• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Too much of a good thing almost ruined it.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#21
Munk Polkadot said:
The difference between 24 and 32 is 8, not 6. ;)
Click to expand...

Doh ! Right..but it should have read 26 vs 32 (6 slots) :p

"When the Germans fired we ducked, when we fired, the Germans ducked and when the Americans fired, everyone ducked".

Just think of TK's as friendly Americans helping out :p
Click to expand...

:D:D

(Heard that one from my uncle who served in British Armed Forces in WWII).
 
Upvote 0
#27
Mobius One said:
Nimsky, the main point of this thread is that a large amount of people attributes to the "gamerish" tactics of "getting kills > everything else".
Click to expand...

That main point is highly flawed.

The amount of players does not matter. It is how they play that matters.

It is also how the affronted handles the situation that matters. Communication, not shutting out, is the key. Reducing the number of slots in a server may crowd out the nade spammers, but they'll get in eventually, and then what?
 
Upvote 0
#28
i think decreasing the serverslots isnt really the thing that does it, cuz IMO when you dont run into someone regularly you tend to run a whole lot more, so that would be less tactical movement IMO. now if you run into guys frequently, you tend to be more carefull, cuz they could be anywhere, and there are a lot of them, so more carefull movement ( at least thats what i think )
though a lower playercount does add to the tension, and the jumpoutofyourseat moments:D
anything that might make people play slower and more tactical would be apreciated though, and should be promoted IMO ( getting longer respawn times, or hell, maybe even an max. PER player lives kind of thing, not an overall reinforcement system, but personal reinforcements or whatever, i dont know:rolleyes: )

also i would like if the visibility on guys would be decreased a bit to how it was in 3.3.
i had a hell of a lot more trouble spotting enemies in 3.3 then i have in Ostfront, because maybe they were a bit smaller, i dont know really, or less visible, and they went up in their surroundings a lot better then the current ones, they just kinda stick out:( thats just my opinion though, but i have the feeling i was playing a lot slower and more tactical in 3.3 because there it felt just more necesary.
slow movement made you being spotted less quickly, while if you move slow here you stick out to the surroundings anyway and get killed.. thats just how it seems to me though
 
Upvote 0
#30
On some maps, even 32 players makes for some pretty boring combat, and I'm sick and tired of seeing combined arms maps with the most unrealistic scenarios. Using 16 soldiers to cover such huge swathes of territory would have been ludicrous IRL. Sure, reinforcements make it seem like company-sized combat on some maps, but I can't accept a company-sized engagement where the CO commits men to battle one quarter of a platoon at a time (assuming, that is, 8 people per reinforcement wave), especially in some of the historical contexts of these battles.

Even with experienced players some maps feel like musical chairs, and there should be a sequence required rather than the 4 players per control point crapshoot these maps sometimes degenerate into.

If the issue is nade spammers and TK's, just ban anyone who TK's more than once. If the issue is nade spamming in general, just warn and kick people who nade spam. The server admin setup allows for a lot of this to be automated IIRC.

I'm looking forward to 64 player maps with proper squad tactics. People who prefer to sneak around and play hide 'n' seek with each other should pick another game IMO. Apart from sniper-dominated Stalingrad for a period of time IRL, where you couldn't raise a finger without getting shot, I would think that WW2 close combat was a hectic and chaotic experience, and most first person accounts out there tend to attest to that.

"Unbelievably long periods of boredom and inactivity punctuated by a few moments of sheer chaos."

Once committed to the battlefield, both forces should attack/defend in strength, true to the firsthand accounts and combat camera footage we're all familiar with. Some of these maps feel like two recon elements having a bit of a skirmish. I'm 100% in favour of realism...but not if it means running around in cornfields for 15 minutes waiting for enemies to show up at the farmhouse. As it is, no matter how many or how few players you have on a server, the game experience depends on the type of online players who join. If RO had a true character tracking system, you could set certain servers to only allow people who had significant teamwork indexes (teamwork points per hours played) and very low FF indexes. That way people who want DoD type action could choose servers without these requirements. MMORPFPS.
 
Upvote 0
#31
well in my opinion maps like basovka are great for 32 players
but maps like stalingradkessel are great for something like 26 players
it allways depends on the mapsize
also with increasing slots the chance to get a dumbass/teamkiller/jerk on ur server is much higher so u also have to admin more
just imagine basovka with say 46 players :D
the whole trenchline full of russian infantry defending whenever possible while arty rains down on them and then the german commander throws a smokenade and the germans do a massed charge!
now that would be just imersive!!!!

just imagine a map like Orel with 80 ppl!
then the teamwork would really start!
then u will see that people will start to moove as real squads
just imagine 5 tanks coming at your position followed by 4ht's all full with infantry and then some heavy tank?

man that would be cool :D
 
Upvote 0
#32
LemoN said:
well in my opinion maps like basovka are great for 32 players
but maps like stalingradkessel are great for something like 26 players
it allways depends on the mapsize
Click to expand...

One thing I really like about BF2 is how they open up other areas of the map depending on the number of players 16/32/64. They also change the spawn points and objectives, and I would really like to see this implemented in RO. Many maps would play better if the sizes were restricted based on number of players.
...

LemoN said:
just imagine a map like Orel with 80 ppl!
then the teamwork would really start!
then u will see that people will start to moove as real squads
just imagine 5 tanks coming at your position followed by 4ht's all full with infantry and then some heavy tank?

man that would be cool :D
Click to expand...

Now this is what I'm really looking forward to. As it is I get bored on these maps, especially with 1-man-band tanks pounding away at each other. Something must be done to get more people to play as teams.

As far as numbers go, I'm still firmly of the opinion that it's the players themselves and not the numbers. I played Odessa 2 nights ago on a pub and the Soviet commander didn't say 1 word, not 1. The Germans held the Apartments and the Square, placed their MG to rape the spawn exit, and it was all over in a matter of 6 or 7 minutes as Soviet reinforcement points ended. Nobody responded to communications, nobody tried to play as a team. 20, 28, 32 players...wouldn't have made the slightest difference, as the Soviet team was never going anywhere.
 
Upvote 0
#33
I plead guilty, I've started playing DoD-S again because on a 32 players DoDs server I don't have to walk/sprint/run for 2 minutes to find somebody to kill.

I'm having a blast 30 seconds out of spawn i'm headshoting snipers with a garand, brilliant stuff, putting me off RO-O at the moment because any less than 32 players leaves me wandering around trying to find an enemy.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu