Big servers are a BIG mistake

  • 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/

elak

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 13, 2006
113
5
0
It is a server side option. I can't really see how a server side option could be a mistake. Especially when the community have been *****ing about said feature since the game hit the stores (Don't say you have forgotten all the "BF2 has 64 player servers, why can't RO? Boo-****ing-hoo"-threads.).

I do agree that 50 players on Danzig makes you feel a little bit alone and tiny on a public server, since effectively the game has only increased the number of enemies you need to tackle alone in the abscense of teamplay, the larger maps however are only starting to become what they are supposed to be.
 

LANparty.landser

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 20, 2007
13
0
0
Why the hell do people complain about this?
If you don't like 50 player servers, just don't play on them. How many are there anyway, like 5 or 6 at the most? Whereas there's dozens of >32 player servers..
Personally, I think increasing the player limit is the best thing to happen to RO since it's release.
 

Sabu

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 12, 2006
65
0
0
You know the 32 player servers have not been removed. If you do not like the gameplay on the 50 player servers its very simple to just jump on a 32 player server and go at it. I agree if we had removed the 32 player servers that would have been a big mistake. But we did not and you can still get the RO you love, and others that really enjoy the 50+ players can get the gameplay they want as well. Seems to be a win win if you ask me.

-Sabu
 

Zetsumei

Grizzled Veteran
Nov 22, 2005
12,458
1,433
113
34
Amsterdam, Netherlands
If you want to counter 50 player servers, get a server that can handle 50 players. But dont run 50 players but run 32 with a nice tickrate of 30 or maybe 40. This is not supported by tripwire but believe me the ping and performance IF THE SERVER CAN HANDLE IT, would be 1000% awesome :p.
 

[Mad_Murdock]

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 28, 2006
602
44
0
I dont think i could ever label more players a mistake, but thats just me.

The way i see it, and as someone else put it, it was a messy bloody war, and sometimes i'd like to see a good melee. Besides, just to be honest, some maps (even the smaller ones) sometimes seemed kinda empty to me with only 32, i mean, in all honesty, i dont think a city like odessa or an airfield like rakowice would be defended by 16 people. In fact i think yes, its more run n gunny on the small maps, but if you put a lot of ppl in a small space, give them guns, and tell them to shoot each other, messy stuff is gonna happen, and i just think that the more players make everything more exciting.
 

Madeyes

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 17, 2006
379
0
0
52
Cyprus but from UK
www.divingduo.co.uk
you hardly know what you are talking about ... increased number of players can be hardly called as a mistake. It is an OPTION! We have a server that is not able to handle more than 26 players w/o lagz... is that mistake of TWI?

Another well thought out & relevent reply.

Ok.
If TW add xhairs is that a mistake? If they reduce the stopping power of rounds is that a mistake? Even if both these things are a server side option & not all the other servers have to follow they are still a mistake to THIS game & will attract the people this game has kept off the servers for so long.
The reason i believe the large servers are a mistake is twofold.
Firstly the lag. I have a topend PC worth over
 

salti

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 6, 2006
254
19
0
I think i side with Madeyes generaly......someone mentioned Leningrad,never a true-er word said.But generally Madeye's has a very valid point...we've noticed in our clan that many favorite server's are near too unplayable.
 

melipone

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 22, 2006
1,672
259
0
I don't see how its a problem considering there are only 2 European 50 player servers..the server I play on is 42 players. Thats only 5 more per team. That server also has reduced nades on most maps so the nade spam isn't a problem there. My PC is not as good as yours and still run perfectly fine even on 50 player servers.

I think the RO devs could have done a couple things though before upping the limit:

1 - Classes should have been scaled based on 50 players being the max (its based on 64 atm so the ratio of bolters to the other classes is not similar to on a 32 player server). 64 is not possible with current hardware and there isn't even a single one in the game. Even 50 players is a bit laggy at times. I would have also taken into account the fact that with more players comes more dropped equipment which means more auto weapons to pick up.

