Big servers are a BIG mistake
- Thread starter Madeyes
- Start date
I remember when Berezina showed up with it's 45 minute time limit - people were up in arms if it got voted for, because it took so long. Gorlitz too.
But now they seem pretty normal, both maps are awesome.
But now they seem pretty normal, both maps are awesome.
Upvote
0
If someone gave you a pot of gold I would have to say 90% of you all would complain that it was too heavy. I mean look, if you do not like the big servers thats fine , but it is not like we took the 32 player servers away from you. They are still there I promise guys. In fact there are tons more servers running 32 player or less than there are of the 50+ player servers.
Sabu
Sabu
Upvote
0
Don't get me wrong, Sabu. I'm not complaining about the big servers. All you guys did was add a particular feature. It's up to the server admins to be smart and not put up maps that don't play well with the higher player counts. Simple as that. A 50-man Berezina round (or three) is a wonderful thing, to me. It's RO at its finest. On the other hand, a 50-player round of, say, Lyes Krovy? I think I'll pass, and that should come as no surprise (even a 32 player round of Lyes Krovy is pretty crowded).
Upvote
0
whaaaatever.. 
that's a weak analogy. since you freshened the thread, just admit a hasty decision and go from there. not fooled. pot of gold? i'm sure..
they can do no wrong, right? i'm hearing a particularly overused developer stonewall a lot lately. now it's the server admins fault for running small maps. lol. cause you know, if i'm shelling out good dough for a 50 slot server, running 3 maps is going to feel like i struck gold - thanks for the gold!
that's a weak analogy. since you freshened the thread, just admit a hasty decision and go from there. not fooled. pot of gold? i'm sure..
they can do no wrong, right? i'm hearing a particularly overused developer stonewall a lot lately. now it's the server admins fault for running small maps. lol. cause you know, if i'm shelling out good dough for a 50 slot server, running 3 maps is going to feel like i struck gold - thanks for the gold!
Upvote
0
Here something else to think about... Just because you do not like the way a map plays on the 50 player servers doesn't mean that everyone shares your feelings. I for one actually never felt that Lyes Krovy was too crowded and I enjoy it on the 50 player server. The same for the other smaller maps. It adds a new style of play and while it may be a bit more fast paced it is still enjoyable and fun to me. Also if a map like Lyes Krovy gets voted for on the 50 player server then obviously others want to play it.
The Reinforcements were scaled and increased with the last patch. This has to do with the servers setting... If the server is set to max players 40 then it scales the reinforcements to what it should be with 40 players. Now if the server is set to max 50 and only has 32 players then things will be more drawn out due to each team having the reinforcements as if there were 50 people in the server.
Sabu
The Reinforcements were scaled and increased with the last patch. This has to do with the servers setting... If the server is set to max players 40 then it scales the reinforcements to what it should be with 40 players. Now if the server is set to max 50 and only has 32 players then things will be more drawn out due to each team having the reinforcements as if there were 50 people in the server.
Sabu
Upvote
0
Rez you need to chill out, Sabu said no such thing about server admins being at fault. We never said we have done no wrong, however we don't believe this choice was wrong at all. It was something that a large amount of users expressed interest in, and have since the launch of RO. We didn't do it then because server could not handle it then. However we saw efforts to get 32+ servers running and we decided to test it ourselves on some of the latest server hardware out there.
We liked the results and went ahead and implemented it. But not only did we implement it we made game changes so it just wouldn't be a fast added feature, we scaled reinforcements like sabu said, as well as added support for different load out variants depending on size as well.
And as Sabu said, anybody who doesn't like the addition can easily not play on these server, in which case RO:O hasn't changed in the slightest for them. Hence his comment about the pot of gold. He isn't saying we gave you a pot of gold, just that this is much to do about nothing (to use an old adage) in his eyes.
We liked the results and went ahead and implemented it. But not only did we implement it we made game changes so it just wouldn't be a fast added feature, we scaled reinforcements like sabu said, as well as added support for different load out variants depending on size as well.
