100 players on one server - too many

[radegast1.cz]

I think, 100 players on server is no any lucky idea. Too much for CPU, less tactics and strategy (from the view of the whole team). What about reduce it for 80 players?

[Rhino]

Server admins can reduce their server size as they see fit. I suggest talking to your favourite servers if you really want this, and helping seed smaller servers that are already up.

[smgunsftw]

I find the PR is able to meet everyone's tastes through variation, hence, there is no need to change the entire game for everyone. If you want to see a more closely-knit team and a less demanding game, join a <64 player server. However, if you want to see more fierce and epic battles, join a >64 player server.

[WilberLopez]

Yes..i think it will create more of a commotion and that will just effect the game more..having 80 players is a great idea though.

[Psyrus]

Yes..i think it will create more of a commotion and that will just effect the game more..having 80 players is a great idea though.

I think 80 players are too many. We should go to 50.

Or 250.

----

Why not learn to adapt?

[carmikaze]

I think, 100 players on server is no any lucky idea. Too much for CPU

Oh yeah, why not ask anders and brunitogg if they'd put out all the new effects, because the game is lagging on your shitty laptop?

less tactics and strategy (from the view of the whole team). What about reduce it for 80 players?

Nope.

What about reduce it for 80 players?

Might sound harsh, but what about adapt or leave?

[Jamaican]

I think, 100 players on server is no any lucky idea. Too much for CPU, less tactics and strategy (from the view of the whole team). What about reduce it for 80 players?

Then just join one with less players,

Annoying when someone joins 64+ server and moans its too many players. Just go join one with 20 or something on it.

[Rhino]

Might sound harsh, but what about adapt or leave?

Please don't talk like that to your follow player base otherwise you may find yourself playing on your own

[Acemantura]

I think the problem here is on the individual level. You should not wait for the game to get better, you should make the game the way you see fit, which I assume means more teamwork.

[Coconut]

Might sound harsh, but what about adapt or leave?

I don't like your attitude man, he just wanted to express, that with 100p Servers more action is around and that this might not be so good for PR...
At the moment, I don't see a big problem on 4km maps, but I experienced too much action on 2km maps. Well, let's see how the Server Admins will decide in future.
Would be great if they could make special gaming days, like on the one day 64p Server with only 2km maps and the other day 100p Server with only 4km maps, or something like that

[40mmrain]

I like it a lot better. WE had an armour group of 2 bradleys, 2 avengers and 3 abrams rolling together for a few moments on kashan today. Had some big 6 plane dog fights. HAving 10 men+ on every flag. Good stuff, cant happen on 100 men servers. More players means more tactics are relevant. I like it.

[Rezza]

100 players is just the sweetspot in my opinion.

[Spook]

I totally agree. 100p is too much. I have always said that...in the first tests back in 0.97...in the open beta and now. It is simply unplayable. Especially on 2km maps. There is no possiblity for any strategies. Imagine a line across the whole map. Both teams pushing along the whole line in direction of the enemy. There is no way to flank around anywhere, since you will always hit contacts along the line. So basically it is 2 teams respawning and butchering each other until one part of the front breaks and one team can push through. There is constant action going on, you will have not a minute without any contacts. Be it a whole squad or single individuals lurking around the map. The map is filled with players. Constant action is not what I am looking for. And especially those dumb rallypoints contribute most of the action gameplay. Bad enough that there are a bazillion of players running around the objectives, but you cannot even get rid of them since they will be right there as soon as you kill a part of them....and how do you want to cut their supplies by destroying FOBs or RPs if you cannot get past this massive front of people across the whole map. Lower, limit, remove FOBS and RPs, make them less poweful and 100p might work out someday.

I experienced this in the worst case 3 rounds in a row, on Asad Khal, Beirut and Muttrah. Ok Asad as a 1km map is very extreme ofc. But Beirut for example. We tried our best to flank around, but everytime some lonewolf spots and shoots us. We shoot back and suddenly 1/4 of their team is jumping out of their corners engaging us.

It might work on 4km maps. But then you would need to put 2 independend AAS routes on the maps and split the teams. Right now you find a couple of "dual objectives" on some maps. But they are too close too each other and the whole server still bunches up on one place of the map. At least here you have the possibility to flank around but the main fight on the objective is still ridiculously overcrowded making the game no fun.

In the beginning I thought oh well its a new release alot of shit and chaos happening. But I played several rounds with a highly organized team now and I even commanded several rounds with a decent team on my side...and gameplay was just as bad as before. Just a bunch of organized squads clashing against each other until one of them wins...

I am pretty sure all of this will not change that much with only 64p because of the RP system and because of too many FOBs. Cannot judge it that much yet though. Since I did not play on any 64p since the 1.0 release. I hope there will be some more servers downgrading to 64p soon, so players will at least have the chance to choose with how many players they want to play...maybe some will feel the same as me and even change server configs, and limit FOBs and forbid RPs. Put a PW on the server and you got PR gameplay how it is supposed to be. No offense DEVs you know I love you guys. You did an awesome job on the new content, the new effects, the new launcher, mumble and everything. I am thankful for all the work you have done for free. But regarding gameplay, the ones responsible screwed up big time IMO. And I hope they will realize this fast and make some changes before a big part of the tactic oriented playerbase loses interest in this game. And please do not tell me to come, join you and fix it myself. It was working before and now it is not. So whoever destroyed a running system should repair it himself again.

[Raklodder]

I for one prefer 64 player servers but usually end up playing all alone. Why this hype over 100p? My computer (most of our computers; with or without lag) can handle it for sure, but it's a matter of preferences, sir!

[HAAN4]

More meat comes handy, more two squads help defend and atack, has well incresses the intesity of action in the game

100 players is a advance in PR history of updates, in my opnion.

[ghostfool84]

In general i dont think 100p are too much, but i have to agree with spook in some cases. Many AAS routes do not really work with that amount of players. There is a big frontline and its much harder to get some progress in the AAS cap order. Alternative routes, multiple attack flags could maybe change something but i think its quite hard to tell that without testing.

The new RPs are much better than the ones in the beta, but 2 Grids aroudn Flag or Fob is way to far, 1 Grid should be enough.

[Bringerof_D]

In general i dont think 100p are too much, but i have to agree with spook in some cases. Many AAS routes do not really work with that amount of players. There is a big frontline and its much harder to get some progress in the AAS cap order. Alternative routes, multiple attack flags could maybe change something but i think its quite hard to tell that without testing.

The new RPs are much better than the ones in the beta, but 2 Grids aroudn Flag or Fob is way to far, 1 Grid should be enough.

i dont believe 100p has brought about a lack of tactics so much as the increase in player density in an area has revealed a pre existing lack of tactics. Previously a defensive line or skirmish line was porous enough that a squad that ran right across it can sometimes make it across unnoticed and unscathed, and some people as a result think that they used an effective strategy and "out flanked the enemy!"

however with 100p the lines are much denser and the arcs are better covered, those squads that push the line on the edges of the battle space are now being engaged and wiped out.

now playing PR requires real tactics, you can no longer simply get a flank on the objective marker and win it over, the enemy's rear ward fobs and squads are watching. you now have to properly and completely flank the enemy's rearward positions as well to eliminate their fire support before guys can flank into the flags themselves.

[Kaix12]

I prefer more action, more the chance for me to get my dose of reviving people while being shot at!

[Unhealed]

I think 100p servers should be forbidden from running <4km maps. It will make playing on them less retarded and less players will be complaining about pefomance issues.

[doop-de-doo]

Host and populate your own server. Problem solved. Everyone wins.