100 players on one server - too many

Suggestions from our community members for PR:BF2. Read the stickies before posting.
Locked
Frontliner
PR:BF2 Contributor
Posts: 1884
Joined: 2012-10-29 09:33

Re: 100 players on one server - too many

Post by Frontliner »

40mmrain wrote: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 like how you can only think of the strategy/player count correlation as a linear function going either
more players->more strategy
less players->more strategy
Don't you think that's a little childish and playing with my words in a willingly naive way like that? :roll:

The accurate representation is actually a negative parabola capping somewhere between 60-68ish, and going lower the lower/higher the player count is before/beyond that point.
Isn't that exactly what war is about?
That stopped happening past WW2. Every major force nowadays has it's own doctrines and techniques to prevent/circumvent/break up stalemate situations, and most commonly(in Infantry combat), this is done through relocating your forces on a seemingly weak flank, deceive your enemy, and strike with combined arms, if available.
Succeeding with your squad against a shitload of defenders with your superior gaming skills?

Shitload of defenders + few attackers = fail.
So the other guys attempting to get in the capture zone don't count as attackers?
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.
Because I'm taking your 100p servers off from you. kk
VTRaptor: but i only stopped for less than 10 secs and that fucking awesome dude put 2 of them

]CIA[ SwampFox: well my definition of glitching is using an enemy kit to kill the enemy

Just_Dave: i have a list about PR players, and they r categorized by their skill

Para: You sir are an arse and not what the game or our community needs.

AlonTavor: Is that a German trying to make me concentrate?

Heavy Death: join PRTA instead - Teamwork is a must there.
matty1053
Posts: 2007
Joined: 2013-07-03 00:17

Post by matty1053 »

Frontliner is right.
I have been commander about 8 times in 1.0.
Less players is better strategy.
You don't have to be focused on 8 other squads waiting for order.

And you can win vs a crapload of defenders.
How ?? Create a distraction, attack from behind pig possible.
DETROIT TIGERS
Image
Mikemonster
Posts: 1384
Joined: 2011-03-21 17:43

Re: 100 players on one server - too many

Post by Mikemonster »

Keep 100p sez I! It makes a battle fun, rather than an endless flanking manouvre! Allows 8 man squads, allowing for much more fun as a SL!
matty1053
Posts: 2007
Joined: 2013-07-03 00:17

Re: 100 players on one server - too many

Post by matty1053 »

Mikemonster wrote:Keep 100p sez I! It makes a battle fun, rather than an endless flanking manouvre! Allows 8 man squads, allowing for much more fun as a SL!


Yes, I agree.

I have more fun leading 6 players though. I have more power over them! :twisted:



And you can still have endless flanking maneuvers.. :) Especially on Black Gold.
But I am still happy with the 100p servers! :) Just sucks when they crash.

(It's a good thing for me, because I tend to stay in a round with out disconnecting 15min in the round, but then the server crashes that round! )
Not_able_to_kill
Posts: 202
Joined: 2008-03-05 11:37

Re: 100 players on one server - too many

Post by Not_able_to_kill »

Here's an idea.

Keep your 64/80 player servers to yourself while the other play on their 100 player servers instead of whining about your outdated tactics on the forums.

I for one got tired of 6v6 skirmishes all over the map ages ago.
[R-DEV]Hitperson: my body is a temple with the fountains flowing fresh with cider and the holy water being scotch.

[R-CON]Rudd: remember, your penis size is proportional
to your post count
Jamaican
Posts: 184
Joined: 2007-05-27 21:04

Post by Jamaican »

Can't see why those who like less players are complaining. Just join 64players servers or leave a 100 player server when you think there are too many. But wanting all servers to be 64 player just cause it suits your idea of better is BS. Tired of the moaning just don't play with more than 64 it's that simple.
Spook
Posts: 2458
Joined: 2011-07-12 14:08

Re: 100 players on one server - too many

Post by Spook »

Yeah...thank god that there are so many 64 player servers we can play on. The whole point is to get more server admins to run their servers at <100. Everything between 64-80 players is very good. Sadly there is no one else seeding low player servers (except us right now, but we only seed 2 times a week anyways). Would be nice to have atleast 1-2 alternative servers with low players.
Image
Frontliner
PR:BF2 Contributor
Posts: 1884
Joined: 2012-10-29 09:33

Re: 100 players on one server - too many

Post by Frontliner »

Not_able_to_kill wrote:Here's an idea.