And as Sabu said, anybody who doesn't like the addition can easily not play on these server, in which case RO:O hasn't changed in the slightest for them. Hence his comment about the pot of gold. He isn't saying we gave you a pot of gold, just that this is much to do about nothing (to use an old adage) in his eyes.
Upvote
0
I know a Level Designer isnt the guy to ask this, but have you thought about the effects of reverse scaling when it comes to a clan that can only afford say a 20 slot server? Maybe a server-side option to turn off scaling? This way clan matches dont end at the first objective with more than half the clock left due to the reinforcements scaling, but the clock and the map size do not? The clan scene is pretty thick around here, and some consideration when big changes are made would be appreciated by a lot of people. Of course you can say - not our problem, make a mutator - but then, there that wall would be again.
Yosh, I say this stuff because we've been having a good discussion in here about this, and then a dev comes in and lightly paints over all of the obvious issues we've raised, with a canned, defensive and dismissive brush.. we've been playing this game for years, and we can see can see how it has changed the gameplay/32player server population/clan matches, with our own eyes - we dont need the same thing said to us over and over. It was a hasssty move my pressssssioussss, yesss... Ill planned, yessss?
Yosh, I say this stuff because we've been having a good discussion in here about this, and then a dev comes in and lightly paints over all of the obvious issues we've raised, with a canned, defensive and dismissive brush.. we've been playing this game for years, and we can see can see how it has changed the gameplay/32player server population/clan matches, with our own eyes - we dont need the same thing said to us over and over. It was a hasssty move my pressssssioussss, yesss... Ill planned, yessss?
Upvote
0
Once again, hasty move, no, ill planned, no. We beta tested this for months and even did public beta testing.
The issues you have brought up are not tied in so to speak with the larger servers, so perhaps they deserve their own thread. They came with the new update yes, but are only loosely in my eyes related to it. And yes, your complaints like scaling on lower server for clans is not something we are blind to.
The issues you have brought up are not tied in so to speak with the larger servers, so perhaps they deserve their own thread. They came with the new update yes, but are only loosely in my eyes related to it. And yes, your complaints like scaling on lower server for clans is not something we are blind to.
Upvote
0
Adding the OPTION to go up to 64 players is the single greatest improvement that TW has made to this game.
It has opened up the possibilities of larger battles and larger battlefields. Let's face it, at least half the maps we play are custom maps. The community already showed its desire to have large maps with the popularity of Orel, Berenina, BlackDayJuly, and others).
The game is evolving from a small map game to a large map game. The old maps will have to be retired. It's sad, but let's face it, they've been played enough already. I'm actually kind of sick of playing Odessa, Kaukuses, and other really tiny maps. On the other hand, playing these maps with 50 players does turn into a frantic battle, which I actually like.
As for tactics, as someone who always plays on pubs, there ARE no tactics. As far as I'm concerned, adding more players just increases the chance that there might be other players willing to coordinate with you. The clanners have their own servers and they can control who's on them, so i don't see them being affected by this change at all. Someone mentioned the fact that they're closing down their server because of lack of interest. That, right there, speaks volumes. Most players WANT the better gameplay of the larger servers.
While I have experienced more lag, it is definately livable and frankly in another year the technology should have caught up with it.
Finally, I think that in this particular case the Devs added an option rather than a mandatory change, there is no basis for calling it a mistake. Variety and choice is a GOOD thing. Those that like it can play on the bigger servers. Those that don't can play on the smaller ones. I don't see a problem here at all.
It has opened up the possibilities of larger battles and larger battlefields. Let's face it, at least half the maps we play are custom maps. The community already showed its desire to have large maps with the popularity of Orel, Berenina, BlackDayJuly, and others).
The game is evolving from a small map game to a large map game. The old maps will have to be retired. It's sad, but let's face it, they've been played enough already. I'm actually kind of sick of playing Odessa, Kaukuses, and other really tiny maps. On the other hand, playing these maps with 50 players does turn into a frantic battle, which I actually like.
