| Re: @Crimson [message #438079 is a reply to message #437951] |
Mon, 18 October 2010 06:49   |
 |
Goztow
Messages: 9738
Registered: March 2005
Location: Belgium
Karma: 13
|
General (5 Stars)
Goztoe |
|
|
I stick with my statement.
You can find me in The KOSs2 (TK2) discord while I'm playing. Feel free to come and say hi! TK2 discord
|
|
|
|
| Re: @Crimson [message #438087 is a reply to message #437951] |
Mon, 18 October 2010 12:18 |
Homey
Messages: 1084
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I was always under the impression that this game was designed for 32 players. Half the team tanking, half being infantry and support. I just figured that from one of the default server sizes in some FDS readme from years ago. Honestly 32-40 has the best balance in the game IMO. I've always maintained that the vehicle limit should be half of the team's max player. Ie 40 player server = 10 tanks per side. It kind of helps fight the campfest troop talks about in 40+.
In all honestly, no one here truly knows. But 16-40 seems like what they logically thought was appropriate.
Homey
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: @Crimson [message #438097 is a reply to message #438087] |
Mon, 18 October 2010 21:19 |
 |
GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Homey wrote on Mon, 18 October 2010 14:18 |
I was always under the impression that this game was designed for 32 players. Half the team tanking, half being infantry and support. I just figured that from one of the default server sizes in some FDS readme from years ago. Honestly 32-40 has the best balance in the game IMO. I've always maintained that the vehicle limit should be half of the team's max player. Ie 40 player server = 10 tanks per side. It kind of helps fight the campfest troop talks about in 40+.
In all honestly, no one here truly knows. But 16-40 seems like what they logically thought was appropriate.
|
This. They didn't have an EXACT amount in mind, but since it works just as well for 16 as it does 40... yeah. I don't see why this is even worth discussing... what's there to be gained? It's not like Crimson is forcing all servers to be 40 players only...
Toggle Spoiler| Scrin wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 13:22 |
| cAmpa wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 12:45 |
Scrin, stop pming people to get the building bars.
|
FUCK YOU AND THIS SHIT GAME WITH YOUR SCRIPTS!!! I HAVE ASKING YOU AND ANOTHER NOOBS HERE ABOUT HELP WITH THAT BUILDING ICONS FEATURES FOR YEARS, BUT YOU KEEP IGNORING ME AND KEEP WRITE SHIT, SO BURN YOU AND YOUR ASSLICKERS FRIENDS, THIS TIME I'M NOT COME BACK!!!!!!!!!   
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: @Crimson [message #438099 is a reply to message #437951] |
Mon, 18 October 2010 22:16 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
That's true, nor have I ever said the game wasn't designed for anything BUT 40 players. It's great 1v1, 2v2, 25v25... doesn't matter.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Re: @Crimson [message #438100 is a reply to message #437951] |
Mon, 18 October 2010 22:29 |
 |
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
It works for all amounts, although nearly every 2-8 player game I've been in made me want to snap my laptop in half.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: @Crimson [message #438102 is a reply to message #438090] |
Mon, 18 October 2010 23:00 |
 |
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| trooprm02 wrote on Mon, 18 October 2010 16:51 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 18 October 2010 08:34 |
Basically, 12-16 players is a much more laid back environment as opposed to there being 60 players or more
|
^from this, I'd personally say you haven't played enough smaller games to understand (I'd wish Spoony would jump in here and use lobbywars as an example but). With 40 players, THAT is laid back gameplay....it allows people to pointwhore because there are 19 other players on your team that you can rely on to defend the base.
With smaller games, you have to ACTIVELY keep track of where you oppenents are, what your own team mates are doing etc. Its for this exact reason you don't near see as much point whoring in smaller games (if you've ever wondered why not), as players are forced to be more productive.
|
Hmm, I see you're point. I don't know why I said that.. you can even see at the bottom of my post I started talking about those 4 vs All games. Yes, the 4 won the majority of the time, but playing on that team made you run around in circles just to make sure the enemy didn't get any headway.
I think what I meant to say was larger games provide more action while smaller games (or teams, rather) provide more strategy and require you to think on your feet more.
[Updated on: Mon, 18 October 2010 23:01] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