2 - It would have been great if the nades were tweaked a bit to take into account the size of the maps. On smaller maps nades could have been altered a bit - fewer nades per class.
 

REZ

Grizzled Veteran
Nov 21, 2005
3,534
482
83
46
The Elitist Prick Casino
Prior to that Russian server, which came out of nowhere with >32 slots, there was merely a spattering of requests for larger player counts... those were always met with a 'we cant do it because servers cant handle more than 32' response. I think the reason that higher player counts were never at the top of everyones wish list is because those who have been playing this game for years - those who comprise most of this forums members - know what kind of gameplay will come about with too many 'individual mentalities' packed into small maps not designed to handle 50.

So once TWI saw that they actually could up the player counts, the players themselves saw that it was possible - they of course had to rush it out, otherwise people would complain about it. But I think it would have been much more appropriate to tell the community to hold on for a bit while they get a grasp on the changing situation. They should have gone through with the latest additions minus the 50 slots part, designed some maps that would take advantage of 50 people - made just for that kind of population - and then released 50 slots say 1 or 2 patches down the line (with much more time stress testing), along with some cool new maps made just for it.. all at once instead of having this transition period. It would have been a much better way to go about it.

Now what you have is pure chaos - because the maps arent made for it. Some like this kind of gameplay, but it is nothing like Red Orchestra has ever been or in my eyes what it stood for in terms of gaming realism. There's no semblance of a 'frontline' ..it's pure deathmatch chaos. Forget about the actual point of the game which is land ownership, let's just blaze away at each other in ultra-tight spaces.

In their current state, 50 player servers are good for something, in that like flies to honey they attract the short attention span gamer - which in turn keeps them off of the more team oriented servers (if you can even say that about the average public server).

Yeah I'm in a clan, but I was a pubber for a long time. The two worlds are completely different in respect to everyone being on the same page, focused on the same goal, knowing their particular role for a particular map, ultimate communication so on and so forth.. it's no slam on public players, but you just dont get that level of play on public servers. I still play public servers to this day, so this isnt some kinda elitist rant, I actually have MUCH experience in both realms. Then I jump into a 50 player server and see the mayhem, the total individual mindset, the lack of focus toward capping.. then people try to tell me the gameplay is good..!? no way, no how. We need maps specifically for 50 people or it is simply a gimmick, that at this point is nothing more than deathmatch with WWII skins. The 'feeling' of Red Orchestra is lost on these servers.

(and before you go off saying I'm not being forced to play there - I know that, thank you - I'm just laying out my opinion after giving these servers a chance.. feedback as it were)
 

Kipper

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 25, 2006
707
114
0
Connecticut, United States
I agree with REZ. I'd like to add a few comments however. For one, many here say that we are not being forced to play on the larger severs--while this is technically true, in practice, it doesn't hold up so well. Many nights I have gone on, seen that all my favorites are deserted and had to go and search for other servers. What do I find? Generally the servers with more than 20 people on them are those with player count max at 40-50. So I suck it up and join the big servers. What happens then? Well I get TK'ed like there's no tomorrow (both intentionally and accidental), I get no one willing to coordinate with me, I get people shooting eachother over who gets to be in the tank by themself, and I get the one thing I'd never heard in RO until those free weekends showed up: people screaming over voicechat, people calling eachother "***," all manner of racist remarks, and people honestly accusing eachother of hacking.

Now I've been around this game a long time and I'll be damned if it is taken over by this sort of RO player. I came here in search of historical accuracy, an emphasis on realism, and a focus on the Eastern front. I stayed here for that and the amazing experience I was given by the gameplay and the community both in game and on the forums. We've come a long way since those days. It's been ok though, because I've still had 2Manny's and several of the "old guard" servers from the original RO clans around. I was able to play with the sort of people that made this game what it was. Since those 50 player servers have gone up though, all those servers have been ghost towns.

