64 Player Verdun. The Current Situation.

[biggalloot]

Verdun introduced a larger template for private matches late in 2016. A number of people tried setting up 64 player private matches from the first opportunity and large matches were quite common in early December, but they lacked a set schedule. On December 3, 2016, my group was formed for the special purpose of having private matches on a regular basis using said larger template and the group is still active each and every Friday. As administrator for Group x64, I was asked by some from our community to write down my thoughts about the larger template in Verdun matches.
I first want to say that it required much trial and error to come to my opinions concerning large Verdun matches. My views have changed over time and I assume that most of those who have only played 64 player matches a few times might also have different notions after playing large matches on a regular weekly basis for over seven months.
One common statement in other general Verdun discussions about the large template is, "large matches do not work with the Verdun maps." I will mention artillery and balance in a moment, but it is true that some Verdun maps work better than others when large numbers are present. Argonne is very small, perhaps even too small for 32 players. Vosges and Artois are only of modest size, so they are also not ideal when the larger template fills. All of the other maps work well with 64 players, some surprisingly so. Aisne and Douaumont actually are better balanced with larger numbers than the common 32 limit. Champagne is better with large numbers and it has become a favorite with many in our group. Picardie is always the map most requested and it still holds the all-time Verdun total death record for one game of 1,638. Flanders is the best map of all in my opinion with the large template. My current conclusion regarding the Verdun maps is that Argonne, Vosges, and Artois all need editing if future Verdun includes the 64 player template, while the other maps do not need to be fixed.
The other most common concern expressed by many who have tried a few large template matches is that 64 player Verdun games are unbalanced due to the fact that squad composition was set for 32 player games and templates much larger than 32 result in artillery and machinegun spam. With 4 man teams, a 64 player match in theory sees up to 16 different NCOs calling in artillery and up to 16 different players operating machineguns. The artillery situation can be very messy, especially when many of the NCOs have creeping barrage or even sector artillery, but our group has discovered a couple of ways to mute their effectiveness. The machinegun problem can't be easily fixed, although I will add a suggestion later concerning this.
My group has found two methods which have been successful in muting the affect of overpowering artillery in large matches. The first method involves turning on Friendly Fire in those private matches. NCOs playing fair in large matches with friendly fire on must be very careful in placement as reckless call-ins can easily destroy their own side. Accidents will happen, since some NCOs do not warn their team always on time and some will not read said warnings and advance into friendly artillery. Abuse of friendly fire is dealt with by the new /ban private match commmand given to us recently by the developers and our matches always feature referees watching teamkill incidents. One result of friendly fire on is a smaller number of call-ins per match.
A second method for muting artillery is fairly recent. A few months back, the developers added another new private match command named /setsquadlevels. One can do a number of useful things in private matches with /setsquadlevels. The command disregards co-op points and the private match administrator can force all teams in the match to a determined level from 1 to 100. Besides being useful for balancing team levels and for setting historical uniforms, /setsquadlevels has been found to be a very helpful tool in larger template games. If creeping barrage is not wanted, levels can be set at 99 or less. If mustard gas in undesirable, levels can be set at 74 or less. Setting levels at 49 or less removes sector artillery. Those who witnessed early 64 player trials with high level artillery everywhere really should try some of our group's games with /setsquadlevels employed, especially combined with /friendlyfire on and /ban for FF abuse.
A less common complaint concerning large template Verdun concedes that games are more balanced with friendly fire on, but was unhappy with the friendly fire mechanic which involved suppression by nearby team members running past you. I say "was" on purpose, because the developers did yet another thing which improved large template Verdun a few months back. Suppression by nearby friendlies running near you was fixed. If you have not played large template Verdun in the past few months and were upset with the suppression problem, try it again and you will find out that the problem no longer exists.
My conclusion regarding the artillery and machinegun situation with large template Verdun is that some of the problems may be muted if private match administrators employ the /friendlyfire, the /ban, and the /setsquadlevels commands. The result is much better balanced Verdun games with the large template, resulting in more fun for everyone.
I have one more request to the developers. They have been very patient with me and have graciously given us the new private match commands of /setsquadlevels and /ban and they have fixed the suppression by nearby friendlies running near you.
I suggest yet another private match command for Verdun. I desire a /setsquadsize private match command, with three options of squad size available. One may wish to play private matches with the typical 4 man teams, but I also wish that one option is 8 man teams and that the other option is 16 man teams. Additionally, if /setsquadsize is used, limit each resulting squad to only one NCO and only one machinegun.
For example, /setsquadsize 4 would have private matches like we have seen them in the past. The use of /setsquadsize 8 would have 4 NCOs and up to 4 machineguns per side in full 64 player matches. The use of /setsquadsize 16 would have only 2 NCOs and a maximum of 2 machineguns per side in full 64 player matches. Historically, eight or nine soldiers were in late war squads, so /setsquadsize 8 would also help those interested in late war private match scenarios. It was common in 1914 to have up to twenty soldiers in those early war squads, so /setsquadsize 16 would also be very useful for setting up early war historical events. For purposes of artillery and machinegun spam, /setsquadsize would solve most of those problems for existing Verdun with one additional private match command.
I have been very fortunate to have met so many fine members of the Verdun community during my seven months of running weekly matches employing the large template. I very much want to thank the developers for helping me by fixing the suppression problem of FF and for adding the /setsquadlevels and /ban private match commands. Could we next have the /setsquadsize private match command for Verdun?
My general conclusion is that with a few tweaks and map consideration, 64 players work well with existing Frontlines Verdun. With a /setsquadsize command, it could be even better.

