I remember a freind i know who does game desinging for DICE said that with a bit of work the UT3 engine will happely support 128 players online 
Upvote
0
RO:HOS multi-play max player
- Thread starter tochiri
- Start date
Am I the only one who prefers smaller player numbers? Makes for a tighter and more exciting game if you ask me.
Upvote
0
I remember a freind i know who does game desinging for DICE said that with a bit of work the UT3 engine will happely support 128 players online
I do not think that it is pleasant that I play with 128 players...
The balance that 64 players have just good.
Upvote
0
yeah i do. but i'd also love a 128 player game, that would be chaos!!
the only time I would play with 127 other people, is a large tank map
Upvote
0
Bigger is better.... providing the maps fit. Many of the custom maps for RO just screamed for 128 players... and seemed pitifully empty even with 50 people. And it's not just map size and chokepoints that matter, weapon counts and capture counts must be scaled up too.
I think one thing overlooked is that spawn times don't have to stay rigid as player counts rise. Remember that the main reason for respawns is to simulate large forces with relatively few players. With such a large potential player count... I think it would be most prudent to reassess spawn mechanisms. We should be trying to get people to play as teams, and stay alive. When RO started, 16 people a side simply wasn't enough to do this, so respawning was essential to keep enough people at the front. But with 64+ a side... that's a lot of room to play with.
I think one thing overlooked is that spawn times don't have to stay rigid as player counts rise. Remember that the main reason for respawns is to simulate large forces with relatively few players. With such a large potential player count... I think it would be most prudent to reassess spawn mechanisms. We should be trying to get people to play as teams, and stay alive. When RO started, 16 people a side simply wasn't enough to do this, so respawning was essential to keep enough people at the front. But with 64+ a side... that's a lot of room to play with.
Upvote
0
Yes but RO isn't simulating 25 Russians fighting 25 axis, all of whom have like an average of 12 respawns. It's simulating company/battalion size battles. That's why it's called "reinforcements" and not "respawns".
See my point? You're esentially playing a "different" soldier every time you spawn. Your 25 player team is simulating 250 player team, which makes your point moot. (not trying to be an asshole btw)
I agree with the above on resawn times. On a map like Berezina, with say, a 128 player server I'd like to see 1 minute respawn times .That sounds like an eternity but it really isn't, and combined with a squad system, more effective suppression system etc. it will make people play as a team. (it's been done, look at PR).
RO needs to move away from the churnel house style combat and more to the epic gigantic scale battles where dying really does take you out of the fight for a significant period of time. (though still having small maps with low respawn types ala classic RO would be cool).
Even with the smaller maps, I'd like to see extended respawn times. Again, this combined with an effective squad system+suppression would make people play more as a team because dying has penalties. With such a big playercount you can afford to have half the people dead at any one time.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
So basically make RO=PR?
They are both good games, but RO should focus on what it does best; small scale infantry combat.
PR does large maps well because of it's adapted BF2esque spawning system. RO is good for CA maps, but not where non AT inf are forced to use transports...
Upvote
0
I think that's the least of the problems.
Most people have very capable graphics hardware (AMD-ATI HD-series, nVidia GeForce 8-series or higher) these days. And if not, you can get an amazingly fast HD 4770 for 100 USD these days as long as you have PCI Express of course.
The biggest problems with such high player counts are bandwidth and processing (should be solved with the native multithreaded dedicated server) issues.
Upvote
0
I've personally never been a fan of big player numbers. I still play BF2, but even on 64 player map sizes I prefer a maximum of 40 players, otherwise it just turns into a complete nade/claymore spam fest at the choke points. The Project Reality mod handles the player numbers much better though, and funnily enough it has a very similar game mode to ROs. It also limits grenades by kit.
I've played on TWB servers a fair bit, and I've never felt that it was too busy. ROs main gametype and the map design are very good at controlling the carnage, but on smaller infantry maps the 50 player count can get a bit too manic for my tastes. I like to have some room to breathe, and not be constantly shot in the back or naded.
I've played on TWB servers a fair bit, and I've never felt that it was too busy. ROs main gametype and the map design are very good at controlling the carnage, but on smaller infantry maps the 50 player count can get a bit too manic for my tastes. I like to have some room to breathe, and not be constantly shot in the back or naded.
Upvote
0
I never considered RO nades as nadespam. If we are going for realism, then there should be even more nades.
Grenades were a vital part of both Germand and Russian forces, and often used to clear any room/trench/corner before going in. It is up to us players not to be where the grenades tend to fall. The very fact that people call nadespam on some areas or maps means they are predicting the nades will fall at a certain place and time. Avoid that. On small maps like Danzig, it was important not to get stuck bunched up in hallways or rooms, or stay stationary too long.
I say more nades, keep the gameplay interesting. I know it took more thought when there was a lot of grenades on some maps. It always seems contrived and somewhat "whiney" to be on maps where the grenades have been modded out.