Does this kill RO? No. But it might for me. I've been annoyed that Tripwire doesn't address things like the unrealistic SMGs, the lack of mantling, the lack of AT mines and grenades, the lack of a variable crouch height being implemented, the fact that "pop-up" riflemen are still a reality, and guns that do not collide with the environment....but I can survive that with little more than a few grumbles and a hope for the future. Why? Because the RO experience was nonetheless still intact for me online despite my gripes with what I previously listed. Now though, the experience is changing. I for one am seeing dark clouds on the horizon. A storm is brewing--and the thunder sounds like "BOOM HEADSHOT U ***."
 

Madeyes

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 17, 2006
379
0
0
52
Cyprus but from UK
www.divingduo.co.uk
Thanks Rez & Kipper. You seem to have got my point across about the game play on the 50 player serves better than i did. I'm very much with you guys & i just ignore the "well you don't have to play there"! comments as they have no input into the thread & are just people practising their typing skills instead of their thinking skills.
I really hope this isn't a sign of the times & RO is on the slippery 15yr olds, name calling, run & gun slope of other WWII FPS's
I especially agree with Kippers comments on the priority for the last updates being abandoned for other less important additions & all those you named are TOP of my list.
Cheers guys.
Rob
 

Lionel-RIchie

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 29, 2006
701
8
0
36
TN, US
Thanks Rez & Kipper. You seem to have got my point across about the game play on the 50 player serves better than i did. I'm very much with you guys & i just ignore the "well you don't have to play there"! comments as they have no input into the thread & are just people practising their typing skills instead of their thinking skills.
I really hope this isn't a sign of the times & RO is on the slippery 15yr olds, name calling, run & gun slope of other WWII FPS's
I especially agree with Kippers comments on the priority for the last updates being abandoned for other less important additions & all those you named are TOP of my list.
Cheers guys.
Rob

I'm sorry, but how does "You don't have to play on those servers" equal to no input? It's a perfectly valid suggestion. I'm sorry if you are too stubborn to see that and must insult the other posters in a lashing response. Like was said, this would be an issue if there weren't 32 player servers still.
 

PermenentMarker

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 20, 2006
1,448
222
0
Montreal Quebec
www.coolit-online.com
What makes RO.

No health, realistic 1 shot kill
No crossair, freeaim
Iron Sight
Bullet Ballistics
Player Class Limits Per maps
Progressive Spawn Points
1 driver, 1 gunner, realistic tank models
No Friendly GPS
Bolt Rifles that feel like real guns.

What is BF

Health Packs
Crossairs
Chose whatever class anytime
Faster "Walking"
Revive people ?
4 shot torso kills
Hit detection
Chosing your spawn
1 man uber tank driver
Friendly GPS
Super Automatic BBGuns.

Adding a greater number of players DOES NOT make it More Battlefield Like.
It just adds MUCH MORE TARGETS, and I am enjoying having more targets.


Adding a crossair would be a mistake because it would kill what RO is all about.

Adding more people... Just adds more targets... Yes it becomes a faster pace game... but the essencials are still there, the one who is behind cover, crouched and rested will still have the upper hand if someone runs in his direction...

Saying upping the player limit to 50 is making it more like battlefield is the mistake that I see.


However, I play RO because of what I listed above.
It is refreshing next to the crossair and health bar.

Also because even on 32 players, you still see more action then bf2... because you HAVE TO GO CAP an objective that is usually defended by many players... not go to whatever random flag is out there. (not to forget, RO is VERY Challenging)

As for the Steriotyped "CS BF2 Kiddie" running around calling others names having a poor attitude all together and people running around not caring about orders... It was there during the 32 player max days... Maybe a little less, but it was still there.

