100 players on one server - too many

[Ushiri]

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.

I agree ... But in some ways you can be less tactical since its not anymore a problem with manpower on the frontline like it was earlier...not in the same way I think.

[Lugi]

I agree ... But in some ways you can be less tactical since its not anymore a problem with manpower on the frontline like it was earlier...not in the same way I think.

I think this issue is more related to the fob and rally point changes, than the 100p servers.

[Ushiri]

Can somebody explain to me as to why more players mean more strategic depth? I don't know whether you took a good look at just about ANY competitively played game, but just to illustrate how void your argumentation is:
Starcraft 1v1/2v2
Warcraft 1v1/2v2
CounterStrike 2v2/5v5
Dota 5v5


Outside of Dota(2), every other game may be played with at least double to triple the player numbers, so IF more players were to mean an increase in strategy, WHY then is the opposite the case?

I'm sorta busy the whole week through, but I'll give a full 1.0 feedback in shortly.

None of those games are military sims or use combined arms.. So I dont think you can compare them in anyway with PR. IF you wrote about Red orchestra, Darkesthour44-45, Arma2 then you could have a something going on.

[Ushiri]

The problem isn't the amount of players on the servers, it's how many people just simply don't listen to squad leaders and do their own thing. With more players, you have do have more of that, so in a way it is a contributing factor, but what is the higher road to take here? Simply implement the following rules on your server and everything should be fine. It's going to involve a lot of kicking and a steep learning curve but I'd rather have 80/100 with 20 people kicked and tempbanned then just playing on an 80 slot server. You might even find that after implementing sticter rules that 100 isn't even enough. imo it should be more like 166 but with respawns of atleast 5 minutes, up to 30 minutes for arrests, but that's another topic for antoher day. do this:

All players must be in a squad or be kicked within 2-5 minutes.
All squadleaders must give orders every 1-30 minutes. 2 Offenses = Resign
All squadmembers must follow orders. 2 Offenses = Squadkick
There must be a commander before squads are created. There is to be a commander at all times. Highly Encouraged
Commander must give orders every 5-30 minutes.
Squadleaders must follow commander orders or explain why they are not able to within a reasonable amount of time. 3 Offenses = Resign

I know it seems super serious pants but I'd rather play with 80-90 people following those rules then any amount doing what you get a good 50% of the time with random squadmembers, even if it be one guy, he can slow your squad down or give you false security and completly kill gameplay, over and out.

You know thats not going to happen.. I 100% agree with you on everything. except a player that wont talk and communicate also creates squad and then we have this pointless none hearing ignorant unwilling SL?s

[Frontliner]

None of those games are military sims or use combined arms.. So I dont think you can compare them in anyway with PR. IF you wrote about Red orchestra, Darkesthour44-45, Arma2 then you could have a something going on.

I was talking about strategic depth. A full server of RO2 is devoid of any strategy, just like a 100p server of PR, even though countless people beg to differ apparently. Funnily enough, nobody has come forth to actually explain himself so yeah.

[Lugi]

Bringer_of_D; yeah, I play the game wrong when the amount of people limits my strategic options and neither small nor large flanks yield adequate levels of success

They actually do, from what I experienced. Prior to 1.0 flanking was a lot more effective simply because there wasn't enough people to keep all the directions covered, and you could always sneak up on a squad, and surprise them with a few grenades.
Now you just have to deal with the fact that such primitive tactic won't work.

Point of flanking is to go largely undetected,

Pretty easy to go undetected when you have such unrealistically desolated battlefield.

if you think that I think of this as 1337 ninja stuff, you should go read some books about warfare honestly.

Flanking is one of the basic military maneuvers, no doubt. But it's certainly not done in the way it used to be in PR before 1.0.

The current meatgrinder action bears heavy resemblance to WW1, only difference is the equipment.

I'm yet to see such meatgrinder action in PR.

PS: Also, to the people who think 100 players make the game more strategic, I would love to know how so and what exactly is there in terms of new strategies you can do in 1.0 but can't in 0.98.

Fast example - you can actually defend a position without having to worry about spec ops squads sneaking through your porous defence.

A full server of RO2 is devoid of any strategy, just like a 100p server of PR,

Sorry but I have to call bs on that one. It's probably the matter of server you're playing on, just as it used to be before, teamplay on some servers is good, while on others there's none, no change here.

[Brainlaag]

I was talking about strategic depth. A full server of RO2 is devoid of any strategy, just like a 100p server of PR, even though countless people beg to differ apparently. Funnily enough, nobody has come forth to actually explain himself so yeah.

You just shot yourself in your own foot with this statement.

[Heavy Death]

You just shot yourself in your own foot with this statement.

I second that.

It is however needed to increase the CP radius, tone down fobs and RPs, to make it less spammy.

Otherwise, with a great commander and SL intuitive, tis pretty goddamn badass.

[Frontliner]

They actually do, from what I experienced. Prior to 1.0 flanking was a lot more effective simply because there wasn't enough people to keep all the directions covered, and you could always sneak up on a squad, and surprise them with a few grenades.
Now you just have to deal with the fact that such primitive tactic won't work.

