The more the merrier - not really the case with FH2?

[Normandie_44]

Hello everyone,

I'd like to express my concern about an "issue" that's been bothering me with new release - 128 players experience.

I find it terrible and unlike FH2 that I am used to. I have played various maps and most of the times I'd feel like I was playing Quake3. Death message flood, voice spam, continuous weapon discharge, no real initiative, just running and gunning, getting killed literally 2 sec after I respawned, baserape...

From my opinion, anything above 64 player cap leaves no flanking options on most maps which is really bad for the gameplay.

I do realize that experience is tinted with the fact that it was the release weekend, but I still think I would prefer something like 64 players cap.

Other than that, great job on the patch, love the new maps and features which I sadly did not get to enjoy greatly mostly due to the problem I stated above.

[jan_kurator]

I'm think that limiting 64+ servers up to 100 players will fix this problem. I always enjoy my play the most when there is 80-100 players online (of course some maps can't handle anything above 64 players because they were never designed for it but it's a different story). Basically, everything above 100 players cause only problems IMHO. I (just like many others) don't have high end PC, so not only meatgrinder and radio spam are things that annoys me but also I struggle with fps drops (which force me to set lower graphic settings, and I think that I don't have to say how huge difference is between high and medium or even lower setting on this old engine) sometimes there are also server side lags, etc. Unfortunately we're not in power to control the servers but 762 community is now in close cooperation with FH2 team, they've also recently open a feedback topic on their server performance on their forums which can be find here: 128p Server Performance

I'm aware that it's not related with gameplay, so please don't drive it offtopic, I don't want to be responsible for making mess on their forum, but I think we should contact 762 admins team to discuss limiting the servers not only because of problem mentioned in their feedback topic. Maybe we should start new thread on their forums or just sent PMs with our concerns to people responsible for servers.

[Musti]

Agreed, there was even in-game discussion about it yesterday, 128 is definitely too much, while some maps hande it very well, I feel like most don't. I think decreasing player numbers to about 70-80 would make the game much better(okay, we lose the epic 128 people Omaha landing, but I'm sure it's worth it for other ma[s), and help populate more than one server too.

[Surfbird]

As jan stated, you can vote for it on 762 forums. 128 players are clearly too many for 80% of the maps. 100-110 should be max. Best gameplay probably at 80-90, but some space above that does not hurt. Furthermore this brings the opportunity to fill a second server (at least currently in the after-update-hype-phase). Having a second server running is awesome, so you can actually choose between two maps running for example. But a lot of maps are simply not designed for twice the amount of players and the quality of the game suffers. Of course some Omaha with 128 people is awesome, but after all it's not worth it and around 100 people on the server is still enough.

Furthermore with these last 20-30 players, there comes a considerably amount of fps drop/lag. For me it makes a big difference if there are 100 or 128 people on the server.

[Officer_Dufus]

My system handles smaller loads of players better, but I'm probably a minority with that "issue" so the masses will decide.

However I really didn't notice a problem with tactics or message spam or whatever.  I also do not use voice chat.

When my system doesn't lag I have a better experience.  And that just to happen to occur somewhere under 70 players.  I could lower my video settings, but I really don't want to.  I have AA disabled but have everything else on high, 1280x1024 @ 75hz.

[MurcDusen]

As there are maps that work really well with 128 Players and some that don't, why not have a 128 and a 64 Player server, with the 128 Player Server only having suitable maps in the map rotation?

[PoliticalCorrectness]

I must admit that I like playing with 128 players. Even Tunis is fun with that many players. I don't have any performance problems (only when players with PING > 200/300 are online).
And Omaha with 128, I don't wanna muss that experience....EPIC 
First round last Friday on 762...Omaha....Me on MG, Boats coming down to the beach...it was pure fun!

[Surfbird]

As there are maps that work really well with 128 Players and some that don't, why not have a 128 and a 64 Player server, with the 128 Player Server only having suitable maps in the map rotation?

Because the maps where 128 works well are rather limited. It soon gets boring. And as stated, it's not only about the gameplay, it's also about the performance problems that come with it. Furthermore the playerbase is not large enough to consistently fill the 128p server that only runs a few maps and have a full 64p server at the same time. The 128p server would not be filled after some time as the few maps in the rotation get boring. When the server is limited to ~100p, then more people can play on the second one. Both of them should run the majority/all maps.

[LuckyOne]

I'm gonna have to agree with most of the people here. 100 players is the max practical limit for most of the maps. Otherwise the gameplay suffers, people lose their freedom of choice, it's hard to get kits/assets and the game turns into a spawn-die circular scenario.