Just imagine on a 60v 60 map perhaps, the thunder of 240 grenades going off in the first couple minutes of a map. Probably a lot like the sound of the start of a real skirmish.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Grenade spam is more often an issue of bottlenecks than too many grenades. Many small scale maps have only a very limited number of ways in and out of areas, making them easy grenade spamming targets.
Maps don't necessarily *have* to be bigger to support more players, you can fit many more people into the same space simply by opening up the map more. So often you find doors shut, debris and wreckage blocking roads and windows blocked up in current maps. This forces people into the same shooting positions and paths to advance over. This pushes players together to force confrontations, again a mechanism to make the map work with a smaller player count. It just has the nasty side effect of funnelling people into very obvious grenade spamming targets.
Maps don't necessarily *have* to be bigger to support more players, you can fit many more people into the same space simply by opening up the map more. So often you find doors shut, debris and wreckage blocking roads and windows blocked up in current maps. This forces people into the same shooting positions and paths to advance over. This pushes players together to force confrontations, again a mechanism to make the map work with a smaller player count. It just has the nasty side effect of funnelling people into very obvious grenade spamming targets.
Upvote
0
What's all this talk about whether or not your graphics card can handle it? GPU controls what you see, it's the server that is going to determine whether or not 128 players is plausible, not your GPU. The only thing your GPU may struggle with is dealing with lots of explosions, and if it can't handle that then there's a high chance that your computer is quite a few years old, and in that case probably won't run RO:HOS anyway.
WW2 was chaotic, 128 players is chaotic. Sounds good to me.
WW2 was chaotic, 128 players is chaotic. Sounds good to me.
Upvote
0
I think you guys are missing the point. I'm all for keeping the small maps, with a 32 player limit.
But I ALSO want to see bigger maps with a 128 player limit where you can get more widescale tactics, dynamics etc. going. Where one tank cant' pin the whole front basically.
Think of a map like Kryokovo. Now imagine that twice as wide. Now imagine that with 128 people (80% of them bolters). That would be epic. I challenge anyone to disagree.
With high playercounts I'd definitely want to see a majority of people being botlers (though it wouldn't be historically inaccurate to have practiaclly a whole team of Ruskies equipped with PPsh).
Likewise, it would make Omaha like maps actually FUN. A map like Kriegstadt would be much more intense.
And btw guys, Project Reality standard riflemen are issued 4 frag grenades and 2 smoke grenades. Grenade launcher riflemen get like 8 203 nades. Spam isn't an issue.
I'm not saying turn RO into PR. But taking elements from it would definitely be smart (just like PR would be wise to take the ballistics, weapon bracing, etc. from RO)
But I ALSO want to see bigger maps with a 128 player limit where you can get more widescale tactics, dynamics etc. going. Where one tank cant' pin the whole front basically.
Think of a map like Kryokovo. Now imagine that twice as wide. Now imagine that with 128 people (80% of them bolters). That would be epic. I challenge anyone to disagree.
With high playercounts I'd definitely want to see a majority of people being botlers (though it wouldn't be historically inaccurate to have practiaclly a whole team of Ruskies equipped with PPsh).
Likewise, it would make Omaha like maps actually FUN. A map like Kriegstadt would be much more intense.
And btw guys, Project Reality standard riflemen are issued 4 frag grenades and 2 smoke grenades. Grenade launcher riflemen get like 8 203 nades. Spam isn't an issue.
I'm not saying turn RO into PR. But taking elements from it would definitely be smart (just like PR would be wise to take the ballistics, weapon bracing, etc. from RO)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Its ALL about the loadouts. As i pray since ages...take away the nades from classes like mg/sniper/rifle/semi and reduce the smg classes on 50 player servers on maps like Lyes Krovy and Danzig and the like. Maps like Zithomir revenge show how it should be done. And i hope Tripwire is aware of those issues when the playercount raises above 32...
Upvote
0
Yes ZR is a good example of how loadouts should be. I really like playing that map when things are balanced well and grenades aren't flying everywhere except for the assault troops having them.
Upvote
0
Without proper squad systems with hierarchial squad management, 128 players don't make any sense to me too. It'd be unorganised chaos which I find very frustrating, just like 50-64 player RO servers.
TW must come with a Squad-Commander system like BF2 if they want to do something big with numbers(big tank encounters etc included).
Upvote
0
Not if ROHOS features throwback of nades and a grenade sacrifice system that shields the blast away from your team-mates but yourself.
Upvote
0
Grenade throwback is so overrated(Hollywood much?). You'll have 1-1.5 seconds at most to pick-up and throw nades, it'll mostly blow on your face. Friendly sacrifice doesn't reduce grenade spam as well, and is not realistic(IMO).
Also my problem with RO is that there are way too much smoke grenades. There's a constant smoke spam in every game and I hate it. Smoke should be less frequent.
Upvote
0