Its just like Team Fortrress Calssic now...

[BuD_GrimReaper]

I think 44 is just perfect.

Keep in mind, morep layers = more lone noobs that can join and they are generally atracted by high player count servers.

Try to find a good professional server and you'll have the time of your life =)

32 sometimes seemed too empty, 44 is just perfect =)

 

[[5thW]Rehakles[TRO]]

Some larger maps play superb on 44 players + imo

I have to agree that not every single one of the maps is suited for this amount of players, but Im quite happy with the new limit as it simply brings fresh amusement into the game....

 

[EvilHobo]

One person hanging back to pick off anywhere from 16 to 25 nade spammers is not going to help. It just is a bunch of fools running in to the fray blowing each other up.

It would be nice if on upscaled servers the number of grenades were reduced. But that will never happen, so I don't even know why I said it.

If people played realistically I think that 44 players or however much would be excellent, but it does have that sort of arcadey feel where the average lifespan seems to be no longer than 5 seconds. Bigger maps and properly done loadouts change that, but a lot of the stock content and other maps are plagued by what appears to be a game leaning toward mainstream content.

 

[MILK]

Wait, I thought that more players equal more realism? Wasn't that how the battlefields are?

true until you have map optimized for max 32 players as ie Danzig is. Many people mentioned that it is pitty that some obvioulsy greet defence positions are not accessible on this map... I think this map would pretty good even for 60 players... but you have to at least double the number of possible positions there... in another words Danzig-60-player-edition is what you need and not moan about actual Danzig.

Regarding Krasnyi - with 60 players you get closer to realistic style of game however than it becomes unrealistic that you would fight for one single hall there... so again also this map would have to be redone for such number of players

... and at the end... the more realism does not mean necessarily more fun...

 

[Zennousha]

After extensive play, the only downside to 50 man servers, is not the amount of people, but the increased odds of running into dumb people. I join the Tripwire 50 man US West server (the US part kind of gives away the stupidity of certain players mind you), and four different people were trying to TK me to get my gun, or just injure me for the sake of it.

 

[Pongo]

Leningrad was very interesting on the big server, from the german side it seemed that the Russians had enough guys to man the sewers and lurk in all the buildings. Some of the snipers were lurking way way behind the lines.
Odessa, well not sure, I was German sniper and was getting my *** handed to me for a while. Like I never got a shot in before I was killed about 5 times, Had to totally change tactics to respond to the increased number(and skill) of the russian snipers.
The attacks in Oddesa have always been kind of nade fests though around the appartments and the tower especially. I don't know how that would change.

 

[The_Cook]

I have seen no real appreciable difference in the tactics or gameplay of RO.

More people more fun.

Odessa now requires a really good defensive team because a concerted push by the offense will litterally overwhelm any lightly defended approaches.

Aside from that, nades are thrown as nades are always thrown, so the spam spots are still the same, just maybe have to wait a tiny bit longer. Don't let them get in nade range which is and always has been the rule so that hasn't changed.....

I can see only one thing that needs to be done with the maps is to rebalance the weapons distribution. And that should fix most problems. I mean two snipers on I forgot which map was absolutly brutal.

 

[Rameusb5]

I agree with the Cook. I haven't suffered from the "Too many players" syndrome that some people are complaining about.

Then again, I haven't played ALL of the maps yet. I'm sure some of the smaller city maps like Odessa will be cramped... but so what?

A smarter team will take advantage and just win via reinforcements. I've seen both sides win on every map (except Rackowice which I still contend favors the Germans substantially).

Most maps got better. Some may not have. I'm adapting.

The reason I like the more players is the chances have increased by 50% (or more) that there will be other team oriented players on my side (aka, cap whores). I really get annoyed when I join a server and nobody talks and nobody coordinates and nobody actually tries to attack/defend the objectives. With the new player numbers, chances are SOMEONE will want to play with me now.

Go me!

 

[LordKhaine]

Providing you escape the tiny maps, 50 players is much better imho. Some people complain about how it's all nade spam and blind charging... but to be fair with 16 a side it was far too easy to sneak around like John Rambo and gun down the defenders. Now you need to attack as a group. The increased player counts make the defence tighter with less gaps. So you have to fight with team mates to break through a weak point and *then* wreck some havoc. Which is more realistic, more fun, and generally more demanding concerning teamplay.