[ItsJustRyan2701]

This is probably been said already.
If only some maps where maybe a bit stretched out o_O and then the player size was i dont know 45 (pulled that out me arse ) But yeah some maps are really really small :(

[martinusmagnus]

Originally posted by biggalloot:

Aisne and Douaumont actually are better balanced with larger numbers than the common 32 limit.

What are the reasons, why you think they are better balanced with more players?

Assuming that the 64-matches are mostly joined by "more experienced" players.
Do you think with the "average" mixture of players in a "standard" none-private match in Frontlines, both maps would be better balanced too?

[biggalloot]

My post was very long, so I did not have space to add a few videos. Here is one with 64 players on Picardie a few months back. Friendly fire was on, but suppression by nearby friendlies was then a problem and the new /setsquadlevels command was not yet available.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSH-3JaxlDc
I thank Lone Wolfos for this soldier view of the match.
The match was so full, that some had to spectate, here is spectator view. Thank you Burma Shave (the Picardie match is first one with link):
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/verdx64/discussions/0/135512931365716040/

[biggalloot]

to Martin:
the fort was edited for balance purposes recently, but it appeared that the central powers had a better chance of covering all the openings with greater numbers.
aisne seems to give the entente a better chance of holding their lines with larger template, if teams play smart.

[martinusmagnus]

Originally posted by biggalloot:

to Martin:
the fort was edited for balance purposes recently, but it appeared that the central powers had a better chance of covering all the openings with better numbers.
aisne seems to give the entente a better chance of holding their lines with larger template, if teams play smart.

Thanks for the details.

Do you expect a difference if there are not only LVL 100 in a match at such a map?

And do you think, there will be this "high level stacking" (see other thread) too?

