Idea for future (when 64 players support added)

[U3BAPuHCKUU*_4yBAK]

On maps, where one team must attack and other defend objective, players in D team have only 1 life, and objective is hold some objective (plant in RedOctober, Fortress / tower / mortars in Kaucasus) until reinforcements arrived or just survive 5-10 waves. Attackers have 10 or more lives, respawn time 20-25 sec and objective is to kill all defenders OR capture entire map (so there is no needed for finding 'campers' like in CS )

I think that 32 players would be enough to defend, and 128-320 'players' for attackers team. of course, D team have time to prepare for attack - deploy MG etc ... . When defence team ready , they press 'ready' button or just wait time (1 minute would be enough) , then attackers team enter the battle.

 

[Athena]

D team have time to prepare for attack - deploy MG etc ... . When defence team ready , they press 'ready' button or just wait time (1 minute would be enough) , then attackers team enter the battle.

I've always been thinking that the initial "spawn rush" made no sense, at least for the defending team.

I'd LOVE to see what's described in that quote implemented.

 

[Zoring]

This is exactly my thinking on how a defense/attack map should be implemented, EXCEPT when the defenders die, they respawn on the attacking team. Thus no boredom. Plus it gets succesvily harder for the defenders.

Attackers cover should be sparse, with perhaps areas of dead ground to make sure they have to charge, bayonets fixed into the enemy positions

 

[SgtH3nry3]

With 64 players it might finally be possible to have at least 24 players on each side without the full lag.

If you could only get the Russians to charge and the Germans to protect flanks and use their machineguns with accurate tactics...

 

[kempe]

OMG

/me creams at the thought of 64 players

 

[Ron]

I hate to burst peoples bubbles but have we actually any concrete evidence that 64 player support is possible without serious lag, i havent heard any of the devs say anything on this subject other than state the problems with this.

 

[kempe]

hehe yeah thanks alot ron,
u just snapped me out of my wet dream.
i think your right, its highly unlikely we will ever see 64 players on this particular game

 

[Ron]

hehe yeah thanks alot ron,
u just snapped me out of my wet dream.
i think your right, its highly unlikely we will ever see 64 players on this particular game

Sorry its that i dont want it, who wouldnt want 64 player arad but when you step back and think about it, it seems really unlikely , of course i'd love to be proven wrong hey even an increase to 40 players would be unreal imo.

 

[kempe]

yeah surley thatd be possible

 

[NuclearBoBo]

Could probably be possible with UE3. Then I will need a new computer though.

 

[Tsoman]

This is exactly my thinking on how a defense/attack map should be implemented, EXCEPT when the defenders die, they respawn on the attacking team. Thus no boredom. Plus it gets succesvily harder for the defenders.

Attackers cover should be sparse, with perhaps areas of dead ground to make sure they have to charge, bayonets fixed into the enemy positions

Now this is a good idea!

 

[CaptRanger]

Couldn't this be done effectively with 32 players servers, too? If the time limit was short enough (say 7-10 mins) on a smaller map it would definately be do-able.

 

[U3BAPuHCKUU*_4yBAK]

Do you think that wiil be enough to defend fortress, tower, mortars (and house near back route) with only 16 soldiers? I think there are minimum needed 20 in fort. Same for RedOctober, building is too big for defend it with 16

 

[CaptRanger]

Do you think that wiil be enough to defend fortress, tower, mortars (and house near back route) with only 16 soldiers? I think there are minimum needed 20 in fort. Same for RedOctober, building is too big for defend it with 16

I wasn't thinking that existing maps would be used for this. They aren't designed for this type of thing. Map makers could create some maps that would be perfect for this, however.

 

[Rohrmoser]

This one be better. Lets say 62 players. No respawn for both sides. The attackers get a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 ratio of men. Lets say a time limit 6 min. Iam a great fan of S&D gametypes and not respawn gametypes. Thats just me

 

[gonzman]

I like the idea of 64 players but none of the other suggestions, I think they're extremely ambitious for this game and on this engine.

No respawn is a horrible idea for RO, It's just so easy to die and so easy to die quickly, Imagine being the first of 64 to die, What do you do then? just sit and wait? RO-O doesen't even have the great spectator camera functionality that makes games like CS bareable to wait while dead, You can view from other players and it's pretty accurate view too.

 

[Ron]

I like the idea of 64 players but none of the other suggestions, I think they're extremely ambitious for this game and on this engine.

No respawn is a horrible idea for RO, It's just so easy to die and so easy to die quickly, Imagine being the first of 64 to die, What do you do then? just sit and wait? RO-O doesen't even have the great spectator camera functionality that makes games like CS bareable to wait while dead, You can view from other players and it's pretty accurate view too.

Also cs has much smaller levels and the gameplay is much faster thus rounds finish pretty quickly in general, i say just wait and see TW knows better than most what will work within the limits of the game also before any of this happens i would like to see some sort of squad system i feel that squads done properly would change the way the game is played greatly.

 

[Rohrmoser]

Well if theres a time limit ex: 6 min or 5min its not bad. I used to play ona S&D server whose rounds were 8 min. I would die first and wait that long. Just lead me to take cover and care for my life

 

[kempe]

i like the idea of rohrmonsters of having 64 players and having 1 life only, with the attackers outnumbering the defenders 3 to 1 or something like that.
then the attackers have to get a number (i dunno 5 or so?) of men into an area to win the map (or kill everyone)

 

[U3BAPuHCKUU*_4yBAK]

if all players have 1 life (both attackers and defenders) and players ratio 3:1 then it would be to little number of defenders (~48 attackers vs ~16 defenders) . but, 32 vs 320 may be cool.

Yes, it's really to make map right now with 1 life for defenders, but this map will be too small (maybe something like defend of Pavlov's House as one of the Stalingrad fights 16 Soviet vs 100-160 German soldiers, but for kaukasus and oktober plant needed 32 plrs for D team, as i wrote before )