Hell Let loose/WW2 games are an unrealistic Campfest until they can do 1000 players like Planetside.

[ImGladUmad]

I love WW2 but this unrealistic depiction of World War 2 being some huge map where you run for a mile only to get shot by someone u didn't see is a damn joke.


This game is 100% unrealistic....Why? Because 100 players in these HUGE maps is literally nothing, and not at all realistic....IRL There were thousands of people clustered on Urban cities/Rural Areas, it felt like an actual war, where there's actual people fighting next to eachother.


This game doesn't feel like a War at all...It's a running simulator, where you run next to 4 people tops lol...Most of the time you're running solo tho lol.

World war 2 was fought by millions of people, it wasn't as empty as Hell let loose...There was actual chaos/war.


Only 1 game gets close to War/World War 2, that's Planetside 2........100 Players Max on Huge Maps is simply not enough to make it feel like war.....1000+ players are needed to create the true chaos of World War 2 in appropriate size maps so we can make those 1000 players engage each other.


So yeah it's impossible for Hell let loose to be considered a simulator when 100 players in a giant map wasn't even close to the reality of World War 2.


I dream of the day where 500 players are rushing Omaha Beach, Saving Private Ryan style....Not the dam hell let loose way, where it's like 2 guys rushing next to you on an empty beach lol.

[Marty_]

Planetside sucks. That’s all I have to say. Bigger isn’t always better.

[TWB*Clell_Miller]

WAY beyond the current engine. Now go away.

[ImGladUmad]

Originally posted by Corbatron3000:

As a fellow planetman of 1000s hrs, ♥♥♥♥ off. This game is awesome, and it requires a completely different gamestyle to PS2. That is your problem.
Adapt!

This game isn't realistic tho.


100 Players running on a huge battlefield, never happened in World war 2, there were never so little soldiers in such a big area.


Fact is 100 players is not realistic and doesn't capture the realism/chaos that world war 2 brought.....There were millions of men making up hundreds of divisions.....To say this 100+ Player game gets close to realism, is a complete joke.

If you like this unrealistic rendition of World War 2, that's ok, but lets not pretend it's actually realistic.


So yeah I will wait until the game actually gets realistic...Until then, they should really stop claiming to be a realistic game when it clearly isn't.

[TABRiS]

Originally posted by ImGladUmad:

Originally posted by Corbatron3000:

As a fellow planetman of 1000s hrs, ♥♥♥♥ off. This game is awesome, and it requires a completely different gamestyle to PS2. That is your problem.
Adapt!

This game isn't realistic tho.


100 Players running on a huge battlefield, never happened in World war 2, there were never so little soldiers in such a big area.


Fact is 100 players is not realistic and doesn't capture the realism/chaos that world war 2 brought.....There were millions of men making up hundreds of divisions.....To say this 100+ Player game gets close to realism, is a complete joke.

If you like this unrealistic rendition of World War 2, that's ok, but lets not pretend it's actually realistic.


So yeah I will wait until the game actually gets realistic...Until then, they should really stop claiming to be a realistic game when it clearly isn't.

Limitations of hardware etc would be the main reason.

But its kinda like a platoon vs platoon size atm.
There also has to be a balance between interaction, fun and realism.

[Jeff Epstein]

ive talked about this before. that map size and game pop are completely unrealistic. everyone said the map size was fine. oh well. maybe one day we will have an 1000 pop dday.

[ImGladUmad]

Originally posted by Simo Hayha:

ive talked about this before. that map size and game pop are completely unrealistic. everyone said the map size was fine. oh well. maybe one day we will have an 1000 pop dday.

Yeah I don't understand the huge maps when there's only 100 players....It's like they think just because the maps are huge, that makes it "realistic" or a "simulation"....it doesn't.


If the Maps were smaller, but with realistic guns usage/tactics, then it will be realistic.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiFvWoM5Sb0

^^^ Take for example this battle for a building, just 1 building.....it had 500 soldiers inside + the 1000s of soldiers on the outside trying to break in.

Hell Let loose Maps simply don't capture the realism of WW2 with 100 men on a giagantic battlefield.

[JohnnyBanana]

Considering you don't have the game and your user name I am gonna go with you're a troll but if not....
I mean if you want to be technical I kind of agree to a certain point I would say 100 on each side would be a lot better with the map size or even the size of a company (160ish per side) but I feel coordinating that would be a nightmare, from a gameplay element that is.
If you read actual accounts of the war you will see that there are several scenarios where literally platoon-sized units held large swaths of a line. I just got done reading In Deadly Combat and the Germans were spread at one point to 2 men per 100 meters in the Courland Pocket. Oddly enough they held against assaults from the Soviets but had to retreat due to artillery. In the book Soldiers of Destruction, the 3rd SS was barely hanging on in the misery that was the Demyansk Pocket.
Parts of the fighting in Normandy had platoons holding similar areas, this happened to the 506th PIR outside of Carentan along with the 502nd on Purple Heart Lane. The Marines on Tarawa were spread thin as well on the first night of the fighting to the point it was about three Marines per 100 yards. So it did happen in places and they tended to be lopsided as in a lot of guys on one side a few on the other which would not work for gameplay.
I could agree with the maps being a tad smaller but I think they are fine. I do find it funny you are complaining that the game is a camp fest yet that it is not historically accurate lol. "Camping" in a sense is a thing that actually happens in combat, (a good defensive position lol). I mean if you really wanna split hairs snipers are just campers lol
You also gotta realize that this is a game and not a full simulation of war lol I mean if you want that kind of realism join a reenactment unit or get really into ARMA I guess. I mean to my knowledge there is no game living up to your expectations so idk lol ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[ImGladUmad]

