What player count do most people like to play?

[heeteepee]

Was just wondering what sort of amount of players people like to play with? I only really ever go for much below 64 but was just interested to find out everyone else views.

[Blitzk.-Bob]

I mever play on 64 slot servers, maximum 48.
We're running a 40 slot classic server, which plays really well.

[akb]

Hey those polls look interesting! By the way they only got one vote :/. I personally prefer 32-50 man server. My favorite it is 40 man, but generally I am forced to play 64 because there aren't a whole lot of servers that run 40. There aren't any in NA that I know of and if there are the are plagued with the bot force.

[Verluste]

I even avoid 64 player servers on Mamayev.
40 seems about just right

[-=}WoLvErInE{=-]

Personally for me...The More The Merrier! I wish we could have battles of like 200 vs 200. At lease 128 vs 128.

[Blitzk.-Bob]

Originally Posted by -=}WoLvErInE{=-

Personally for me...The More The Merrier! I wish we could have battles of like 200 vs 200. At lease 128 vs 128.

Apartments FTW!

[heeteepee]

Originally Posted by -=}WoLvErInE{=-

Personally for me...The More The Merrier! I wish we could have battles of like 200 vs 200. At lease 128 vs 128.

Yeah not gonna lie I would be pretty keen to see that on any map just for the sheer sight of it, even if it would be like a slide show in fps.

[-=}WoLvErInE{=-]

Originally Posted by heeteepee

Yeah not gonna lie I would be pretty keen to see that on any map just for the sheer sight of it, even if it would be like a slide show in fps.

Actually i was talking about much larger maps.

[The Commissar]

I guess I prefer large amounts of players, it just gives off a better experience for me. The only downside is that the more players you have, the less likely they're going to tactically-communicate.

[Nezzer]

Originally Posted by -=}WoLvErInE{=-

Personally for me...The More The Merrier! I wish we could have battles of like 200 vs 200. At lease 128 vs 128.

Same. I'd love to see RO gone Planetside

[SQBsam]

People seem to love 64 player, but it's really not as good for a couple of reasons. I think the RO is all about tactics, you have to fire and manoeuvre, and 64 player does not allow for this (in most maps).

With 64 players in a server both teams have enough men to man a line across the entire map, with no gaps, so the war becomes one of attrition, where you just trade shots and kills and the team with the, on average, better shooters gets the win. With the playercount a little lower you can't just spread your team out in a line, squads have to stick together and be ready to reinforce certain sections and the winning team is the one that moves unexpectedly, lures the other team into one area and attacks through another and so on and so forth. With 64 players, you don't have to think, because thinking isn't beneficial and won't help you win.

Now, there are some exceptions, I think Mamayev has enough size for 64 player to kind of work, although it often funnels them down into small spaces (C and E) and Bridges has some great flanking opportunities in the city, but I find that servers that are "used to" 64 players tend not to even think about flanking even when there's an opportunity, and so they just run at the objective and get slaughtered. I witnessed this repeatedly yesterday on one of the more popular servers, whilst the voice chat was filled with yabbering idiots who had 0 team points and only talked about what they were doing. I even saw people, officers, threaten and execute TKs in order to get their team to move up over an open field that was covered by enemy fire when we were on the defending team. It was ridiculous. I ended up having to mute the voice chat to get rid of the music they were blaring (they were the only ones talking unfortunately, or else I would've just muted them and not the whole chat) and tried to play solo, which shouldn't be what this game is about.

[blkmgc]

Personally never go for 64 player servers. None of these (stock) maps are big enough , and it totally goes against what RO is supposed to be different for. They are the deathnel of the game (i.e. Ro Ost). Of course if your into run-n-gun , I guess they are good for that. This is just my opinion of course.

[Temporary]

I avoid 64 players server like the plague, sadly they're the vast majority.

36 to 40 is often right, 18vs18 to 20vs20 is enough to have a defending squad, an attacking squad and a respawning/moving squad.

64 players only leads to have more campers than needed, making assault much more difficult and only possible with perfect smokes/snipers/tanks (= very rarely).

[Mekhazzio]

Originally Posted by Nezzer

Same. I'd love to see RO gone Planetside

Amen. Planetside 2 is awesome in its scope sometimes, and hints at the potential an online game can really achieve.

Of course, it's also more technologically ambitious than is really viable even with today's goodies. The larger engagements get down to < 75m infantry relevancy distance sometimes, as the server cuts corners to try to avoid a heart attack, and this from a technically experienced & competent design team with a major bankroll behind them. There's no way a smaller player like Tripwire can hope to compete on that scale.

...but it sure would be neat to see. For a game trying to capture the feel of industrial warfare, the desired player count is always going to be "as many as you can possibly manage".

[Leopardi]

Originally Posted by Temporary

I avoid 64 players server like the plague, sadly they're the vast majority.

36 to 40 is often right, 18vs18 to 20vs20 is enough to have a defending squad, an attacking squad and a respawning/moving squad.

64 players only leads to have more campers than needed, making assault much more difficult and only possible with perfect smokes/snipers/tanks (= very rarely).

yeah somehow people always think maxed out = the best. The map sizes are best fit for around 32-40 players.

[Abomolith]

I generally play on servers with a larger player count, unless I'm participating in a Bloodbath Scrim or a prescheduled scrimmage against a group. I think both player counts have opportunities to be great.

In full servers, I have had some absolutely fantastic matches where a number of players are communicating with each other, and coordinating the team effort as the battle ebbs and flows. It can be incredibly satisfying, and quite enjoyable, to be a part of team-oriented players working together to win a match.

Similarly, I've had a lot of fun playing with the Stalingrad Bridge Club {sBc}. Usually when we play Countdown there's about 12-20 of us, and being part of a small unit where everybody is communicating and, most importantly, just having fun is a great experience.

Both player counts have downsides that could be mentioned too, but I certainly don't think there's a "right" number of players. It depends on how you like to play, and what you're looking to get out of a game.

[|TG|Coridon]

Originally Posted by Nezzer

Same. I'd love to see RO gone Planetside

Speaking of...

I'll just parrot what others have said. I'd love to see large scale battles in RO2, with single envelopments, double envelopments and deep envelopments. Unfortunately, with the small size of the stock maps, it becomes "frontal assault, prefaced by smoke and artillery (if available); rinse, repeat" on large population servers. Bleh.

So until custom maps come out that allow for wide flanking (and there are some already), the most "tactical" and intense games are the smaller population games, namely in Countdown mode. But again, if you get people who don't understand CD it can be very frustrating whilst spectating and there you are, staring at your monitor, sighing in disbelief...

Fire without maneuver is INDECISIVE. Maneuver without fire is FATAL.

[Sensemann]

In my eyes, most maps are best with 40-50 players.
In countdown I prefer 6vs6 to 10 vs 10.

I play 64 players often because they are the only choice when I am on. It's not much fun though, hence my lack of interest in the game as of late.

[Undedd Jester]

57-64 myself... but only because everyone seems to be so damned good at this game while I just plain suck.

I am too afraid to take a responsible role with a decent weapon for fear of being useless to my team AND costing them a valuable weapon. At least in 64 man servers, you can pick off a straggler every now and again with your rifle before you die 8 times on the trot

[Conscript]

Since performance and lag is no longer an issue, I don't mind 64 player servers at all. I play pretty much exclusively on the 64 slot 40-1 Classic server and I'm always getting a great game out of it.