Skill4Lif3

When we got 50p back yesterday, I could really feel a difference in a gameplay. Much more fast paced gameplay and more fullness to the map and less "hide and seek" tactics. Very excellent posts guys, it was truly convincing.

__________________

Aerosecurity

I have to agree. I also played a couple times over the weekend, and i found that 90% of the time, the game was unbalanced and was constantly being dominated by one side who took a very strategic spot, and then we could never regain control of the game again.

Having only 32 players works until the other team gains a huge tactical advantage (such as taking a very defensible flag), and then the game is basically over because there is not enough people to take it back or at least regain control. I saw this several times throughout the game the last few nights (what really got me was the one round which we lost in about 5 minutes). Sometimes it was perfectly balanced, so when both sides had equal advantages, the game was completely stagnant. but the moment someone gained an advantage, the game was basically over unless we somehow regained a little bit of control.

__________________
umm... hello?

Anospa

Pretty much my exact thoughts sc1ence, good post. Let's take it to heart and keep this game interesting people!

__________________

Lyramion

I see the problem mostly in the Vehicles. Their power rises exponentially in a low man game. Even tho I got the name of a vehicle whore I love infantry battles more.

Having many people on the map increases the chance someone tought about EMP Grenades or a Recon has RDX with him greatly.

__________________

Eroak

Yeah, I know the feeling Lyra. Your right, In smaller games with no less vehicles then before does unbalance things compared to what we are used to.

__________________


|Think Tank|TGU Admin|BFx Admin|Community Improvement|
From the TG Primer: 2) Create an environment where there is
mutual respect for your fellow gamers and where all members
would be working together to advance the enjoyment of their hobby.

MDFubar

Great Post Sc1ence! I would rep it if I could. Very well thought out. I played onvce when the pop was dropped and go so frustrated that I almost put BF2 back on my computer..I like both but only time for one. Played again yesterday and it was like comoing home. I joined Tg for the exact reasons stated and as someone else has said, I have not looked back.

__________________

DLBlue

++++++++++++++++ rep

Amen sc1ence

__________________
---Bellicosity---

MrMazoku

Argh, and whats with the Walker being in the 16 player map. x.x

That thing causes me so much grief

__________________

Lorax74

Very well said.

My logic and rational for lowering the player count has nothing to do with realism, it has to do with changing the way the game is played. After all, the game takes place in the future, how realistic can we really expect it to get? I think everyone agrees that playing 50 players on a 32 player map is a totally different experience than 32 players on a 32 player map.

I prefer 32 players. I don't feel it's more realistic than 50 players or 16 players, but it is different. Rockets for example, since I brought it up before, are not used the same in lower player count than they are on higher player counts. You just don't have the manpower to sit a squad on chokepoint or balcony and spam rockets, most of the action is fought with your rifle, rockets are used to engage someone at a distance, not as a means of area denial or to control a chokepoint.

On change: the style of game play on the TG Conquest server has not changed; it has been close to the same since I started playing here. What has changed is me - I no longer find the higher player count to be as enjoyable as the lower player counts. The tactics are much different and I find that every decision made and every action taken with 32 players has a much larger impact or consequence than you see with 50 players. I favor the squad on squad head to head action and the "cat and mouse" maneuvering over what I perceive as mass carnage.

I also feel that altering the conquest server is akin to sacrilege. The conquest server is the front door to TG for many 2142 players and that shouldn't change. I see the second server as the place to alter the game play up and give those of use looking for something different a place to play at TG rather than have us look for something outside of TG. We all agree that it is the quality of player that we have that makes TG TG , quantity has nothing to do with it.

If we put this to a formal vote, which I think would be foolish, I would have to vote to keep the conquest at 50/52, after all, there are times were I enjoy the mass carnage too.

__________________
TG-9th Lorax74

thedogwarrior

Let's play around with the 2nd server, and leave the 1st as the big Hello from TG place that it is; to lure them, teach them and embrace them.

The 32p Conquest rounds I played weren't bad (aside from a couple of buggy-jihading fools) just slower paced. As I've re-discovered the joys of the BF2 engine in playing POE lately, and the slower-paced gameplay (typically) that it provides, I have to say the slower 2142 rounds weren't bad.
I'd love to see a 32p Conquest in the rotation on the 2nd server.

__________________

|TG-8th| Mercs * New to TG? Start Here * Become a Supporting Member
Yes my avatar is based on Catman's bouncing cat.

Augustus Gloop

Thank goodness!

__________________