As for tactics, as someone who always plays on pubs, there ARE no tactics. As far as I'm concerned, adding more players just increases the chance that there might be other players willing to coordinate with you. The clanners have their own servers and they can control who's on them, so i don't see them being affected by this change at all. Someone mentioned the fact that they're closing down their server because of lack of interest. That, right there, speaks volumes. Most players WANT the better gameplay of the larger servers.
While I have experienced more lag, it is definately livable and frankly in another year the technology should have caught up with it.
Finally, I think that in this particular case the Devs added an option rather than a mandatory change, there is no basis for calling it a mistake. Variety and choice is a GOOD thing. Those that like it can play on the bigger servers. Those that don't can play on the smaller ones. I don't see a problem here at all.
Upvote
0
Well, First to say I just popped in this thread and stirred it up is just wrong you must not have read all the pages in this thread or you would have seen that my first post in this thread came on page 2...
Yes I as a level designer do think about Clans and the way our maps will play during clan matches. As I said before the reinforcements do scale and if a clan has a server that can only handle 20 players the reinforcements will be scaled correctly to give as close to the 32 player experience in regards to reinforcements as long as the server is setting is correct for the Max player. If a server is set up and can not run the default number of players the admin will need to make some adjustments to the server settings, this might be one of the settings that would need to be changed. However we leave this up to the admin to decide.
I have not said admins are at fault or that we here at Tripwire have done no wrong. Also I have never said "not our problem, make a mutator" Honestly you need to stop making stuff up here. If community members want to make mutators for things I encourage them to learn by doing it. I will even try to give advise in the mod section when I can.
PLEASE read the entire post before you just flame it or anyone.
Sabu
Yes I as a level designer do think about Clans and the way our maps will play during clan matches. As I said before the reinforcements do scale and if a clan has a server that can only handle 20 players the reinforcements will be scaled correctly to give as close to the 32 player experience in regards to reinforcements as long as the server is setting is correct for the Max player. If a server is set up and can not run the default number of players the admin will need to make some adjustments to the server settings, this might be one of the settings that would need to be changed. However we leave this up to the admin to decide.
I have not said admins are at fault or that we here at Tripwire have done no wrong. Also I have never said "not our problem, make a mutator" Honestly you need to stop making stuff up here. If community members want to make mutators for things I encourage them to learn by doing it. I will even try to give advise in the mod section when I can.
PLEASE read the entire post before you just flame it or anyone.
Sabu
Upvote
0
we had pretty discusion about it on ROL and have to say that there are lots of other people that do not agree with REZ ... we do not think it is problem.
Yes, it has changed gameplay because you have to count with reinforcements much more but there are players who think it is not problem... REZ is not representating Clan scene in this
nor me...
Upvote
0
I think its a great addition to RO and i thank the Devs for taking the time to think this out and implement in the way they did. It shows that they used a reasonable process for getting this feature to the light of day. To me that says they have a good systems in place regarding there throughput and process chain. That is the mark of a good corporation in my eyes.
Upvote
0
we had pretty discusion about it on ROL and have to say that there are lots of other people that do not agree with REZ ... we do not think it is problem.
Yes, it has changed gameplay because you have to count with reinforcements much more but there are players who think it is not problem... REZ is not representating Clan scene in this
Well it is a problem, mostly in not being able to normalize the servers. without giving everybody thesame serverslots. The problem aint the scaling down, but scaling down based on server slots instead of say a setting in webadmin. So a 20 player server with 8people in it can get thesame as a 64 player server with 8 people in it. with clanmatches.