Instead you now have to force your way in. OMG the strategy necessary to respawn, run to the frontline, die, and respawn. Halma has more strategy behind it than this.

Pretty easy to go undetected when you have such unrealistically desolated battlefield.

Pretty hard to scout out approaching forces when you're limited to only 6 men instead of some 30. That's what Recon is for. That's when you distribute your limited manpower to the greatest effect.

Flanking is one of the basic military maneuvers, no doubt. But it's certainly not done in the way it used to be in PR before 1.0.

Oh, really, it's not done by
-striking the enemy from where he least expects
-trying to conceil your movements until the very last moment
but instead
-run into the capture zone

ok, cool story bro.

I'm yet to see such meatgrinder action in PR.

Then you are willingly ignorant.

Fast example - you can actually defend a position without having to worry about spec ops squads sneaking through your porous defence.

wat. First of all, that's not even strategy at all lol. And second of all, you're telling me that when you have enough people, worrying about being flanked ceases to exist, which means a viable strategy ceases to exist. And that makes the game.....more strategic? GJ on that example lmao

Oh, and you're fully correct, but the conclusion you're drawing from it is in the wrong direction. Like 180?.

Sorry but I have to call bs on that one. It's probably the matter of server you're playing on, just as it used to be before, teamplay on some servers is good, while on others there's none, no change here.

Team play=/= strategy, l2read.

You just shot yourself in your own foot with this statement.

Mind explaining yourself before you're saying I'm incorrect? Mind giving examples?

I'm getting irritated with so many people disagreeing yet either not explaining themselves like yourself and the dude below you, or giving wrong examples like Lugi. If it's so hard to disprove me, you might as well stop disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, and accept what I'm saying as correct.

[Lugi]

Instead you now have to force your way in. OMG the strategy necessary to respawn, run to the frontline, die, and respawn.

You might wanna revise that strategy of yours, or use a totally different one if you want to succeed in PR

Pretty hard to scout out approaching forces when you're limited to only 6 men instead of some 30. That's what Recon is for. That's when you distribute your limited manpower to the greatest effect.

Let's make PR 2v2 then. Imagine all the amazing strategies you can employ. The game will gain a lot more depth when you will have to manage your limited manpower like this.

Oh, really, it's not done by
-striking the enemy from where he least expects
-trying to conceil your movements until the very last moment
but instead
-run into the capture zone

This part is very important

-trying to conceil your movements until the very last moment

The problem is that in 64p PR you didn't have to do that one, you could just run straight and not worry that anyone will spot you, because that would hardly ever happen with that "limited manpower".

ok, cool story bro.

Thanks.

Then you are willingly ignorant.

I don't think you realize what WWI actually was, especially in those big battles where hundreds of thousands lost their lives, so please refrain from using such misguided comparisons.

wat. First of all, that's not even strategy at all lol. And second of all, you're telling me that when you have enough people, worrying about being flanked ceases to exist, which means a viable strategy ceases to exist. And that makes the game.....more strategic? GJ on that example lmao

Yes, I'm telling you that when you have enough people, worrying about being flanked ceases to exist. The trick is that you can never have enough people, even on a 100p server, so there is still (a lot) of room for flanking. You can't just do in such primitive way you are used to, so that's probably where your frustration comes from. You just fail to adapt, whereas strong majority of players does not have this problem at all.

Team play=/= strategy, l2read.

They have a lot in common, especially in PR, bu yeah, I should have used the word "strategy". My bad.

If it's so hard to disprove me, you might as well stop disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, and accept what I'm saying as correct.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.

[Frontliner]

You might wanna revise that strategy of yours, or use a totally different one if you want to succeed in PR.

I actually am successful. But even if I weren't I'm free to ask for change for the better.

Let's make PR 2v2 then. Imagine all the amazing strategies you can employ. The game will gain a lot more depth when you will have to manage your limited manpower like this.

Strawmanning much? Just because I say 64 shits on 100 in terms of strategy, that must automatically mean I argue that even less is better, or even practical given map size et al. kk

You know what, and what you said in order to ridicule my statement is entirely correct, in a 2v2, you would have to choose your asset wisely because everything does come with an exploitable weakness:
CAS(jet)->strongest Asset but cannot capture objectives
Tank->prone to Airforce and HATs, but otherwise excellent
APC(with Crate)->capable of building FOBs and they pack quite the firepower, but are lackluster vs the former 2
Infantry->Weak and slow(w/o trans), however excellent for taking objectives without the enemy knowing where to find you.

This is pure fucking strategy right there mate.

The problem is that in 64p PR you didn't have to do that one, you could just run straight and not worry that anyone will spot you, because that would hardly ever happen with that "limited manpower".

Then you did not distribute your limited eyes correctly.

I don't think you realize what WWI actually was, especially in those big battles where hundreds of thousands lost their lives, so please refrain from using such misguided comparisons.

Whether it is an over- or understatement it gets the point across. That's what a comparison is. I do believe I am aware enough of what happened in this WW and the one after, thank you very much.

