• 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/

A Good Vote-Menu

the player max should stay default at 32. the majority of ROOST maps were/are designed for 32 players and it worked quite well. however for max on servers, 50 is actually quite fun BUT only on the right maps. maps like danzig, odessa, stalingrad etc... should never be played with 50 players. berezina, gorlitz, krieg, leningrad etc.. are great to play 25v25.

the numbers only matter when in reference to the size of the map.

as for the topic, i also agree with a simple "f1" "f2" notification of a map vote.
 
Upvote 0
About voting: The game will be sold in steam, i would like to see a link between the user and his copy. To explain that: If you buy the game and activate it through steam, you should only be able to play with one Account, your steam account. Why?

Well, a big problem for me is that if some children are around, killing team mates or just doing ****, it is sometimes (OK, OFTEN) very hard to get rid of them. Your team is very vulnerable, some players do try to kick them but there are just to few. If somebody cheats or does stupid things (TK, ... et cetera), there are messages so those people could be kicked and their stats are also penetrated (even if there are not enough people to kick, your stats suffer because of doing ****). So, if you would have only one account, and your stats are always the same (because you won't buy a second copy only for a new account) people on servers could see that you have a bad reputation and kick you ...

so Number 9 would be for me:

... 9.) Kick players with bad reputation

1.
2.
3.

:D:D:D

Do you have other ideas to solve this kicking problem? Thanks in advance!
 
Upvote 0
that's actually a very good idea......for some reason i think i saw something that talked about something like a reputation in regards to the perk and ranking system that will be added.

i'm not real sure about people having bad ranks in the sense that would give them lower rep, but more like, when players get kicked/banned from servers either by vote or admin, or have substantial ammounts of TKs, that it would report it as "infractions" or "demerits" that would be visible to all the players in a person's profile.....so not affecting overall reputation as much as just reporting that the person can be an asshat from time to time
 
Upvote 0
if 50 players are technically possible and manageable simply do it either like BF2, slightly cut/extend a map for 32/50 players, or simply put a player max limit on certain maps, ie a map like danzig max players 32, map like kriegsstadt max players 50

Personally i hope the maps will be a mixture. of 32 player and bigger. It could be nice to have basically the same map with slightly different capzone placement and maybe more space for 50 players and a slightly smaller more barricaed for 32 players.

However i truly hope that a feature from the UT2vote mutator will make it into the stock game:

Allow for a "dynamic" change of the mapvote list based on the playeramounts. So if you have only a few players on the server the only maps votable will be the maps the serveradmin allows for smaller player amounts, and with loads of players only the maps the serveradmin allows with loads of players.

So a server can be easier and more fun to startup, without being forced to play small maps later on, once the server is full. But all free to manage for serveradmins. Which for me is the key to serverbrowsing in games, creating small communities with people that think likewise rather than only joining some place because of the skill.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I hope there will be a similar voting system, that sounds great, also the thing that you could specify a reason when placing a session ban vote etc. is great. People will instantly see if people are kicking a guy because he's an *** (TKing, griefing, hwatever the reason) or something.
 
Upvote 0
well i hope not.. i hope the game stays at 32 players max.. why? because 50 player servers are a lag fest already and the performance is suffering very bad (every single 50player server i played on was lagging and my fps weren't that good ether)
...and now imagine UT3 engine plus 50player servers ....uuuhhhaaa *goosebumps*

+

maps are ALL sooo imbalanced with >33player setup. if rohos maps would be designed for 50 player(which i hope is not) from the start it would be an other story.. but than u would need to play clanmatches with 16vs16 or something and this is ****ed up the more players needed the higher the chance that teams cant field min of 16...

so i my eyes default map layout should be for 32players

The problems of one game are not automatically going to be problems for another game.

RO:Ost was designed for 32 players, all the maps where, the netcode was, it was all ment to be 32 max. So yes, when they added in 50 player support later, it did create some problems, mostly because server admins decided to run it even though they coulden't and shoulden't (on servers that where not powerfull enough to do it, and they still had all the 32 player stock maps in their rotation, when they should have been running larger custom maps to support the extra players).

There where good 50 player servers too, that did run good custom maps for this sort of thing, and where hosted on beefy enough machines, but for every one of thouse, there where probably 3 others that where laggy because the server wasen't powerfull enough, and which ran maps that where far to small.


HoS is designed from the ground up to support 64 players, all the maps are larger to facilitate it, and the UE3 engine is made to do this, it's optimized for it (the fact that it supports multiple cores is a huge step up in this regard, the UE2.5 engine of Ro:Ost didn't have that), and we've seen UE3 do it just fine in other games.

So no, the fact that Ro:Ost had problems with this (mostly due to server admins wanting to bite off more than their server could chew) does not mean that HoS will, HoS is designed for this, RO:Ost was not.
 
Upvote 0