Upvote
0
Thank you for that Milk, you can take your angel wings and fly away now. I most certainly dont speak for clans as a whole. In regards to our discussion about it on ROL, I speak for those who understand what significantly reduced reinforcements based on scaled down server slots will do to gameplay, especially when the clock nor the map sizes are scaled accordingly. Maps are not tactically approachable, there are only so many ways in, and like I said - we all know every inch of every map like we knew our first girlfriends body.. plus the time in seconds it takes for a guy to get from spawn to any given place on a map. There are teams that can hold an objective for 6-10 minutes under constant pressure. The weapons are laser beams, the nades can be placed right where you want them. There is no way that a game 8v8 on a scaled down 16 slot server is going to be as long, as completeable by the attacking team, nor -subjectively- as fun.. as it would and always has been with 8v8 on a 32 slot server with 100% reinforcements. It just doesnt translate, and neither does 'well, just be careful and cherish your life more'.. cmon.
Sabu, I dont flame man... you guys havent been flamed. I dont do that. I get a lot of enjoyment out of this game, so I choose to speak if I think the experience is being changed too drastically from what has kept me here for years.
When I said we are hearing the stonewall answer fest I was referring to you and a few other devs, who keep saying the same 'you dont have to play there.. we didnt take away 32 slot servers' 'if you experience laggy moments it's you or the server not us' 'the 50's are popular so it must be good' ..so, no I didnt say you just popped in.
If you can sit there and honestly say that 'make a mutator' hasnt been the answer to several requests by members of this forum over the years, then you must be new around here. If you look, I wasnt quoting you or anyone directly - I was saying be ready for that answer in response to our reverse scaling problem. Also with admins being at fault, I was referring to the other members here who think the server admins need to be 'smart' and not run 32 player maps on their 50's... which brings me to a point. One I made several posts ago. Pay for 50 slots and then run 3-4 maps?
I like the idea of 50 slot servers. I really do. However I cant help but think what a tremendous and fantastic bomb this could have been to drop on an unsuspecting community. Sure Yosh, you guys tested it for a month or whatever. Then you said 'hey, this can be done, let's get it out there'. Then, after the fact, you had to introduce scaled weaponry, and reinforcements. After the fact. Still.. right now.. you're cramming 25v25 into maps like Kauk and Danzig!
Think about it this way.. whoever the project manager was on this one could have said. 'Okay, we've tested it and we know it will work great.. now, lets have our level designers (when they have time away from the forum) construct 2, maybe 3 maps with the scale and forethought needed for 50 soldiers all on at once (weaponry, landscape, clock - among a plethora of others) while maintaining that Red Orchestra feel. We know this will take quite some time so lets see if we can coordinate with server admins to make sure they have everything they need, make sure all of their questions and concerns are addressed - make sure they are properly configuring their equipment so people are having the best possible experience (you'll say you did this), then we can go to clan/Ladder leaders and talk with them to get input on forseeable issues and needs.
It was like, being so excited it could actually be done, it was just laid out there without thinking what was going to happen to gameplay on 32 player maps. What scaling was going to do to clan matches. What the population migration would do to 32 and less player servers - especially while the gameplay is still in a grey deathmatch area without 50 player maps. Thats what I have been saying from the get go is that it could have been water tight and have blindsided the community in all of its complete and well thought out awesomeness, but it's like being dragged around now waiting till the good gameplay comes back. Waiting until some community members or TWI gets around to making landscapes that can support this mass density of players.
If you guys wanna take it personal or get pinchy-mouthed about my opinion, then that's up to you.. but I'm a long time player who see's how 50 slots have changed a lot of different areas, and I'm telling you it could have been planned a lot better. It's one of the best games I have ever played for competition level gaming. My insistence on giving my opinion is because of a love for the game and the gameplay. You guys have created something great here (from a gamers perspective) and I think you are much more bright and capable than what it took to slap 50 players onto 32 player maps.
Sabu, I dont flame man... you guys havent been flamed. I dont do that. I get a lot of enjoyment out of this game, so I choose to speak if I think the experience is being changed too drastically from what has kept me here for years.
When I said we are hearing the stonewall answer fest I was referring to you and a few other devs, who keep saying the same 'you dont have to play there.. we didnt take away 32 slot servers' 'if you experience laggy moments it's you or the server not us' 'the 50's are popular so it must be good' ..so, no I didnt say you just popped in.