Originally posted by JohnnyBanana:

Considering you don't have the game and your user name I am gonna go with you're a troll but if not....
I mean if you want to be technical I kind of agree to a certain point I would say 100 on each side would be a lot better with the map size or even the size of a company (160ish per side) but I feel coordinating that would be a nightmare, from a gameplay element that is.
If you read actual accounts of the war you will see that there are several scenarios where literally platoon-sized units held large swaths of a line. I just got done reading In Deadly Combat and the Germans were spread at one point to 2 men per 100 meters in the Courland Pocket. Oddly enough they held against assaults from the Soviets but had to retreat due to artillery. In the book Soldiers of Destruction, the 3rd SS was barely hanging on in the misery that was the Demyansk Pocket.
Parts of the fighting in Normandy had platoons holding similar areas, this happened to the 506th PIR outside of Carentan along with the 502nd on Purple Heart Lane. The Marines on Tarawa were spread thin as well on the first night of the fighting to the point it was about three Marines per 100 yards. So it did happen in places and they tended to be lopsided as in a lot of guys on one side a few on the other which would not work for gameplay.
I could agree with the maps being a tad smaller but I think they are fine. I do find it funny you are complaining that the game is a camp fest yet that it is not historically accurate lol. "Camping" in a sense is a thing that actually happens in combat, (a good defensive position lol). I mean if you really wanna split hairs snipers are just campers lol
You also gotta realize that this is a game and not a full simulation of war lol I mean if you want that kind of realism join a reenactment unit or get really into ARMA I guess. I mean to my knowledge there is no game living up to your expectations so idk lol ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I said it's an unrealistic campfest, because it is....A realistic campfest had 1000s of soldiers....There was much more suppressing fire/gun cmaping fights, it was a complete form of Camping......So yeah the Camping in this game is completely unrealistic because the scale is smaller compared to the real camping in WW2.


Yes, there's always an Alamo scenerio in every war....Doesn't mean it's the norm....Fact is, most of the war was between huge fighting forces so the 100 player matches simply don't capture this realism.


People claim this game is very realistic and the devs seem to be striving for that...I just came here to give you people the reality check....You need either smaller maps or 1000+ players to capture a bit of the realism of WW2.

[Corbs]

Honstly, PLanetside is my fav game. I'd love bigger battles in HLL.
But the actual logic you are using to argue your point is ridiculous. You claim to want realism and a 'like for like' basis with world war 2?
Name a game then that has "millions of men making up hundreds of divisions" or 500 hundred people in one building.....
And who defines then what realism is? I really don't care about defending the game or developers I Have no bias towards them, but your arguments are just plain silly.

[tørfisk]

if you think it's a running simulator it's simply because you're playing in a terrible match with players that don't understand how to build spawns

[Corbs]

Typical Planetside2 trolls, at least keep it in your own game. I look forward to AP shelling your face more often. Thanks for the promotion soldier!

[Panzergrenadier-au]

Gladumat, thanks for your input. 20 years ago I used to play operation flash point-40 players and that was used in Australian army as part of "war simulation " program. At the time I was hopping we can get up 200 or more players. So I went to the mission editor(part of ofp) and created my own missions. And I was getting a max of 150 to 200 bots. The problem was the CPU and GPU at the time was not able to run such large number of bots even you had money to built the latest rig. And it starts lagging at the start. I get your point, 1000 players would be even better. But when maps is too big and you spent 30 minutes just looking for a kill, and for someone like bf6, would be better off. So its critical to design the game that target the "correct" end users, This can be means of $$$ of your rig vs results. TBH, hll maps sizes is just right, unlikly the SQUAD, the maps is way too big-except the Iraqi map. I would not say HLL is unrealistic, I would say its quite realistic because the kill range vs BF5 or COD is more like 1 to 1 ratio ratio rather than 1 to 4 which made it more visible. In real battle, the kill target ratio (1 to 1) is well small beyond your current games. So you had a good thoughts but technically and commercially speaking it is not feasible, may be next 5 years if demand is high. demand= $$ . This means , we should be content what you get.

[Beyond.Celsus]

Feeding time for the trolls again?

[Peduvie ♡]

just install foxhole already

[Emil]

Originally posted by Peduvie ♡:

just install foxhole already

Funny thing is Foxhole has probably less people in the same area than this game.

As for OP; A war is fought on various fronts, in all kinds of various sizes. There's also a technical aspect to why the servers are capped as they are right now. It's a good cap for the size of the maps, and you would know that if you had the game.

In the end, you may come up with an idea or suggestion to increase the player cap, but don't do it in this violent negative or pessimistic spirit. It only makes you look stupid.