I had the most fun round of RO I've ever had the other day, and I've played RO since 1.2 on ut2003. It was on that new map where the Russians have to advance up a hill at the start, then fight across a bridge and into a village? It has a KV1 on it, and woods at the flanks. I can't recall the name though

 

[2M|Bivoj]

I had the most fun round of RO I've ever had the other day, and I've played RO since 1.2 on ut2003. It was on that new map where the Russians have to advance up a hill at the start, then fight across a bridge and into a village? It has a KV1 on it, and woods at the flanks. I can't recall the name though

Agree, this map is awesome

(I play RO since 1.3 ut2003)

 

[Rak]

I had the most fun round of RO I've ever had the other day, and I've played RO since 1.2 on ut2003. It was on that new map where the Russians have to advance up a hill at the start, then fight across a bridge and into a village? It has a KV1 on it, and woods at the flanks. I can't recall the name though

Kryukovo

 

[Phoenix-D]

Providing you escape the tiny maps, 50 players is much better imho. Some people complain about how it's all nade spam and blind charging... but to be fair with 16 a side it was far too easy to sneak around like John Rambo and gun down the defenders. Now you need to attack as a group. The increased player counts make the defence tighter with less gaps. So you have to fight with team mates to break through a weak point and *then* wreck some havoc. Which is more realistic, more fun, and generally more demanding concerning teamplay.

Yeah, I can't count the number of times I've rounded a corner and ran into 4 or 5 enemies. That doesn't happen anywhere near as much on a 32 player server.

 

[aesdana]

90% of all servers are still max 32 so...

 

[{Cap-Down}]

Just played the patch. RO was my favourite game. It's now not. Teamplay has been dissolved, with the advent of 50 players it's a turkey shoot on maps like Danzig. Other maps like BDJ and Berezina have lost the cordination they had when they were customised. The Custom maps have been i..."mainstreamed".. i guess fits it. They have no soul anymore, they're too easy and accessbile before you had to know them and play their tactics. Now a custom map is like another round on Danzig. The only way to play RO now is on a clan server. Shame.

My only praise of the patch is the fact that with 2 snipers an area can be effectively locked down. Perhaps teamplay will improve as players get used to the new maps.

And the new invincible HT? Wtf?

 

[Cnnbs]

One person hanging back to pick off anywhere from 16 to 25 nade spammers is not going to help. It just is a bunch of fools running in to the fray blowing each other up.

It would be nice if on upscaled servers the number of grenades were reduced. But that will never happen, so I don't even know why I said it.

If people played realistically I think that 44 players or however much would be excellent, but it does have that sort of arcadey feel where the average lifespan seems to be no longer than 5 seconds. Bigger maps and properly done loadouts change that, but a lot of the stock content and other maps are plagued by what appears to be a game leaning toward mainstream content.

Couldnt agree more,RO promotes or doenst punish this kind of gameplay:
spawn lob 2 nades kill some guy randomly if you are lucky then die with a nade or by a strafing smger, spawn lob 2 nades kill some guy randomly then....
coz ppl want to

Look topright of screen more than half of the deaths are caused by nades....(almost every map except tank maps)

 

[Crusher]

I suggest -1 or even -2 score when you die.

 

[Lapata]

The only maps that need 50 players are Orel and BDJ too bad I am not seeing any especially Orel with 50 players would be nice.

 

[JCoquillon]

Actually I find the laregr servers to be much more enjoyable. There is a lot more random fighting, but you see small squads of guys actually moving together. Earlier I saw 8+ guys form up at the shepards house and we all charged as one down the hill, through the water and hit the tower from the reverse side, in seconds we had overwhelmed the defenders and took it, don't think we lost more than 1 guy.

People are learning to stick together more and more, as individual targets get all the bullets to themselves. Stay in a group and you are sharing the risk.

 

[Solo4114]

Like I said, I think the issue is not that Tripwire is somehow rewarding or failing to punish people for doing this, that, or the other thing.

The maps were originally designed for 32 players. Going up to 50 players will naturally change the flow of those maps if they were specifically scaled for 32 players max. Many defensive positions will be very difficult to overwhelm. Other defensive posistions will be impossible to maintain because you can't cover all the approaches and get overwhelmed too easily.

But all this stuff about how NOW the game rewards arcade behavior and such? Rubbish. The game itself hasn't changed. What's changed is how certain maps play with more people, and that's to be expected. Some maps will play well. Other maps will not. No great shock there, and if it is, well, wake up, man.

But it's not as if Tripwire is suddenly out to get you.


I swear, I see this kind of crap after every patch. People whining about how the game has suddenly gone from some ultrarealistic experience to the opposite extreme of an arcade shooter.

News flash: the game hasn't become more or less arcadey because of sniper icons, the ammo pickup system, increased player counts, or anything else along those lines. It just didn't happen. What may have changed is your PERCEPTION of the game, but the game pretty much plays as it always did. Now, if all of a sudden we had crosshairs, or if weapon sway was removed, or people could suddenly take full clips of automatic weapon fire and survive, or you could leap to the top of doorways and throw grenades the length of a football field, yeah. Then I'd say it had become arcadey. But the rest of these complaints are people pissed that their perceptions have changed, while the game itself remains largely unchanged since release.

 

[Private Who?]

amen.

this is still the best game going. 50 players on small infantry maps is tough, but who'd have thought otherwise?

50 players in a big tank fight however...that's good stuff. 50 players in Leningrad...sweet!

the game is evolving. new maps will be developed that account for higher player counts.