If you can sit there and honestly say that 'make a mutator' hasnt been the answer to several requests by members of this forum over the years, then you must be new around here. If you look, I wasnt quoting you or anyone directly - I was saying be ready for that answer in response to our reverse scaling problem. Also with admins being at fault, I was referring to the other members here who think the server admins need to be 'smart' and not run 32 player maps on their 50's... which brings me to a point. One I made several posts ago. Pay for 50 slots and then run 3-4 maps?
I like the idea of 50 slot servers. I really do. However I cant help but think what a tremendous and fantastic bomb this could have been to drop on an unsuspecting community. Sure Yosh, you guys tested it for a month or whatever. Then you said 'hey, this can be done, let's get it out there'. Then, after the fact, you had to introduce scaled weaponry, and reinforcements. After the fact. Still.. right now.. you're cramming 25v25 into maps like Kauk and Danzig!
Think about it this way.. whoever the project manager was on this one could have said. 'Okay, we've tested it and we know it will work great.. now, lets have our level designers (when they have time away from the forum) construct 2, maybe 3 maps with the scale and forethought needed for 50 soldiers all on at once (weaponry, landscape, clock - among a plethora of others) while maintaining that Red Orchestra feel. We know this will take quite some time so lets see if we can coordinate with server admins to make sure they have everything they need, make sure all of their questions and concerns are addressed - make sure they are properly configuring their equipment so people are having the best possible experience (you'll say you did this), then we can go to clan/Ladder leaders and talk with them to get input on forseeable issues and needs.
It was like, being so excited it could actually be done, it was just laid out there without thinking what was going to happen to gameplay on 32 player maps. What scaling was going to do to clan matches. What the population migration would do to 32 and less player servers - especially while the gameplay is still in a grey deathmatch area without 50 player maps. Thats what I have been saying from the get go is that it could have been water tight and have blindsided the community in all of its complete and well thought out awesomeness, but it's like being dragged around now waiting till the good gameplay comes back. Waiting until some community members or TWI gets around to making landscapes that can support this mass density of players.
If you guys wanna take it personal or get pinchy-mouthed about my opinion, then that's up to you.. but I'm a long time player who see's how 50 slots have changed a lot of different areas, and I'm telling you it could have been planned a lot better. It's one of the best games I have ever played for competition level gaming. My insistence on giving my opinion is because of a love for the game and the gameplay. You guys have created something great here (from a gamers perspective) and I think you are much more bright and capable than what it took to slap 50 players onto 32 player maps.
Upvote
0
![[TW]Ramm-Jaeger](/data/avatars/s/0/2.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
REZ, I think the reason why you might feel like your getting a "brick wall" from the devs, is that you keep restating an opinion that the devs don't share. It's not that we want to ignore your opinion, but at the end of the day we just don't agree, and stating your opinion over and over again, with more words and even more paragraphs just won't change that we don't agree.
Here are the facts:
Player counts are way up since the release, lots of new players are getting the game, lots of old players are coming back to the game, and the high player counts are breathing new life into many of the older maps.
Less than 10% of poeple playing RO at any one time are playing on a 50 player server. That means 90% of poeple are getting "good old RO" just like it always was.
Many of the 50 player servers are full 24/7 serving tens of thousands of unique players. In your opinion the maps "don't fit 50 players", and I will agree that some of them don't. But clearly a LOT of players don't share your opinion, and REALLY enjoy 50 player servers, even on smaller maps.
For a couple of months we did open beta testing with 50 players on the TWB servers which were full 24/7. We used this testing to test changes to the game to support 50 player RO. This was an open BETA, not released to any server admins but TWB. It definitely was not as you suggest here:
It definitely was not "after the fact", the scaling of weapon roles and reinforcements was done DURING the open beta testing period, and was released to all server admins at the time the update went public. This is a perfect example of how we used the beta testing as a polishing period for the release.