[biggalloot]

to Martin:
my group welcomes everybody around the globe regardless of skill level or experience with Verdun, so we would see all kinds of team levels in our matches prior to the introduction of /setsquadlevels. it was not uncommon then (and remains the case) that some 4 man teams might have a few of the top 200 all-time verduners joined with others who purchased the game the day before. we also allow members to play with their friends, so sometimes "clans" would be (and still are) included in the mix. basically, my group wants games which are a challenge for everybody from new player to old pro, but we remain casual instead of competitive with balanced and fun games our primary goal.
the case of Aisne and Douaumont balanced better with larger numbers was true when our matches could have quite a variety of team levels. they should be even more balanced now, since /setsquadlevels is available.
our most recent match last friday had three games. the first match used /setsquadlevels 50, the second had /setsquadlevels 1, and the finale was /setsquadlevels 100. personally, i think that 64 player matches currently work best at levels 49 or below, which eliminates creeping barrage, mustard gas, and sector artillery, but we slog on.
i hope to keep an open mind regarding the larger template and Frontlines Verdun. i thank the developers for giving us at least 4 new things since we started last December (/setsquadlevels, /ban, fix of friendly suppression, and fix of /setnextmap for 64 template). i do hope /setsquadsize is next considered.

[martinusmagnus]

biggalloot, those "moderated" 64 matches work usually pretty well.

I am not very positive that this works with "unmoderated" matches too.

Just check "my" screenshots of poorly balanced matches. (for example bunch of level 100 with 2 level 100 squads versus, a bunch of level <50 players with only level 1 squads. There is enough effidence whats the reason why I do this screenshots.)

But future will show.

I "learned" today by Bishop that Tannenberg has the same mechanics like Verdun. So I am not sure, if I will spend the money. Lets see. And wait for the first player feedback when its released.

[biggalloot]

to Martin:
thanks for saying referees help. i could not do my group without lots of others helping me, and the group has some outstanding referees. if friendly fire is necessary in some public matches, i have long held that some /autokick or /autoban will be necessary, since those "moderators" will not be watching.
i don't know which direction Tannenberg is heading. i would guess that at this moment nobody is sure, but i have heard mention that those who might know something have an obligation with non-disclosure to keep it secret.
my thread is not to suggest directions for Tannenberg. my thread is about the state of current Verdun with 64 players along with a suggestion for another private match command which may be of use for future Verdun.

[acur1231]

Big, during your events do you have all the squads set to specific squads? So there could be a game where 32 Germans in 8 German reservist squads attacked 32 Belgians in 8 Belgian squads and so on? That could be an interesting change from the random jumble of squads we often get(The again, 1918 was an odd year on the Western Front).

[martinusmagnus]

Originally posted by biggalloot:

to Martin:
thanks for saying referees help. i could not do my group without lots of others helping me, and the group has some outstanding referees. if friendly fire is necessary in some public matches, i have long held that some /autokick or /autoban will be necessary, since those "moderators" will not be watching.
i don't know which direction Tannenberg is heading. i would guess that at this moment nobody is sure, but i have heard mention that those who might know something have an obligation with non-disclosure to keep it secret.
my thread is not to suggest directions for Tannenberg. my thread is about the state of current Verdun with 64 players along with a suggestion for another private match command which may be of use for future Verdun.

Regarding Tannenberg, please find Bishops answer below:

Originally posted by Bishop:

Originally posted by martinusmagnus:

So can I expect that Tannenberg will have the same mechanics like Verdun, in regards of possible movements etc. (I ask in regards of Strafe-dancing while holding breath and jumpshooting, you can imagine)

Will both mechanics be possible in Tannenberg too?

Nothings been said on them, but odds are similar to Verdun.

Referees....... I used the word "Moderators"..... its not really different. ;-)

I think, such a player would help a match. As a kind of hygiene factor. (not sure if this word really fits)

Usually I expect players who call themselves "Vets" are the ones who teach and guide new players how to behave in the game, about the do's and dont's, how to behave in the in-game chat etc.

Sadly I saw not one (!) single player who does this. Especially some players who call themselves "Vets" in a very audience-grabbing way. Are usually the ones who give not a good example to newer players.