Edit again:
I will also add that I do not feel more lag...
Well... ONLY ONCE, I have teleported... out of at least 10 hours of gameplay...
Then again, I have an amazing internet connection... from US East I play West and euro servers at <150ping
 
Last edited:

Madeyes

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 17, 2006
379
0
0
52
Cyprus but from UK
www.divingduo.co.uk
I'm sorry, but how does "You don't have to play on those servers" equal to no input? It's a perfectly valid suggestion. I'm sorry if you are too stubborn to see that and must insult the other posters in a lashing response. Like was said, this would be an issue if there weren't 32 player servers still.

You explain to me how "you can always join another server" is input into this thread?? I know that. I've always known that & i always will know that. So how is it relevent?
Is it relevent to the fact that the servers are lagging? Is it relevent that the gameplay is being reduced to BF2 style. Is it relevent that the total style of most of the maps don't benfit well from 50 people servers? Is it actually relevent to anything apart from a total idiot who thinks there's only one server available? No it isn't is it? So as i said it isn't relevent to the thread.
If you have an opinion as to the servers lagging or the gameplay standard dropping, then join in. If you just want to make some inane comment to see your name on the web go to Myspace.
My point is to the reduction in the standard of gameplay & increase in server lag. NOT to the availability of other servers. Try reading instead of typing then think of a reply. If you can't think of one then don't reply. It's not hard.

Oh & by the way i can always play on Practice mode. Not relevent to the thread but that doesn't seem to matter.

I think this thread is going to end up who likes the pure RO experience of stalking enemy, sneaking up & out manouvring the enemy, tactical movement & who wants just action, action, action & running from kill to kill. I can see there willl be a divided camp here as to what makes RO the fantastic game it is & what detracts from the game & reduces it to a lower quality FPS. I'm a purist who wants it as realistic as as far from arcade gameplay as possible. If it makes the game hard to play, require skill & not be a score whore headless chicken shoot'em'up then so be it. The harder & the more realistic the better. If it means smaller servers to reduce lag & keep the PS2 boys out then great, that can only be a good thing on both points. I never once thought that the game needed bigger servers & if it was to be added then after many other improvements were made.
Cheers
Rob
 
Last edited:

Lionel-RIchie

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 29, 2006
701
8
0
36
TN, US
I haven't seen anything in game on the 50 player servers that lets me think that the game is becoming more BF2 like (trust me, I've been playing BF2 lately) nor do I ever get any lag.

And I think there are only a few maps that don't work well with 44-50 players (Krasnyi and Kauskaus are two examples)...not to mention maps are being made around the larger player count (Imagine that Kyouayoukuo whatever map with only 32 players...wasteland). The playstyle hasn't changed from what I've seen (other than I have more targets to shoot my MG at instead of trying to use it like a stupid sniper rifle like on smaller servers).

The comments were indeed input to the thread...why? Because what does it matter to you how gameplay is on a certain server if you have other servers to play on? Do you want those servers shut down even if you don't play them, just because they offend you by their mere presence? If that's the case then I believe Bolt-action only and 24/7 servers should be shut down for good before they ruin RO!
 

Madeyes

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 17, 2006
379
0
0
52
Cyprus but from UK
www.divingduo.co.uk
The comments were indeed input to the thread...why? Because what does it matter to you how gameplay is on a certain server if you have other servers to play on? Do you want those servers shut down even if you don't play them, just because they offend you by their mere presence? If that's the case then I believe Bolt-action only and 24/7 servers should be shut down for good before they ruin RO!

So what happens when they ALL (or the majority) become 50 servers because it will happen.
 

Lionel-RIchie

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 29, 2006
701
8
0
36
TN, US
Then it will be obvious that you are in the minority and are against what the majority of the community wants with the game's direction, incessant ad hominem or not.

Edit: Yes, majority rules can be unfair to the minority...but what else can you do? You can't please everyone so you should try to please the most people possible.
 