Keep your 64/80 player servers to yourself while the other play on their 100 player servers instead of whining about your outdated tactics on the forums.
You realize I'm free to give my feedback on topic whenever I think I have something valid to contribute? I'm not forcing you to read or agree with me, but I'm not ever going to let myself shut up because you have a massive problem with my opinion. I'm sorry I'm currently shitting on your "100p-constantaction-tehawesome" parade, but I'm not the only one(OP, most of my clanmates, various others) who sees this as a massive step backwards from a tactic-driven simulation to the 10.000th iteration of casual, pseudo-realistic warfare.

Since you bring up our supposedly "outdated tactics", I must ask again, what exactly did 1.0, or more specifically the 100p servers bring new to the table in terms of strategy; nobody but Lugi made an attempt(no, he didn't succeed, he made a logical fallacy) yet, which is embarrassing given how full of strategy PR 1.0 you say is, so, do you care to try?
VTRaptor: but i only stopped for less than 10 secs and that fucking awesome dude put 2 of them

]CIA[ SwampFox: well my definition of glitching is using an enemy kit to kill the enemy

Just_Dave: i have a list about PR players, and they r categorized by their skill

Para: You sir are an arse and not what the game or our community needs.

AlonTavor: Is that a German trying to make me concentrate?

Heavy Death: join PRTA instead - Teamwork is a must there.
Not_able_to_kill
Posts: 202
Joined: 2008-03-05 11:37

Re: 100 players on one server - too many

Post by Not_able_to_kill »

Do you even care to try to adapt to the new gameplay changes?

Evolve.

You can do flanking in 1.0, it works the same way, you just have to spend more effort to it because it's no longer 6vs6 or something like that. Most US servers most of the time have all of the infantry work together, which happened very, very rarely prior to 1.0

But that doesn't matter, you'll just keep on fighting for nothing.
[R-DEV]Hitperson: my body is a temple with the fountains flowing fresh with cider and the holy water being scotch.

[R-CON]Rudd: remember, your penis size is proportional
to your post count
Frontliner
PR:BF2 Contributor
Posts: 1884
Joined: 2012-10-29 09:33

Re: 100 players on one server - too many

Post by Frontliner »

Not_able_to_kill wrote:Snip
Alright, I guess it goes without saying that it pisses me off when I see my very same question from page 1 unanswered bar an attempt that was completely wrong, so I have no reason to do you the courtesy of continuing answering your questions when you don't even attempt to answer mine in return. I have a legitimate interest in a discussion, I don't mind if I'm proven wrong whatsoever, but I do mind if my questions are dodged repeatedly, and I have put up with it so far - but this is where I tell you to either answer or just stopping to reply to me.
VTRaptor: but i only stopped for less than 10 secs and that fucking awesome dude put 2 of them

]CIA[ SwampFox: well my definition of glitching is using an enemy kit to kill the enemy

Just_Dave: i have a list about PR players, and they r categorized by their skill

Para: You sir are an arse and not what the game or our community needs.

AlonTavor: Is that a German trying to make me concentrate?

Heavy Death: join PRTA instead - Teamwork is a must there.
Heavy Death
Posts: 1303
Joined: 2012-10-21 10:51

Re: 100 players on one server - too many

Post by Heavy Death »

How is the nerfed respawntime helping the spammynes, fellow palyers who tested it? (Ill be only able to play in a few hours or so.)
ghostfool84
Posts: 503
Joined: 2009-10-17 11:38

Re: 100 players on one server - too many

Post by ghostfool84 »

Frontliner wrote:[...]

Why so harsh? I jumped to the beginning of the thread, and do you mean these questions about "why more player more strategy - starcraft works also with 1vs1?"


I played 1.0 since release and also in Beta and my expierence is that the gameplay is now far better than directly after the release. Its not so spammy anymore, Squads try to use certain routes or tactics and working better together than directly after release.

Are they working better together than in 098? - I think they do, mostly because PR Mumble.
- With better results?- Not really, there are many changes that cause that people get hit more often, its not only the playercount - Deviation changed and people get hit more often, healing takes more time (not only healing time itself, finding the body, who has to be healed etc) and firefights in general are more lethal now i think. That are changes people actually wanted, but that causes that a attack together with another squad can delay or must be aborted because they are stuck somewhere.