Yes, I'm telling you that when you have enough people, worrying about being flanked ceases to exist. The trick is that you can never have enough people, even on a 100p server, so there is still (a lot) of room for flanking. You can't just do in such primitive way you are used to, so that's probably where your frustration comes from. You just fail to adapt, whereas strong majority of players does not have this problem at all.

The "majority" of players thinks "Action PR" is the best thing ever, I have reasonable doubts about their understanding of strategy and whether they even want to play tactic driven game play in the first place.

There is indeed enough room to flank, but the enemy has so many eyes, getting close for a precise strike and succeeding with your squad against a shitload of defenders is just not gonna happen.

[40mmrain]

how could 64 shit on 100 in terms of strategy? That makes no sense at all. When you are short men your options are more and more limited, strategy is more and more limited.

On kashan, infantry anywhere but right on top of flags is a worthless stratagem with 64 players, there simply isnt enough infantry. But, now, with more infantry, an infantry force east or west of the bunkers with assets protecting a flank is relevant, creating multiple staging points to attack a flag like south village is relevant. For armour, formation is relevant, the possibility of grouping up massive amounts of armour is possible and relevant. Map makers having more than two flags in play at once can be supported. Dogfighting tactic has improved now that increased jet counts can be supported. Mortars can now be properly manned behind front lines without worrying that youre just wasting too many bodies when you could be on a flag defending.

There is not strategical floundering, or meat grinders. 100 players is superior to 64 in every regard. The smaller the player count the less and less you can do, other than attack from one direction and sit on flags to defend.

[Frontliner]

how could 64 shit on 100 in terms of strategy? That makes no sense at all. When you are short men your options are more and more limited, strategy is more and more limited.

32 players was sufficient to get every asset to work, so I don't see how you are limited in accessing every asset and using them. Granted, you have fewer of them, and that's when you start using them wisely, with care and with a purpose. Limitations make proper strategizing a requirement for success, you cannot mindlessly waste your life/asset/w/e without your team having to deal with the consequences.

On kashan

Kashan is an open fucking desert map without any cover outside of but a few spots, good job you noticed how devoid of strategy the map is. 90% of all Kashan games boiled down to how well your CAS/Tanks were doing, or are you seriously going to tell me otherwise again just for the sake of it?
Take Kozelsk, Muttrah or Wanda Shan, when you've got cover to work with, hills to conceil your movements with, buildings to enter and hold, see how you've got way more options?

There is not strategical floundering, or meat grinders. 100 players is superior to 64 in every regard. The smaller the player count the less and less you can do, other than attack from one direction and sit on flags to defend.

Yeah, I get it 100p=more action+more strategy, Chess should also get 2 more rooks, queens and bishops etc., and 8 more pawns because more makes the game more strategic lol. We should call it Action Chess, how about that?

[matty1053]

I must say 100p sucks when you have locked squads.

And flanking on khamishinya or what ever that map is. Is very useful. Especially if you have the city flag in play.

And 64 players is much easier for admins I bet
They don't have constant. !r barrackobama wasting assets

[40mmrain]

Yeah, I get it 100p=more action+more strategy, Chess should also get 2 more rooks, queens and bishops etc., and 8 more pawns because more makes the game more strategic lol. We should call it Action Chess, how about that?

yeah I get it, 64p means more strategy, let's put one pawn and one king per side as a game of chess, we should call it strategy chess

I cant believe you think this *bunny* analogy is a receivable argument

[sirfstar]

The "majority" of players thinks "Action PR" is the best thing ever, I have reasonable doubts about their understanding of strategy and whether they even want to play tactic driven game play in the first place. .

Majority isn't very smart by definition so i don't think we can actually argue and result something instead of just try to seed <100p servers. I've seen QRF succeeded on that.

[ComradeHX]

There is indeed enough room to flank, but the enemy has so many eyes, getting close for a precise strike and succeeding with your squad against a shitload of defenders is just not gonna happen.

Succeeding with your squad against a shitload of defenders with your superior gaming skills?

Shitload of defenders + few attackers = fail.

[Not_able_to_kill]

Instead you now have to force your way in.

Isn't that exactly what war is about?

There are no super swat tactics on the frontlines anyway, in 1.0 it's more realistic, it's more about holding the line and advancing now.

The reason why I've taken so many breaks from PR is because of the boredom that is 4-6 vs 4-6 guys scattered around big maps that was pre-100 players.

[Not_able_to_kill]

Frontliner, you like evil man who comes to family house during christmas, takes out tree because it's too happy, so they can be just as sad as you.

[Nate.]

Frontliner, you like evil man who comes to family house during christmas, takes out tree because it's too happy, so they can be just as sad as you.

lol

Majority isn't very smart by definition so i don't think we can actually argue and result something instead of just try to seed <100p servers. I've seen QRF succeeded on that.

Yes, we run with 80 players, which works reasonably well for both 4km and 2km maps.

It comes with the advantages that more players per server bring in terms of immersion and tactics-realism while not turning it into a complete mess on small maps with all the problems that come along with it (9 squads only / hell for admins / overall chaos).

We can still have dedicated trans and asset squads as well as small infantry units and had some overall great rounds with it.