I think it all boils down to your opinion being the game was all screwed up by 50 player servers, and us (and tens of thousands of other players) not agreeing. The 50 player updated was HEAVILY requested by community admins, HEAVILY testing over several months, and is currently a HELL of a lot of fun for lots of RO players. Just like with custom maps, server admins running 50 player servers will take any maps off that poeple don't like. The players are going to be the best judge of which maps they like to play with 50 player anyway. Of the 25 maps distributed with the game now, I personally enjoy about 23 of them on 50 player servers
And the reason we keep saying "you don't have to play on the 50 player servers if you don't like it" is just that - you REALLY don't have to play on them if you don't like them. Good old 32 player RO is still there, exactly like it always was, for you to enjoy. Its really just like Sabu said, but lets give another analogy. Say you REALLY like steak, but someone puts two plates in front of you, one with steak, one with chicken. You can still eat the steak, but you can also still eat the chicken. So we wonder, why on earth would anyone complain about having the choice of the chicken, when they can still eat the steak
Here are the facts:
Player counts are way up since the release, lots of new players are getting the game, lots of old players are coming back to the game, and the high player counts are breathing new life into many of the older maps.
Less than 10% of poeple playing RO at any one time are playing on a 50 player server. That means 90% of poeple are getting "good old RO" just like it always was.
Many of the 50 player servers are full 24/7 serving tens of thousands of unique players. In your opinion the maps "don't fit 50 players", and I will agree that some of them don't. But clearly a LOT of players don't share your opinion, and REALLY enjoy 50 player servers, even on smaller maps.
For a couple of months we did open beta testing with 50 players on the TWB servers which were full 24/7. We used this testing to test changes to the game to support 50 player RO. This was an open BETA, not released to any server admins but TWB. It definitely was not as you suggest here:
It definitely was not "after the fact", the scaling of weapon roles and reinforcements was done DURING the open beta testing period, and was released to all server admins at the time the update went public. This is a perfect example of how we used the beta testing as a polishing period for the release.
I think it all boils down to your opinion being the game was all screwed up by 50 player servers, and us (and tens of thousands of other players) not agreeing. The 50 player updated was HEAVILY requested by community admins, HEAVILY testing over several months, and is currently a HELL of a lot of fun for lots of RO players. Just like with custom maps, server admins running 50 player servers will take any maps off that poeple don't like. The players are going to be the best judge of which maps they like to play with 50 player anyway. Of the 25 maps distributed with the game now, I personally enjoy about 23 of them on 50 player servers
And the reason we keep saying "you don't have to play on the 50 player servers if you don't like it" is just that - you REALLY don't have to play on them if you don't like them. Good old 32 player RO is still there, exactly like it always was, for you to enjoy. Its really just like Sabu said, but lets give another analogy. Say you REALLY like steak, but someone puts two plates in front of you, one with steak, one with chicken. You can still eat the steak, but you can also still eat the chicken. So we wonder, why on earth would anyone complain about having the choice of the chicken, when they can still eat the steak
Upvote
0
I will go out on that limb and say exactly what everyone else has or wants to say.
1. Don't play on 50-man servers. Don't like it, don't play it.
2. Server admins ARE to blame. For lots of things. If some maps are just bad gameplay, stock or custom, they should be pulled from rotations. There are several incredible 32 player maps that just do not work with 50. There are some maps that are empty at 32 but really feel good at 50.
3. Server admins that run bad mods or mutators and wonder why servers are empty...same issue.
4. Player choice. No one forces people to play anything, servers or maps. If you don't like it, don't play there but don't harass others who do like it. It's their choice.
The argument is pointless. As an opinion, yes, it holds weight but arguing what is best or not is nothing more than personal opinion. When will someone say that tank maps are the death of the game just because they don't like tanks?? If you like tanks or not, you seek maps to your liking. Why not say that a map is too big for 16 players and should be made smaller when it works great for 50? I absolutely hate Danzig and Odessa and will never vote for them but if they come up in the rotation or by vote I have a choice: play it with my friends on Teamspeak or sit out the round or just find another server. It is a choice.