Do more players add more strategy? - In my opinion, no they dont, but fewer neither, its not about the playercount, its about how people handle the situation. With your argumentation we should only play 6vs6 Skirmish, there is also much room for tactics and planning with only 6 people, but that doesnt fit to the PR scenario.
The 100p adds quite more immersion to the game. Its not Iron Eagle, where one 6 Man Squad defends Alkomin and the other try to attack bijiar. That felt so wrong so many times.
Now you have organize more people, transport for the people and make sure that the timing is right. Before you needed one chopper and everything was fine. As single Squad you cant do as much as in 098, but that doesnt lower the strategic depth or something, it just makes your squad to a smaller part of the fight and its much harder to break a front with only one squad.
The pauses between the fights are shorter in CQB areas or in the woods because there are so many directiosn where the enemy can attack and they will, the new RPs are a part of that. i dont like them in their current status and think that slight changes would help to slow down sometimes, but theyre far better than in beta.

When i Squadlead i like the 8 man Squads, cause with 2 Medics you can build independet fireteams in one Squad and have more alternatives to attack an enemy position or simply set up your squad. Of course its more stress also, especially when you getting into a fight, but thats something you can adapt to and my expierence is that it gets better when you play more often.

Overall i simply cant see that strategic disadvantage if you actually try to adapt. The only problem is that it is not enough when your squad is the only squad that tries to adapt. You need support, so a commander is really useful and can take that role to organize that squads are better working togehter in general, and with 2 good Infantry Squads and a bit of armor support, logistics and intel (UAV) when its needed you are still able to dominate the enemy team if its not that organized. If its organized too, you will have a hard time, but that was the case too in 098. Its always hard to get a real advantage when the enemy team is strong.

AAS routes could use some improvements on different maps, a bit more variety would be nice, multiple attack flags that are not to far away and not to close together, maybe optional Attack routes or something.
Cap radius on some flags need to be bigger (like Wanda shan 50m caprange on some flags).
RP could use some changes, i think it should not be possible to build them 2 full grids away from a fob a flag, but i can deal with that change.
One HAT per team causes hard times often, especially when your armor squad is not able to support you where you need it.

But at the end i think 100p servers are a great change and a big improvment and i dont wont to go back to 64p or 80.
More servers for those who want to play 80 or lesser would be nice for the people who dont like the changes or simply have an old PC, but we dont have that many servers and i dont wanna see a splitup of the community, but more than one populated <100p server is nothing one can call splitup or something.
btw. We joined QRF on Tuesday and it was laggy as hell so we leaved, is that rig not so powerful or you jsut got temporaly problem that evening?
Lugi
Posts: 590
Joined: 2010-10-15 21:36

Re: 100 players on one server - too many

Post by Lugi »

Frontliner wrote: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.
It actually happened quite a lot when I was playing, so you must be doing something wrong.

Frontliner wrote: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.
With 64p it's very common that you have to cut down on assets, because you need a reasonable amount of infantry to cap flags. Especially on 4km maps. It sucks that you have enough gear but you lack the manpower. 1.0 fixes that.
Frontliner wrote: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?
I'll say that again: 64p feels like there were 8 pieces per side. 100p imo is no action chess, for me it's (more or less, I'd like 128p) how the game is supposed to play.
Frontliner wrote:Alright, I guess it goes without saying that it pisses me off when I see my very same question from page 1 unanswered bar an attempt that was completely wrong, so I have no reason to do you the courtesy of continuing answering your questions when you don't even attempt to answer mine in return. I have a legitimate interest in a discussion, I don't mind if I'm proven wrong whatsoever, but I do mind if my questions are dodged repeatedly, and I have put up with it so far - but this is where I tell you to either answer or just stopping to reply to me.
The problem here is that you don't bring in any facts, only opinions. So it's pretty much like a discussion over music taste, the "modern music is shit, old tunes rock" thing. It is really pointless, you say there is less strategy cause you can't flank that easily any more, I say there's more strategy now because of that. There is no facts here, only opinions.
Last edited by Lugi on 2013-08-22 12:13, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: smiley instead of 8)
Jamesfredette
Posts: 10
Joined: 2013-08-14 05:47

Re: 100 players on one server - too many

Post by Jamesfredette »

100 players is way too much i guess..you might wanna reduce the strength..that will prove good.
metal
Posts: 29
Joined: 2009-03-25 15:26

Re: 100 players on one server - too many

Post by metal »

Frontliner wrote:You realize I'm free to give my feedback on topic whenever I think I have something valid to contribute? I'm not forcing you to read or agree with me, but I'm not ever going to let myself shut up because you have a massive problem with my opinion. I'm sorry I'm currently shitting on your "100p-constantaction-tehawesome" parade, but I'm not the only one(OP, most of my clanmates, various others) who sees this as a massive step backwards from a tactic-driven simulation to the 10.000th iteration of casual, pseudo-realistic warfare.