The current FH2 gameplay that focuses on mass rushing and quick movement through the maps (thanks to the, often too fast bleed timer coupled with small ticket numbers) really doesn't work with more than 100 players. This is not PR where the maps are huge, options are plenty and most of the teams organized by strict rules, so throwing more people on the current FH2 maps ends up exponentially increasing the chaos factor, which then leads to mindless gameplay and people giving up on the mod because they are too frustrated.

[MurcDusen]

Because the maps where 128 works well are rather limited. It soon gets boring. And as stated, it's not only about the gameplay, it's also about the performance problems that come with it. Furthermore the playerbase is not large enough to consistently fill the 128p server that only runs a few maps and have a full 64p server at the same time. The 128p server would not be filled after some time as the few maps in the rotation get boring. When the server is limited to ~100p, then more people can play on the second one. Both of them should run the majority/all maps.

Fair point about the playerbase, I guess that's just unfortunate and can't really be adressed at the moment. However, I wouldn't say that there aren't enough 128 player maps to provide a fun maplist. From my experience nearly all the NA maps work fine with 128 players, then add to that Omaha and Gold Beach, Olympus, St. Lo., Goodwood, Cobra, Lüttich, Totalize, Hürtgenwald, and most of the Bulge maps. Generally pretty much all Combined Arms and Tank maps seemed fine for me with 128 players gameplay-wise. Of course, the playstyle with 128 Players is much more chaotic than with 64 Players, and I like both styles of play. Playing the new nightly Mersah yesterday with 128 Players was on of the greatest things I ever experienced in a game... so much chaos and confusion, and me right in the middle of that.
That said, I generally don't play to win in games like this, and I've got no problem with being mowed down repeatedly by MGs or killed by mortars 2 seconds after I spawned. For all I care Omaha might well be completely unwinnable for the Allies, that awesome feel of charging up against those defences is what I'm here for, not the satisfaction of actually conquering them. And I guess that's the actual question here: How many people like the chaotic 128 Player style, and how many prefer the more tactical and overseeable 64 Player matches.

[Matthew_Baker]

This is really interesting, I would've expected everyone to LOVE 128 players or more but it seems most people like it kept at a good limit. (it's nice to have the 'too many people' discussion again )

For me personally I have to agree with the majority. 128 players is sometimes too much for most maps to handle. In the 80-100 range tho these maps still seem to work while giving you that epic feel. For me, 128 players is great on maps like siege of tobruk or el al, but just God awful on a map like brest or tunis. Imo around 80 players is an ok limit for something like brest or tunis, while siege and el al still feel epic with 100.

In reality each FH2 map plays Very differently with different amounts of players, so it's a tricky situation to find a good average. Imo the map layers could help to streamline the problem of too many players on the wrong map size. With A LOT of work, each map could be given a 16/32/64/and maybe even a 100 layer added to it? (through various tweaks?) Combining that with the code 762 uses to switch to the appropriate map layer could come close to appeasing everyone.

[Kelmola]

Personally, I LOVE the 128p chaos. Only thing better was 150p chaos  I don't feel the gameplay would become too random, with high player count it feels more like a war and less like a skirmish. Of course, there are more non-squadding loners but more teamwork-oriented people too. In fact, nowadays I rarely bother to play if there are less than 64 people online anyway.

However, I don't like Tunis or Ramelle, no matter the player count.

[psykfallet]

128 might work on 2x2km maps but not on the smaller. Gazala, El Ala, Vossenack etc. For me, Ramelle was unplayable. Server lagged, ~20fps, grenades insta killing at spawn, total uncoordinated chaos.

[Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer)]

it feels more like a war and less like a skirmish

This!

I find the number of maps that suffer from this rather than profit small.
On most maps it works quite well IMO

[GeoPat]

64+ doesn't need to be so chaotic.  Those of us who play tournaments know that it can be quite good with some organization.  Maybe 128 servers just need to have stricter rules.

You have to join a tank or air squad rather than just wait in line,  no driving transport off by yourself, etc.  I know people here don't like the inevitable PR comparisons but there are some ideas from them that would improve public play.  Can we make most kits only available if you are in squad a 128 server option?  How about an integrated Mumble like communication system that at least allows SLs to talk each other?  Servers could choose to turn it on or off.  Maybe auto-kick people who don't join squads.  Things like that.

Pubbies can get organized and then 128 can be more fun.