[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Rudd;1678781']
If you have any ideas to help implement 128 we'd love to hear them, specific or non-specific ideas; just keep it constructive and think before you post
[/quote]
The main advantage with 128 servers is the feel of a more intense and larger scale battle. In 64 the battle is to disproportionation as there is way to much assets to every infantryman and thus the maps feel empty. In 128 there are almost always infantry around defending objects etc. In 64 it can be so bad as there is only like one full infantry group.
Thus, the assets except of transport trucks should be kept somewhat constant.
The second advantage is that infantry groups matter in 128, as they are larger and there is more of them. In 64, if you lay alone in a ambush somewhere you can cripple a full infantry group so bad they lose their fighting force. In 128 with bigger groups, you have to stop a infantry group with a infantry group, you can't do it alone.
That's the way it used to be in 0.856, when the infantry groups fought as organic units until the lmg became a spawnable auto-sniper. You seldom see that today and that's a shame, because the group teamwork with randoms was the main unique thing with PR. With 128 you have to be in a group to get those kills etc everyone wants. Most players play to win the game and beat the enemy not to roleplay. The best way to make players work as a group is to make lone wolfes weak and easy pray for enemy groups. In 64 you can get ridiculously easy kills with a lmg or a hat all on your own. To walk in groups is somewhat of a weakness.
The third advantage is that insurgency is funnier for the insurgents as the pressure is greater on the caches. Though, 128 players is a advantage for BLUFOR, strangely enough, and insurgents should like get spawnable scopes or something. Militia should also get spawnable scopes to balance militia AAS, as it where before. Balancing issiues is much clearer when you play 128 as the game is more dynamic.
Fourthly, Muttrah should get somewhat more enterable houses to prevent stalemates along the streets, but that's no big issue. Actually, I think that Asad Khal works great in 128, because of the many enterable house (even though it's unbalanced as Hamas don't have scopes or scoped lmgs). Jamal al-Burj is the one map I don't think work very well. Yamalai works the best.
In summary, 128 players make PR less of a roleplaying walking simulator and more of a war game. It 'matter' what you do, as advances, destroying APCs etc. can be used for breakthroughs. In 64, there is hardly anyone to take advantage of your glorious deeds.
A greatly appropriate what you DEVs have done. Post 0.856 removing teamwork from the group (rally nerf, unbalanced kits etc) and trying to implement it on team level is in my point of view a failure. With 128 players it works. Many changes in 0.9xx like deviation and lmg-nerf is good. A greater player count concludes it.
[quote="Dev1200""]
View distance, limited kits, vehicles, 128 player maps (since all of them are 64), OPTIMIZATION SOO MUCH OPTIMIZATION ;___;[/quote]
Variables easily changed in a text editor. The main time consumer is coding and modelling with has nothing do with the player count. View distance?
Dev1200 wrote:
Also, server costs go up because of more slots, plus less servers will be available.
What?
Dev1200 wrote:
If all servers go to 128, then amount of populated servers is essentially halved.
Fallacy. It's reasonable to assume that if there is 128 servers more people would play. If there would be too few players in the playerbase the playercount could be caped at like 100. 64 players is like a tipping point and every extra player over that goes into infantry and players that are actually populating the battlefield.