forthcoming April Fools’Day, so that seems to be a perfect time to renaming a certain folders

_________________
"Ad cogitandum et agendum homo natus es"

I work quickly, cheaply and qualitatively. You can choose only two of the three options.

I start to think same as DIO that when we have +30 players it gets really too difficult. Especially first two maps.
This weekend i have spent 30k RP just in those two maps. To capture last base you need to nuke it twice and then call 32 paratrooppers to capture it, and it stil can fail.

^Nah... I just haven't been on to help you guys enough lately by working the flanks while ye'all sneak around.
----
But it does definitely hit a "tipping" point where it gets SUPER tough. And it's hard to keep up team morale enough with all the new guys to keep them going for a few hour on a single map. Although those that finish the tough battles tend to get a little stronger sense of camaraderie when moving on to the next which is very nice.
And I hope that as more players rank up and learn the flow of battle will get better.

I think it feels impossibly tough when these high numbers are combined with that point on the AI accuracy scale where the AI become what feels like insane sharpshooters. Not so much that they get you at range but you get those moments when you expose yourself a tiny split second and they almost shoot you over their shoulder with a single shot while in motion to another location before you even have a chance to move your cursor.

And YES: Burning up your RP in a single map does kind of suck. I have to assume even more so for some of you guys, you always have more RP than I ever aim for. I'm always out covering the flanks and approaches and I forget to look for loot and wait to long before displacing into the capture zones.

Yet I think it would be nice, especially considering all the time and wonderful effort that goes into taking Capture Zones now to see a much more substantial RP reward for these efforts. Honestly double for the maximum for a captured zone: 500RP.

It would make it far more likely to see people implementing much more Field Support Resources. And there are sometimes you spend a good hour helping lots of people take ONE point and 100-150RP because you died or didn't set in the zone for the full count or whatever kinda feels lack luster. Then you get heavy loot hunters who compensate for the lack of RP so more time is spent looking for stuff and returning it than it is actually focusing on the firefight.

Perhaps a new Server Setting scale for an RP reward multiplier relating to the Number of players in Online Co-op. So basically as the more players join, the game gets tougher and longer and so the Rewards become more substantial and then hopefully the battles will become more epic.
(Okay, I'm done. It's been a bit since I've put time into an Opt Suggestion Ramble. )

See you guys out there, I really need to put some time in over the holidays!

_________________
Footage

my 5 cents
I dont feel its bad that the game gets very hard sometimes. If its always very easy it will become boring. I'd rather have these times, when even if you try your best, you still unable to win. I mean, really, of the 100~ games on SAS that i played, i only lost like 5.

Last few weeks I no longer play in Inva(or at least very rarely, only if there are less than 15 ppl). I am disappointed, because I do not want and can not play with so many people(no matter newbies or not). Anyway, it seems that the idea to be targeted primarily at veterans go to hell.
I said what I noticed - nowadays gaming in Invasion sucks, this is some pointless massacre atm, these are the facts, if you want to grasp the big picture(if I express myself correctly) look at all my post above related with the current SAS situation.
Already suggested what in my view should be done:

- exactly matched servers should be realized asap then leave one of the servers with max limit 64 players
- a player limit should be set to max ~16 players(PVP servers are still empty, so it may help to this )
- or at least player_ai_compensation_factor should be reduced
- to be removed(or = 0) the player_ai_compensation_factor upon reaching the certain number of players, i.e. as mentioned as the optimal number per server(~ 14 players imo)

EDIT
Also did anyone notice that with such players some maps take several hours and for 12 h.(1 auto server restart period) the last maps in map rotator at 50% of the time are totally unreachable!?
Right now - 3.5 hrs since the server restart it stuck on map2
Something just as "the dogs bark, but the caravan goes on".....

_________________
"Ad cogitandum et agendum homo natus es"

I work quickly, cheaply and qualitatively. You can choose only two of the three options.

First two maps are clearly most difficult now. Is it possible to adjust at least them? Still running snowmap and server reset was hours ago... Rest of the maps are much easier. Does not fit to my logic.

I dont say its impossible but needs good sneak skills or P90...

Yeah the Higher player count is nice. But there is a point when it feels like NO friendly AI anywhere, and HUGE swarms of Enemy like in the Picture above. I do understand and like the challenge increase as more players join. Yet after a certain point it's a whole different game and you get stuff like the pic above.

_________________
Footage

The profile sharing feature is being worked on. That'll allow people to retrieve their profiles on SAS Invasion and InvasionUS, allow setting a max player count on SAS Invasion, and allow us to set up a few more Invasion servers compatible with those profiles. Then we should see people spread out playing on a few Invasion servers in hopes of providing a more even Invasion experience.

Was just playing Keepsake Bay on SAS Invasion yesterday. We had 20-30 players, the last base battle didn't make too much sense because of the sheer number of enemies. Don't know what are the latest settings there.

I don't think it only feels like that but it actually gets to that. Some maps have the max soldier setting near 100 as baseline, so depending how many bases you own and how many players there are, you might be hitting the situation quite frequently that you don't have any free respawn slots for friendly bots.

Also, as far as I know, SAS Invasion uses some bit of the ai reduction parameter to make the friendly faction lose soldier slots the more players join in, which contributes even more to having no friendly bots.

I don't think this would work. Imagine having this compensation=0 -player threshold at let's say 15. When you've got 14 players in, with ai compensation factor 1.0 (which for most maps means ai compensation value 4x), you've got the enemy having +56 extra capacity. For example's sake, let's say the enemy's capacity before the compensation would be 50 at some moment based on the map's max soldier setting and the owned bases and vehicles for the enemy, making their effective capacity 106 after the compensation. The next player joins, the ai compensation factor goes 0.0, so actual enemy capacity becomes 50.

Ok, so.. I'm going to guess that you intended that the compensation value reached at 14 players would stay at that value regardless of more players joining. I suppose a compensation capping parameter could be added or a parameter like "maximum effective player count for compensation factor", easily doable. But isn't this still going to hit the other end of the issue again anyway if player count goes up substantially? Let's say a server would be holding 50 players and would otherwise be in the same situation that was there with 14 players: instead of 14(+some bots) vs 106 bots, you've got 50 players playing against 106 bots, that's again going to be way easy.