Slyk

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 17, 2006
1,277
10
0
www.after-hourz.com
I can see both sides of the story. From a map maker standpoint, I make bigger maps and I finally have the game that fits my work, or my work finally fits the game, whichever. I appreciate the chance to see larger environments with more players and more action going on across the map. Granted, a few maps are all but unplayable, "Basovka" as the worst case...but one of my favorite maps in design/detail/play. You can't punish TWI for small maps. They built these maps so long ago that 33 player counts were probably not even on their minds. There is very little they can do structurally to these maps to make them more 50-man friendly. Nor should they try. The cost-benefit is just not worth it. What I would rather see in the CA maps at least, are not extra tanks, just extra transports and more foot troops.

The community now has the opportunity to provide the next generation of maps to suit 50 players. There are very few at the moment. At the same time, the community will have mappers who like smaller works, and they will also come into play.

It is pointless to run around crying about "this" or "that" is going to kill the game when what it really comes down to is player preference/opinion. That is all this debate is. The major factors now are that the 50-man servers are a novelty, still, and should continue to be for some time to come. Players have a whole new experience to take on. Some of you have and decided it is not for you. Fine. But don't take it away from those who do enjoy it.

To complain against large servers does nothing. Not every server will go to 50, it is just not technically or financially possible. The game is beyond it's mid-way point of life as well. What you are seeing, I think, is a bump in the road that will see the community self-adjust in a couple months. As players trail off to other pending games, get back to school, and realize that they maybe prefer smaller player count servers, things will adjust. The community will self-correct and every community goes through this when a game 'changes'. The smaller servers are always going to be there. What players need to do is find those that are run well, offer what they want in ping/maps/mods etc. and start to seed those servers and others will come. At some point, you will find a critical mass of players who seek the 20-32 player servers and then you'll all be happy to have each other.

At least be thankful that we have choices. Appreciate the fact that TWI has gone far beyond many other developers with this game and it's community. They owe no one anything and no one is entitled to anything more from TWI, or the community for that matter. It is up to each player to find their place, contribute however they can, and enjoy the game as they see it whether on 8 or 50 player servers.
 

=GG= Mr Moe

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 16, 2006
9,791
890
0
56
Newton, NJ
Well, I have a 4 year old computer with a 2 1/2 yr old graphics card, and I don't notice lag on the 50 player servers I have visited (most if not all of them). I also run RO at maximum settings. I do remember being laggy at times LAST YEAR, but not anytime in the past five or six months.

I disagree for the most part on the reduction in gameplay with the exception of some smaller maps, and you can always play them on a smaller server. Yes, that is a valid reply/opinion. Yes, gameplay is mostly an opinion. For the record, I don't care for run'n'gunning and usually use a bolt.

As for if you are experiencing lag, find a server that doesn't lag. If people are bothered by the lag, then they can switch to a server without lag. If enough people 'abandon' 50 player servers because they are experiencing lag, then the whole thing will have been a failed experiment. If you don't like to play on the map ARAD, do you open up your RO Browser and jump onto a server running ARAD? Hence, if you think you are going to lag, don't jump in that server. For me, with my 4 yr old machine running at maximum settings, who doesn't lag on the 50 player servers, do you want to deny me playing on my favorite medium or large maps on a 50 player server? How about other people like me who don't lag?

Anyway, for all of you experiencing lag, I hope it is resolved, whatever the cause or reason.
 

Jank

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 6, 2007
1,188
8
0
Redwood City, CA, USA
Ya seriously, I almost never lag at all on full 50-player servers, and I'm on a measly $1000 6-mo old Gateway. Not sure if my settings are maxed, but I upped the resolution a bit.

If you're lagging, get bigger inter-tubes. It's probably not your comp.

And for the record, I love the 50-player servers. There are more people willing to team up, more people to kill, more people to cap or bust up caps. Other than a few maps that need version upgrades, I see zero downsides.

N00bs and griefers have always been around, and no doubt always will be. The more popular a game, the more you're likely to find. But the answer is not to strive to keep the game unpopular.