Since you bring up our supposedly "outdated tactics", I must ask again, what exactly did 1.0, or more specifically the 100p servers bring new to the table in terms of strategy; nobody but Lugi made an attempt(no, he didn't succeed, he made a logical fallacy) yet, which is embarrassing given how full of strategy PR 1.0 you say is, so, do you care to try?
Yes, you are right...i "shit" on PR since 1.0 and play other games...Bad Teamplay on 100er Server, No nametags ( to many teamkills, frust ), rush party on flags (no defenders) , shity communication (spam medic , medic, medic, medic) ,
But the good thing i see, the number of players in PRSPY go down :grin: - maybe Devs change things they were better in 0.98 soon?
ghostfool84
Posts: 503
Joined: 2009-10-17 11:38

Re: 100 players on one server - too many

Post by ghostfool84 »

On what server are you playing?

The no nametag bug is one thing that i dont like too, but its mostly annoying as medic. For overall gameplay its ok, tks happen but its not that great deal.
But what is the difference on flags? If there are no defenders your team has made a fault, a fault that happend in 098 like in 1.0. No one is defending = Flag is lost, thats PR. What changed?
Why is the 80p server not always filled if there are so many people out there that hate the 100p? that the playernumber is going down after the release is something that happend after every release. 098 survived almost 2 years after that...but the engine gets more and more outdated.

I think there are so many factors that came with 1.0 and you break it only down to the playercount and i believe thats just not right. I dont wanna play again all these great 4km maps that are completly empty except the flags and only armor and CAS could have some fun. And we have much more 4km maps than in earlier versions and small maps got outphased over time. But lets see what happens, easiest solution could be that there are more server with 80p limit, but i dont see that more of them easily get filled because most of the people simple dont want to play on them.
Nate.
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3018
Joined: 2012-07-09 20:44

Re: 100 players on one server - too many

Post by Nate. »

ghostfool84 wrote:We joined QRF on Tuesday and it was laggy as hell so we leaved, is that rig not so powerful or you jsut got temporaly problem that evening?
Yes, weird lags on DragonFly, we did a runnext and everything was smooth as usual.
I experienced the same on PRTA (Shijia) yesterday, where a runnext fixed it aswell.

Nothing to do with us running 80 player server ;)
Image
BigBang
Posts: 49
Joined: 2009-09-01 19:32

Re: 100 players on one server - too many

Post by BigBang »

100p servers is the right way I think. All you guys talking about less TW and strategy but on 100p is much more needed. Not like in 0.98 (or 64p) you walk blind to the marker completely unseen. Now you have to coop with other sq and assets to support you when you are trying to flank. There are so many eyes but that eyes needs to sidetrack with manoeuvres of your assets, squads. And all that is about cooperating and at most in timing ;) Thats the rise of strategy on field.

So keep calm and enjoy the game :smile:
Image
matty1053
Posts: 2007
Joined: 2013-07-03 00:17

Re: 100 players on one server - too many

Post by matty1053 »

The main thing I hate about the 100p server's are the lack of transport.

Especially when the Chopper Pilots are new or just **** around intentionally to make us mad, and just crash and burn. :(
It's especially painful on huge maps (Kashan, Black Gold, Shijia, ect.). Basiclly, you lose your transport needs, you lose.
Doesn't even matter if you got air superiority, armor control, w/e. you need transport for supplies.
How did the allies win WW2? Well, they had a **** load of transport. They transported supplies rapidly and could even set up a base in less then 24 hours.


But the good thing about the 100p servers is the fact that you can have a little bit more fun! :D
Also skirmish matches are pretty dam fun! :) 100p on Kokan Skirmish=Grenade Mayhem.
[RGN]Fishsticks
Posts: 72
Joined: 2007-07-11 18:32

Re: 100 players on one server - too many

Post by [RGN]Fishsticks »

Raiders Game Net RGN have set up an 80 player AAS server (map vote enabled). US based powerhouse server on the Atlanta Backbone should provide a fast connection for all!!
Locked

Return to “PR:BF2 Suggestions”