 32, or make maps designed to loosely accommodate player counts ranging between 32 and 50.
Obviously, but that doesn't affect the fact that net performance is adversely affected the larger the player counts. You could have the most optimized netcode in the universe, it still wouldn't affect the fact that less players will have a reduced server load compared to larger player counts. If in fact RO2 can run a hundred player match on average hardware with similar performance to a 50 player Ost match, then go nuts, it's not an issue. That's a fantasy, however.
Upvote
0
RO:Ost is so heavily restricted by cpu power, that I wouldn't be surprised if for quite some pc's RO:HoS could actually in a way run better due to the multi core support of UE3. UT3 increased the max player amounts over ut2004 from 32 to 64, so something must have gotten better with that. (you probably still need an absolute beast for 64 players though).
The most popular filled up servers traditionally are generally the biggest servers. At the cost of activity of the smaller servers. It was like that in the mod when the first 32 player server was started, and it was like that in Roost when the first 50 player server was started. So if 100 player servers would be created they would be filled up, although at the cost of all other servers.
Personally I hope that server slots won't be limited on what theoretically would be the max possible on the best of the best hardware. But actually a max slots amount that can be obtained with the most popular game server providers. So a consistent experience can be had on most of the servers.
Personally I hope that maps will be modified and separately balanced for low and high player amounts. So 32 players wont feel empty, and 64 not cramped. Simply designing maps for say 40 players probably will be a jack of all trades a master of none scenario.
Depending on the amount of players more cap zones could stay open and be capable at the same time for instance, with more spread out spawn locations over the map. So basically the fighting will happen more spread out over the entire map and less focused on a single area.
The most popular filled up servers traditionally are generally the biggest servers. At the cost of activity of the smaller servers. It was like that in the mod when the first 32 player server was started, and it was like that in Roost when the first 50 player server was started. So if 100 player servers would be created they would be filled up, although at the cost of all other servers.
Personally I hope that server slots won't be limited on what theoretically would be the max possible on the best of the best hardware. But actually a max slots amount that can be obtained with the most popular game server providers. So a consistent experience can be had on most of the servers.
Personally I hope that maps will be modified and separately balanced for low and high player amounts. So 32 players wont feel empty, and 64 not cramped. Simply designing maps for say 40 players probably will be a jack of all trades a master of none scenario.
Depending on the amount of players more cap zones could stay open and be capable at the same time for instance, with more spread out spawn locations over the map. So basically the fighting will happen more spread out over the entire map and less focused on a single area.
Last edited:
Upvote
0