People need to be responsible and quit blaming others and dismissing things that they personally don't like. Live and let live already. There are plenty of non-50 player servers out there. It all starts to sound like sour grapes "You're stealing my players", etc. when if players didn't want bigger servers, the servers wouldn't be busy.
Was it a rush job by TWI? Perhaps, in some minds, but has it failed? No, but only if you are one who likes the choices. Remember, these guys are working on a NEW game. Devoting assets to develop new BIG maps would take a lot of investment. The community at some point, has a chance and choice to develop appropriate material. In the meantime, server admins need to step up, rationalize the map rotation options, and set them accordingly. God forbid anyone has to take responsibility for something and not blame someone else.
The rant could go on. But what's the point?
1. Don't play on 50-man servers. Don't like it, don't play it.
2. Server admins ARE to blame. For lots of things. If some maps are just bad gameplay, stock or custom, they should be pulled from rotations. There are several incredible 32 player maps that just do not work with 50. There are some maps that are empty at 32 but really feel good at 50.
3. Server admins that run bad mods or mutators and wonder why servers are empty...same issue.
4. Player choice. No one forces people to play anything, servers or maps. If you don't like it, don't play there but don't harass others who do like it. It's their choice.
The argument is pointless. As an opinion, yes, it holds weight but arguing what is best or not is nothing more than personal opinion. When will someone say that tank maps are the death of the game just because they don't like tanks?? If you like tanks or not, you seek maps to your liking. Why not say that a map is too big for 16 players and should be made smaller when it works great for 50? I absolutely hate Danzig and Odessa and will never vote for them but if they come up in the rotation or by vote I have a choice: play it with my friends on Teamspeak or sit out the round or just find another server. It is a choice.
People need to be responsible and quit blaming others and dismissing things that they personally don't like. Live and let live already. There are plenty of non-50 player servers out there. It all starts to sound like sour grapes "You're stealing my players", etc. when if players didn't want bigger servers, the servers wouldn't be busy.
Was it a rush job by TWI? Perhaps, in some minds, but has it failed? No, but only if you are one who likes the choices. Remember, these guys are working on a NEW game. Devoting assets to develop new BIG maps would take a lot of investment. The community at some point, has a chance and choice to develop appropriate material. In the meantime, server admins need to step up, rationalize the map rotation options, and set them accordingly. God forbid anyone has to take responsibility for something and not blame someone else.
The rant could go on. But what's the point?
Upvote
0
Maybe I'm out of my depth here but I thought that the larger player count came hand in hand (with consideration for) the larger maps that were being produced by independent mapmakers.
OK !
Thanks...
OK !
Thanks...
Upvote
0
Best thing that has happened to this game is 50 Player servers.Breaths new life into an already fine game.
I hav been playing more this last month with the increase *and* having alot more fun.
I also noticed that Teamwork has increased with the increase of players(ppl sticking together,caping,defense,etc) I only play on 50 player servers now.
Ppl are using VOIP more co-ordinating the PUSH,situation awareness reports,etc. which is a welcome.
Maps will evolve,theres some good ones(lenin,forest,etc/ for 50 players.
Increasing the player count is a welcome increase with 95% of this community.
50+ players is a good thing.
Been playing RO since 3.3,,,,,,, =SeaDog= ,,,,just my .02$ worth,,,,,
I hav been playing more this last month with the increase *and* having alot more fun.
I also noticed that Teamwork has increased with the increase of players(ppl sticking together,caping,defense,etc) I only play on 50 player servers now.
Ppl are using VOIP more co-ordinating the PUSH,situation awareness reports,etc. which is a welcome.
Maps will evolve,theres some good ones(lenin,forest,etc/ for 50 players.
Increasing the player count is a welcome increase with 95% of this community.
50+ players is a good thing.
Been playing RO since 3.3,,,,,,, =SeaDog= ,,,,just my .02$ worth,,,,,
Upvote
0
today we will play another 48-players-clan match on Rakowice and Konigsplatz... I will tell you than how it was on these maps that were created for 32 players... an REZ I do not have angel wings, I have Devil's wings... so be careful about that
Upvote
0