100 players on one server - too many

[matty1053]

You want the most coordinated rounds ever? Play small matches of 10v10 or lower. This way everyone is 110% attuned to the entire team, something goes down on the other side of the fight and you can hear it from the guy who is under fire but you have enough of an impact as one player to actually change the entire battle.

64 man servers are an option for anyone wanting to host it as far as I know. I do believe Merk found their sweet spot at 80 players, and I cannot argue as I have had plenty of fantastic rounds on their server. I think the point is not enough people care to go back to 64 player servers. I still manage to play some 40-60 player rounds a fair bit when seeding or a late at night and I have to say I notice the lack of excitement when you drop 40-50 players.

In the end it's up to the people holding the server licenses if they want to go back to 64 or not.

Agreed. I play on merk when i can and I have a blast on there.

OT.
ON maps like Marlin, which have some great CQB and everything in that category... 100p seems just right. Since it is very intense in a lot of times. (And I think I almost suffered a heart attack once on that map, lol).

Personally, I think 100p is just damn perfect on 2km-4km maps. Especially Bijar Canyons.... since it is a huge map. or at least seems like it is.

On some 1km maps.... like Kokan, 100p seems right too. But I think 80-90p is perfect on 1km maps.


I can say, if rounds lasted about 1 hour or more.... PR would be at it's best.

[Anderson29]

technically kokan is 2k map even though only slightly more than half the map is in use.

[HeadlessChicken86]

------------

[HeadlessChicken86]

---------------

[Frontliner]

One example for you guys since i know u enjoy dat milsim stuff:
Second Battle of Fallujah was most likely fought in a 5x5km area. Soldiers on US side: 13500; Fighters on Insurgent Side: ~4000

I guess you're confused with the terms so let me help you out. MilSim doesn't mean bringing forces to scale(eg. the 13500 vs 4000 you mentioned) but rather trying to replicate reality as best as possible or in the most feasible manner; that's what all simulations are about btw.

May be you guys just like to sit somewhere and practice shooting single people from OP positions. Shit is far more difficult when you cant just move wherever you want and have to deal with people just when they pop up.

Besides the point that certain positions are advantageous to hold in reality as well as in the game(and equally hard to break), maybe we don't like the idea of sacrificing gameplay for action?

I mean imagine a country wants to attack a city or something and only 30 enemies show up at that area. Thats why you would go there with all the tanks n shit? What kind of war is this?

Of course facing an opposition of 50 enemies is so much more realistic than 32(or the 40 players per team that I personally like best) It's a game, not reality.

[HeadlessChicken86]

--------

[Frontliner]

Awww you ninjaed me i was still editing dat shit man im too slow for you

MilSim doesn't mean bringing forces to scale(eg. the 13500 vs 4000 you mentioned) but rather trying to replicate reality as best as possible - Well lets use RL scales to "replicate reality as best as possible"? How does that not work out?!

Is not logic my friend, or is logic simply not involved in dis? :b

You should quote the whole sentence. When I said feasible, I mean it as practicable. Take Sim City for example: While it may be possible and realistic to make the player wait for a whole year to see a building completed, it's not feasible in any way and makes for horrendous gameplay. Less is more in some cases and this is one. Applying realistically scaled battles and numbers is not possible, nor would I wish for something like that for gameplay reasons.

Also everything else you wrote just proofed my point with the value of life thingy. If you have to avoid casualties noone is gonna try to rush a building on his own. So gameplay more important dan action.

You did not include the ticket numbers beforehand so I fail to see how I was supposed to prove your point. I do have my problems at the notion of "id like to see 6x6km new fallujah AAS map with ~3600 Insurgents fighting 2200 US forces. Keep it at 2000 tickets for US and 3000 for INS team to raise value of life (which is the only important thing if you really focus on the tactical part)" though because you're being a bit vague about which mechanics from PR still exist and here's why:
Let's say players can be revived, well shit, now "realism" has taken a nosedive
Let's say players cannot be revived, well shit, I'm dead. *Leaves server and plays something else*

You shouldn't perhaps try to fit into either category, because they each bring their own set of problems if you cling to them. Which is why you'll never see me doing that; some things I say favour the aspect of realism(or even MilSim; though I'm personally not that much into it - in video games at least), others however go against reality to increase gameplay, playability, accessibility - the aspects of a video game that make them fun to play.

And im only argumenting like dat cause ESPECIALLY YOU MY FRIEND FRONTLINER like it realistic right?

Umm, yes, but not at all costs, no.

[HeadlessChicken86]

----------------

[Frontliner]

Its just because youre infantry skills and tactics cant handle chaotic situations, so you try to limit the chaos by reducing the possibility to get shot by enemy forces in situations where you do not have the superior fire position. For the same reason you appreciate "no rush" rules. You guys want to plan and tactic the shit out of the enemy team and then you suddenly get surprise buttsex action. And youre like "these mean noobs are so bad let me get into position first ffs". Well that was mean, still luv you tho.

Frontliner among the pure chaos that is a full DoD:S server:


Yeah, I suck pls teach me how to play arcade-y games

[HeadlessChicken86]

----------

[Cpt.Future]

Pls bring 600+ player servers thank you.

Nah

To sum up: Its not about too much shooting or too much action imo, its about players not giving a shit about dying.

Tru

For the same reason you appreciate "no rush" rules.

Muttrah City on MeRK static as hell

[HeadlessChicken86]

--------------

[Frontliner]

It must be like hell but with mouse and keyboard and making the right decisions faster than the others or get rekt. You only get this adrenaline rush in pr man and you know it. Dont try to get rid of it.

I'm afraid no. DoD:S is way more hectic due to the lower size of the level and the limited routes you can take. If you get an adrenaline rush out of making fast decisions, twitch shots and unforgiving gameplay then you should play DoD 1.3 or DoD:S rather than PR imo. Steam gives the option to have others play the game while you're not playing it, wanna give it a shot before you say no?

[HeadlessChicken86]

----------------------

[KingKong.CCCP]

I think 301 players on the server is too much. 300 seems like the good number.


... actually, wait... 302 would be nice (if someone wants to have 2 places reserved for the clan members).

[carmikaze]

[quote=""carmikaze"]
May 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

[/quote]

Oh don't worry, I'll find more than enough with the same opinion.

[quote="Coconut""]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...[/quote]

Don't like his either and I just wanted to express that this is bs.

[K4on]

circle has been repeating multiple times now, locking this.
if you wish to play on less than 100p slot servers, ask your favourite server admins for it. merk clan f.e. actually has only 84 public slots AFAIK.