anything less than 64 players is a borefest.
32 players on red oktober factory felt like i was playing 1 on 1.
32 players on red oktober factory felt like i was playing 1 on 1.
SERVER ADMINS: 32 or 48 slots please, not 64!
- Thread starter brain
- Start date
You can have teamplay and skill in a 64 player map, as mentioned before, the only problem here is that most of the maps given to us to try so far have been smaller & closed in maps, thus it's more hectic.... but you can still have tactics & skill.
When the larger, more open maps start coming our way, the 64 player servers will be in their prime.... you'll be able to have more tactics, as well as more area to move around in.
Now take those same larger maps and toss in only 16 odd players and you have an empty, boring map with no real action..... or people capping easily simply because there isn't enough players to cover every area..... then that team goes to take them out and re-cap, but the enemy is gone to go cap what you capped and it just ping pongs back with caps and the odd one or two kills.
16 players on a map like Apartments, even though it's small, suffers the same issues, where there are too many buildings, too many windows, and large cap zones that it's hard for 8 people cover every possible angle, leaving wide open areas for a team to run through without any issues and cap.
And you call that skill and tactics? What skill is involved where you have a clear & empty path to a cap zone because your enemy is covering another cap zone..... or the cap zone you are attacking only has one or two enemies in it?
Wow... real challenging, especially when those players you killed are waiting in spawn for 15 seconds, leaving you an even easier cap.
Well, propaganda house can be defended with 100% coverage by 3 people, all the rest can be defended by 2. I mean, even if you wanted to defend the connections instead of the caps youd have enough people with 8, the map is indeed small. I agree with you tho on the larger maps suporting 64 players part, as my comment was related to the current maps we are playing.
On your last words, I can see where people are coming talking about 64 players being more fun, but assuming its more challenging or skillfull is just silly...
Whereas I feel anything above 32 is too much like whack-a-mole.
EDIT: Also, I suspect that once we start doing clan scrims/matches we'll be playing on 24/32 slot servers anyway. There is no way that pubbing in a 64-slot server even comes close to providing the tension and tactical play of a scrim/match 24-slot server.
Last edited:
Im with 64 Players
I love it - its war !!!
and everybody can play on servers they like, so i dont get ur problem!
and btw the servers im playing on run just smooth with 64 players
I love it - its war !!!
and everybody can play on servers they like, so i dont get ur problem!
and btw the servers im playing on run just smooth with 64 players
Why do you resort to playing RO2 when there's WW2Online that offers 10x beter experience of large scale warfare?
Even though on more serious note the less-than-64p cap didn't stop JR from running their tank server at 40p only on oversized maps and nevertheless it was still pretty terrific in DH.
Last edited:
No offence intended, but I'm afraid this is both a ridiculous point to make, and a faulty analogy
You are completely ignoring a little thing we call "opinion", and another thing we call "choice". Also, you could throw "imagination" in there too.Firstly, people have been choosing to play game modes with low numbers of players for years - on PC. Rocket Arena, which was basically Quake 1v1 with rockets only, was pretty good fun with the right 2 players. In competition, team player counts are low for a whole number of obvious reasons. Some of them tactical, some choice/opinion, some practical. Just because you have a powerhouse of a PC, doesn't mean you should be draining all power from the grid with it, 24 hours a day
Secondly, people who own sports cars don't drive around at full speed all the time. There are things like speed limits and laws, and maybe the desire not to kill several people per day and damage your shiny sports car. Regardless, I'm sure anyone who owns an Aston Martin enjoys driving it - whether they're doing 150mph, 50mph, or just sat at some traffic lights in absolute luxury, with a V12 purring away up front. You'd be driving around the block in the UK @ 30mph, which in a sports car is really no different to 15mph. If you feel compelled to constantly break the speed limits around town just because you own a fast car, you're basically being a d!ck. That can be expensive when you're caught, and pretty nasty if you bounce someone off the front of your car.
Last but not least, you seem to be suggesting that in WW2, there were absolutely no encounters between low numbers of soldiers. Where's your reasoning for this? You don't think that maybe small patrols of 20-30 soldiers might bump into another similar group of enemies, who are scouting? If you use a bit of imagination, it's pretty easy to see these encounters happening regularly, where forces are camped/occupying ground close to their enemies. Aside from any of this though - if people want to have battles with lower numbers, they should be able to. It's their choice to do that, and it doesn't really matter what your opinion on this is - it's doesn't affect them, and nor should it
You can play your 64-player battles, and they can have their 32 or even 16-player battles. No problemo In due time we will see maps that have been properly designed for 64 players; both in size and in optimization.
Grain Elevator, Barracks, Apartments? These are not maps that are capable of being played with so many people, and Fallen Fighters, Red October and Gumrak are sketchy at best when played with such an exorbitant number of people.
Grain Elevator, Barracks, Apartments? These are not maps that are capable of being played with so many people, and Fallen Fighters, Red October and Gumrak are sketchy at best when played with such an exorbitant number of people.