After years of playing team based first person shooters I've come to a realisation - too many players spoils the fun. Take Counter-Strike for example, most people prefer to play on maps with the server packed, 16 vs 16 and rush to the nearest chokepoint only to get annihilated, rinse and repeat. With this many players it doesn't seem to matter how tactful you are, how much cunning you employ into a flanking maneuver or how much you communicate - the law of averages states there will always be some guy somewhere who will take you out, or at least do enough damage so the next guy is sure to. No real point in bothering then is there, might as well just swarm with the pack to the nearest choke point? Instead of tactics, sometimes we even end up with ridiculous situations like both teams running around the level in the same clock-wise direction, only to never find each other - just like a dog chasing its tail. I've seen similar things in all online games that I've played, even in completely different genres - the fewer players the more tactical the match becomes. Of course, not all games suffer this problem but many do and I believe they are basically ruined for online play, anyone else feel the same?

What you describe sounds a lot like playing in public servers with unknown people.

The fewer players, the easier to organize them. But there's much more strategy involved in the actions of a large organized group.

Hmm, I'll admit playing in a clan mitigates this problem to a certain extent but I still feel that even with the best laid plans, tactics don't seem to count for much when the server is so packed that it becomes impossible to dynamically flank or make any major movements without the enemy finding out.

Its like playing a match of Battlefield 2 on a 64 player server - there will always be enemy units at any given place and time simply because of the number of players on the map - and not because of any real thought or "tactics" on the part of the enemy commander.

alot of the highest scoring players in counterstrike wait behind the pack until the heat has died down then they happily hop around the map taking down the stragglers and taking all the glory. Pretty lame really because if there is a rush you end up outnumbered.

in bf2142 it works brilliantly even on 64 player maps. People will work together because you get points for it, almost every public has at least 1 good squad. When you count all the facilities at your disposal (personal radars, NetBat, stealth, motion mines) 1 good squad makes the difference. On the big maps its easy to blend into the background (Due to the bland graphics) and on the small maps there are lots of places to hide. I find the small games too easy because my experience in ut2k4 and CS helps me get the first shot 90% of the time. My challenge is avoiding enemy troops.

In CS its better for YOU if you don't play as a team - as far as your concerned your team are shields, use them that way. I dont play cs anymore because the team play sucks.

It depends on the design of the game imo. They havent got it nailed down fully.

Communication is another big problem. BF2/142 has probably the best system for communication but its still not perfect. They could probably learn something from MMO's in this area. You cant rely on everyone having VOIP. I think the commander should have more C&C style control over the team or at least a server option for it.

Any tactics in CS are implicit per map. Explicit tactics take too long to relay. Anyway the maps are too small and simple, they probably arnt big enough for 32 players. There are usually only 2/3 routes and they are usually always occupied.

[Edited by - RivieraKid on May 29, 2007 5:22:07 AM]

Im currently working on a project, which is an FPS, and has both single player and multiplayer modes:

Single Player:
Character controls a squad of four commandoes. Able to switch between each one, otherwise they interact using AI.

Multiplayer:
There are 3 sqauds of four and two teams, that means its 12 vs. 12, but that squad of four sticks together, and its not so much about "rushing" and killing as many as possible. But taking certain positions, and keeping them, only to find some dude snuck up behind you and killed the men in the garison and took control of that position.

Quote:

Original post by rawk234 Im currently working on a project, which is an FPS, and has both single player and multiplayer modes: Single Player: Character controls a squad of four commandoes. Able to switch between each one, otherwise they interact using AI. Multiplayer: There are 3 sqauds of four and two teams, that means its 12 vs. 12, but that squad of four sticks together, and its not so much about "rushing" and killing as many as possible. But taking certain positions, and keeping them, only to find some dude snuck up behind you and killed the men in the garison and took control of that position.

What's stopping people doing that in your game though? Counterstrike is MEANT to be tactical, but it isn't, even in 12 v 12 matches.

Very true, there is nothing stopping them, however all the events, vehicles, and weapons are geared towards very tactical actions, for example, the multiplayer maps, are very large, which means more movement, not just running about 10 metres and unloading clip after clip.

Tactics in FPSs:

The team of deaf soldiers entered the city. Their captain died that same morning, so the only order they had is "kill the ones with the different uniform". Luckily the city was abandoned.
They called it a city, but there actually were only two buildings. They were 32 men, all deaf and unwilling to share any comment by signs. The opponents were also 32. Taking into account the size of the "city" and the amount of people that would fight, they decided to bring shotguns and grenades. There simply was no possibility of being out ranged.

Sixty four people in a tiny "plaza", all armed with shotguns and grenades. You'd think that they would fight a nerve wreaking fight of fear and tension. However, the deaf soldiers were immortal. whenever they died they reappeared at the same spot in the city.

After a couple of days painting the whole town with blood, they decided they would count the deaths / hour ratio for a single day and the loser would go home.


The "sixty four deaf men armed with 'nades in a hole" battle wasn't used as example in the "Masters of strategy" handbook.

Quote:

Of course, not all games suffer this problem but many do and I believe they are basically ruined for online play, anyone else feel the same?

No.

As others have mentioned, playing organized play or even with Teamspeak or a similar application increases coordination exponentially. Playing with better players helps too. Better players tend to have a 'feel' for how the game is going (at least in re-spawn FPSes like Tribes or TF or UT teams) and can adjust their tactics accordingly.

Mainly though, it sounds like you want stealth to be an important option. Stealth isn't feasible with lots of people on a small map. Duh. There's two parts to that though. For example, I've never had many problems flanking on a tribes sized map even with a packed server.

I'm not sure if this is of much importance, but whenever I play CS 1.6 on public servers, I always look for one with about 10 people on, definitely no more than 20. This may be due to me playing on a weak laptop, but I still prefer smaller amounts of people rather than a full 32 player server. Then again, I almost always play on the same map (dust2) on a Deathmatch server (meaning you respawn as soon as you die; no rounds).