My thoughts excatly. I'd like to see a "real" human wave in 64 player's servers. Thenagain, small squad sized maps for clanmatches and ROLadder would be also nice. It's jus the problem that servers should decide whether they use smaller or bigger maps. Not like today, where Lyeskryovy is a chaos.
Number of players per server?
- Thread starter tauris
- Start date
My thoughts excatly. I'd like to see a "real" human wave in 64 player's servers. Thenagain, small squad sized maps for clanmatches and ROLadder would be also nice. It's jus the problem that servers should decide whether they use smaller or bigger maps. Not like today, where Lyeskryovy is a chaos.
The maps were not DESIGNED for 32 plus people though... so that is not fair to say.
Obviously, it depends on the size of the maps. 64 players on Kriegstadt can be great. But 64 players on Danzig? Disconnect within 10 seconds.
When I played Kriegstadt with 50 players it felt just right for such a huge map. So I'm in favour of the game supporting a large player number, but only if it has large maps like Kriegstadt. I've said this before, but I love large maps that not only have a large freedom of movement into all 3D directions, but also feature both long-range combat and CQB fights. Such maps are RO at its finest IMO, which is why battles on maps such as Kriegstadt and Moltke Bridge rank amongst my fondest RO memories. Many of RO:O's maps are too quick to 'force' players into CQB fights IMO. Those are fun too, and I have the feeling that most of RO:HOS' maps will be designed for 32 players in mind, but I'm still hoping for a large urban combined arms map...
When I played Kriegstadt with 50 players it felt just right for such a huge map. So I'm in favour of the game supporting a large player number, but only if it has large maps like Kriegstadt. I've said this before, but I love large maps that not only have a large freedom of movement into all 3D directions, but also feature both long-range combat and CQB fights. Such maps are RO at its finest IMO, which is why battles on maps such as Kriegstadt and Moltke Bridge rank amongst my fondest RO memories. Many of RO:O's maps are too quick to 'force' players into CQB fights IMO. Those are fun too, and I have the feeling that most of RO:HOS' maps will be designed for 32 players in mind, but I'm still hoping for a large urban combined arms map...
At least I found it a very nice map despite being too small for 50 players, since it offered a nice layout with lots of details and well placed cover (in most parts)... On the other hand I have only been playing RO for 1 year so I might not be as sick to death of it as others.
^ Fixed
The truth is something that this man spews forth from his keyboard.
hockeywarrior
FNG / Fresh Meat
Honestly, the player count debate entirely depends on the each map's size. On a map like the grain elevator or Red Square, I think I would really want a 50 man server. But on smaller maps, 50 players can get spammy.
More players on a map do tend to add to the immersion, in my opinion, since it's awesome to see that many people charging with you, but only if the maps are built to handle that many people without getting annoying! I think it would be smart for the TW devs to anticipate that we're going to see lots of 50 man servers, just like current RO:OST, and design their maps accordingly.
More players on a map do tend to add to the immersion, in my opinion, since it's awesome to see that many people charging with you, but only if the maps are built to handle that many people without getting annoying! I think it would be smart for the TW devs to anticipate that we're going to see lots of 50 man servers, just like current RO:OST, and design their maps accordingly.
Last edited:
I agree with you. Some of the maps in DH feel way to small for 40. So having the option to have as many slots as you want depending on the network being used and server hardware. That's how it is in Arma2. There are servers in that game that are 100 slots.
For those of you that use the old argument that clans/guilds/units can afford that many slots, well that's why you take donations. Duh!
Example: There are two data centers in Chicago and Dallas I can host my server for $50 to $80. That's not exactly a bank buster there.
Last edited:
Don't forget guys that even if there are huge maps, they are still playable with 32 players if they are played in the right mode, like the one they have announced about the 1 life per objective where you can have objectives starting from the ground level of a huge factory going up to the last rooms in the up most floor without spreading the players too much and making it feel like a ghost town.
32 is not enough. RO had 50, if they go back then they will be doing a mw2 and doing a mw2 is a big no no!
50+ or none at all for me.
Give the server admins the power to choose, don't restrict.
50+ or none at all for me.
Give the server admins the power to choose, don't restrict.
Last edited:
RO had 32. That's why the 50 player servers killed the funneh for maps like Danzig (sorry, I had to name it
)
Last edited:
Idea: The maps can be able to support 64 players. BUT when a server chooses to have 32 or 16 player slots, the boundaries of the map changes to adjust slots.
Or you can make it so it magically adjust depending on the current number of players on the server.
Or you can make it so it magically adjust depending on the current number of players on the server.
hockeywarrior
FNG / Fresh Meat
You mean EXACTLY like Battlefield 2's system? It worked just like that -- you had 16-32-64 variants of all maps.
Big slot servers are always more popular than smaller slot servers.
I hope that TWI pick a reasonable max player limit that a wide amount of server can support with their hardware capacity. In ROOST we had too many servers going for 40-50 players while they could at most handle 32 players.
A lot of server admins try to do what populates their server, and if having a laggy pos server with more slots populates easier than a smaller good server then they will opt for that. So I hope that TWI puts something in place that ensures that enough servers can be of good quality.
I hope that TWI pick a reasonable max player limit that a wide amount of server can support with their hardware capacity. In ROOST we had too many servers going for 40-50 players while they could at most handle 32 players.
A lot of server admins try to do what populates their server, and if having a laggy pos server with more slots populates easier than a smaller good server then they will opt for that. So I hope that TWI puts something in place that ensures that enough servers can be of good quality.