64 playerservers are awful

[Bermbom]

...because the maps were never designed for it.

EXCEPT Gumrak and Barashka.

Best playermaxcount is 40-48 ish.
Apartments, Barracks, Stalingradkessel, Bridges_of_Druzhina... theyre all awful.
I'd rather force myself in a fuller than full metrowaggon and still have more space than play on the average 64 player server.

[Paul]

Nope.

[Bermbom]

Publicado originalmente por Killer Tampon:

Nope.

You have no taste.

[KheronWisky]

Low player count, running for ever just to find one person is not fun, If its not 64 players then its not playable -its boring. 64 players feels like a huge war.

[Kraft ♥ Squad]

Publicado originalmente por Bagration:

Publicado originalmente por Killer Tampon:

Nope.

You have no taste.

Welp that argument shows how wrong he is, may I counter?
NO U.

[Praxius]

There's a few maps where 64 players works decently.

Barashka, Fallen Fighters, Grain Elevator, Spartanovka, Pavlov's House, Comm's House, Mamayev Kurgan (sp) and a number of custom maps.

Then again, everybody has their own tastes and preferences.

With more players comes more carefulness.... you can't just dash around in open space, you literally have a front line to deal with and trying to go beyond that means your death until you push that line one way or the other.

[Bermbom]

Dont forget the choppiness lots of ppl get on 64 player meatgrinding-servers:

http://steamcommunity.com/app/35450/discussions/0/810923580620384851/

[Kraft ♥ Squad]

Verluste aka Bagration, banned from the TWI forum for obvious reasons.

[Mexicutioner]

I love 64 player servers, some serious shieza goes down.

[hermionegrangerfan45]

I can agree with OP, sometimes 64 player servers are too crazy and I feel like playing some nice 32 player servers. I never got chopiness with 64 players though, and my GPU is pretty old.

[Ares]

Publicado originalmente por General_Lechna:

Bagration always to complain
Bridges is perfect with 64 players. Pls shut up and stop posting ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ day by day. Just stay away from Ro2.

Couldn't agree with you more.
64/64 is awesome, Bridges at it's very best. Russians make a chance only at full force. Best tactical experience I have in a decade, thx TWI.

If I don't like playing on certain maps I simply don't play them.

[Yggdrasil]

Publicado originalmente por Yoda:

Publicado originalmente por General_Lechna:

Bagration always to complain
Bridges is perfect with 64 players. Pls shut up and stop posting ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ day by day. Just stay away from Ro2.

Couldn't agree with you more.
64/64 is awesome, Bridges at it's very best. Russians make a chance only at full force. Best tactical experience I have in a decade, thx TWI.

If I don't like playing on certain maps I simply don't play them.

I also think Bridges is great with 64. I had some really great fun on that map, especially when there are a full number of players AND some serious commanders. Really, some of the best time on RO2.

[Bermbom]

Publicado originalmente por rolfskalder:

Publicado originalmente por Yoda:

Couldn't agree with you more.
64/64 is awesome, Bridges at it's very best. Russians make a chance only at full force. Best tactical experience I have in a decade, thx TWI.

If I don't like playing on certain maps I simply don't play them.

I also think Bridges is great with 64. I had some really great fun on that map, especially when there are a full number of players AND some serious commanders. Really, some of the best time on RO2.

Too bad bridges was based on a DH map that in itself was made for 50 players, and was bigger with more cover and more tanks for attacking team...

In short: 64 players on the average map is plainly a spamfest with no tactics. Ofc cod-kiddies flock to it.

[Hyperborean]

64 player Grain Elevator is not fun.

[Ares]

Publicado originalmente por Elite:

Verluste aka Bagration, banned from the TWI forum for obvious reasons.

I can easily understand... I replied to this every-other-day-post: simple..NO

[Morbid Florist]

I love the chaos of 64 player servers. If the server loads a map I don't like, I disconnect. Simple.