[biggalloot]

to acur1231:
there are groups dedicated to setting up more formal historical matches, but x64 does not take our games that far. one night when we were all at level1 on aisne, a member suggested all entente as poilus to see red trousers and all central as landsers. we were able to get the team types set up that way voluntarily, but i leave it to the historical groups to set squad types as part of the match rules.
if private match commands were expanded, a number of things could be tried with existing Verdun which are interesting. i already mentioned a proposal for /setsquadsize. imagine another step beyond that, commands /setcentraltype (squad type) and /setententetype (squad type). in theory, a private match could with a number of commands have that "1914 Marne" with all as poilus and landsers via /setententetype poilus and /setcentraltype landsers, all in 1914 uniforms via /setsquadlevels 1, with both sides having 32 players via /setroomsize 64, with both sides having exactly 2 squads of 16 soldiers each via /setsquadsize 16. after that, it would be simply a matter of players joining the match filling open slots.
future Verdun can still innovate in my opinion. expanding private match commands seems the best way to make interesting options available without making any changes at all to classic public Frontlines Verdun.

[martinusmagnus]

Originally posted by biggalloot:

to acur1231:
there are groups dedicated to setting up more formal historical matches, but x64 does not take our games that far. one night when we were all at level1 on aisne, a member suggested all entente as poilus to see red trousers and all central as landsers. we were able to get the team types set up that way voluntarily, but i leave it to the historical groups to set squad types as part of the match rules.
if private match commands were expanded, a number of things could be tried with existing Verdun which are interesting. i already mentioned a proposal for /setsquadsize. imagine another step beyond that, commands /setcentraltype (squad type) and /setententetype (squad type). in theory, a private match could with a number of commands have that "1914 Marne" with all as poilus and landsers via /setententetype poilus and /setcentraltype landsers, all in 1914 uniforms via /setsquadlevels 1, with both sides having 32 players via /setroomsize 64, with both sides having exactly 2 squads of 16 soldiers each via /setsquadsize 16. after that, it would be simply a matter of players joining the match filling open slots.
future Verdun can still innovate in my opinion. expanding private match commands seems the best way to make interesting options available without making any changes at all to classic public Frontlines Verdun.

This is mostly optical accuracy. Still you have players which move like a dog on rabies.

[biggalloot]

i have long considered my group as the unofficial regular "testers" of the larger template in Verdun, in addition to our "casual and fun, yet challenging and balanced" primary goals. consider my post both a "testing report" to the developers of Verdun and "information" to the greater community.

i very much would love to test the /setsquadsize private match command that i suggest. one potential problem i see in advance could involve spawn locations (especially on some maps), but we are willing to try and find out.

[acur1231]

Originally posted by biggalloot:

to acur1231:
there are groups dedicated to setting up more formal historical matches, but x64 does not take our games that far. one night when we were all at level1 on aisne, a member suggested all entente as poilus to see red trousers and all central as landsers. we were able to get the team types set up that way voluntarily, but i leave it to the historical groups to set squad types as part of the match rules.
if private match commands were expanded, a number of things could be tried with existing Verdun which are interesting. i already mentioned a proposal for /setsquadsize. imagine another step beyond that, commands /setcentraltype (squad type) and /setententetype (squad type). in theory, a private match could with a number of commands have that "1914 Marne" with all as poilus and landsers via /setententetype poilus and /setcentraltype landsers, all in 1914 uniforms via /setsquadlevels 1, with both sides having 32 players via /setroomsize 64, with both sides having exactly 2 squads of 16 soldiers each via /setsquadsize 16. after that, it would be simply a matter of players joining the match filling open slots.
future Verdun can still innovate in my opinion. expanding private match commands seems the best way to make interesting options available without making any changes at all to classic public Frontlines Verdun.

Fair enough, I was just wondering, sounds cool

[biggalloot]

i should have added one more thing, as it pertains to the current situation of 64 player private Verdun matches.

somehow, no medals are ever awarded in private 64 player matches to any player for any reason. many in my group don't consider that a problem, but it is a curiousity.

i am not sure if other things are different in 64 player private matches toward career record, but it might be possible.