256 player servers.. or not

[Psyko]

i was there from kashan to when it crashed on fallujah.

Things worked up until that point, at very least in the squad that i as part of. With over 9 players, the squad leader got very frustrated, but at around 9 players per squad things were controlable. (Now im assuming the squad player amount is in direct proportion to the server player limit. but at around 54 players it seems to me that things are most controlible.

after that you get, an APC squad and an armour squad, a jet squad/helo squad and support. and if your on an infantry layer, your talking the first 54 plus some support and/or infantry. it works either way.

The infantry make it seem reaistic, depending on how balanced the tickets are. the layer structure doesn't mess with anything. i think the population controls itself in a way.

Really the most important thing is to sort out the assets (kits) within the squads then everything is positively rosy.

[Anderson29]

well, i believe in freedom...and giving the servers the option of how many players they can support on their server stably is the right answer in my opinion. saying we should limit the size of the servers or squads because some say "its to hard to command this many troops" or "there is no teamwork with this many players" is b.s. in my opinion. if 128 or higher proves unstable...fine, but any other excuse is pretty lame. push the limits, raise the bar, we the players will adapt....or at least some of us will.
add a few troop transport 5ton trucks and ill be the first to volunteer to ferry troops to or near the front line...and i know im not the only one.....
so yeah somethings need changing and tweaked but limiting the potential of servers and players based on opinions of some just doesn't sit well with me.
personally i have enjoyed every round i have played on the 128 server even with the lag i get from being in the U.S. and i cant wait for more 128 player servers and being squad leader of 10 or more guys.
the only problem i have at times is that not all players get on mumble....and that in itself can make or break gameplay.

[Psyko]

well, i believe in freedom...and giving the servers the option of how many players they can support on their server stably is the right answer in my opinion. saying we should limit the size of the servers or squads because some say "its to hard to command this many troops" or "there is no teamwork with this many players" is b.s. in my opinion. if 128 or higher proves unstable...fine, but any other excuse is pretty lame. push the limits, raise the bar, we the players will adapt....or at least some of us will.
add a few troop transport 5ton trucks and ill be the first to volunteer to ferry troops to or near the front line...and i know im not the only one.....
so yeah somethings need changing and tweaked but limiting the potential of servers and players based on opinions of some just doesn't sit well with me.
personally i have enjoyed every round i have played on the 128 server even with the lag i get from being in the U.S. and i cant wait for more 128 player servers and being squad leader of 10 or more guys.
the only problem i have at times is that not all players get on mumble....and that in itself can make or break gameplay.

If you've been playing PR long enough you will see that just one or two people can have a huge contribution to the team when it comes to logistics.
the more players there are on the server the greater the odds of logistics. its almost dependible.

also, what you say is true. the excuses you gave are bollocks, and dont represent the actual mentality of diehard players. let the newbs be grunts and the pros be logistics and support. (support inclusive of squad leaders)

[goguapsy]

Just allow lock squads with 8+

[Ma-keh]

I played couple rounds at 128 player server about a month ago. Some friendly team names didn't show at all and our squad killed couple friendlies because of that, i hope that is fixed now. I say 128 players is enough, we need bigger maps for those too and 256 would be just run&gunning. At least we need more squads and squadleaders cause it's hard to keep command of big squad.

[Jigsaw]

All I'm saying is, if you think PR should be limited to, let say 100 people, does that mean some guys in China can not have their fun with 150, cos we think it's too much for them?

You're missing two key points:

1. The Devs will make the game that they want to play, as always. If they deem that a certain figure is enough then so be it.
2. More importantly, different player limits create different demands on everything, right from squad sizes to kit availability, vehicle layout, map size/layout and (perhaps most important) performance. If you start to let servers set their own limit that is beyond what would normally be supported you open the game up to extreme difficulty with all of the above.

I posted this elsewhere but I may as well say it here:

Jigsaw;1576751']The main point I'm making is that cutting the max number offers several benefits, eg.

• Easier to admin
• Reduced technical issues/requirements/costs for SAs
• More competition between servers
• Increased volume of available servers meaning increased choice and availability of server places

Etc etc

Whilst the gameplay on the 128 server has been excellent this can easily be attributed to a few distinct (and unique) factors:

• It is the only server of it's type available. This means those experienced players who would normally be distributed amongst other servers are concentrated in one place as they are forced to congregate there to experience playing with more players.
• Mumble is compulsory. Like it or not, we will never get every server using mumble as a requirement.
• It has a large, active admin team motivated by the fact they are helping the only server of it's type/capabilities.

My belief is that if you allow the technology across all servers then you dilute the above unique factors to the point that gameplay seriously suffers. Most clans will face a very serious struggle to support 128 players on their servers, many have difficulty supporting 64 players at times.

Increasing the player limit will automatically reduce the number of populated servers available for players to join. This decreases competition and reduces the availability of choice to your player population. Previously if someone came onto the forums saying they'd had a bad experience on a particular server you always had the option to just say "oh well, vote with your feet and don't play there anymore", but that may likely cease to be an option if there are less servers available.

To give you an example, right now there are 9 servers with +45 players (ignoring the 128 server). Two of those are US, with the rest being EU based.

Assuming that people generally play on servers with a ping less than 100, if you increase the player limit to 128, that effectively would mean that you'd have only one option for US players and 3 and a half for EU players. Imagine you're a US player and you dislike the map the US server is playing, that basically means that you have to play on a server with potentially a plus 100-200 ping etc. What if none of the servers are playing a map you like?

You stop playing.

In the UK we have competition laws to prevent corporations or businesses acquiring large segments of the market, the idea being that choice increases quality and value in the products offered. Imagine if you are a server admin, what motivation do you have to produce great quality on your server when you know players have nowhere else to go? Or vice versa what motivation would a start up server have when they know this one server already hoovers up all the players and all you'll get are stragglers?

If you consider that the above is based on 116 players being the maximum then the issues increase exponentially as you increase that limit. Given that most of the time the in-game population hovers around 500 you'd only end up with two, occasionally three, servers up and populated.

[Khidr]

Keep pushing those numbers up. The more the merrier. Where there is a vacuum in skills or leadership of the players, time will fill these up to everyone's expectations.

The lack of cohesion and communication was observed in the 128 player tests. It was not until a couple weeks in did the players adjust to the new environment and step up their game. Even now there are still shitty 128 player matches, but each day that goes on the game play does get a little bit better. I guarantee the same phenomenon will be witnessed if a new maximum player count is used.

Obviously some custom maps catering to the larger numbers would help smooth some of the issues.
Kit tweaks and limited kit numbers might also need work but this does not really inhibit game play. Loads of riflemen abound making the grunt(or pawns) a much more powerful force when used in strength.
With 8 man squads I think 1 medic is plenty. If this were bumped up to 13 men it may need looking into.

IMO what I think is needed most to run a smooth game of this size is dedicated Referees. Maybe 2-3 per side whose primary reason is to conduct a smooth running game. This role should be much more intensive than just have a guy with admin powers present. While on the server these guys would not be playing the game but instead making the game playable for others.
Some suggested responsibilities for the ref:
- Ensuring no locked squads.
- Ensuring each SL has proper radio comms with the rest of the team.
- Ensuring each named squad sticks within their role and does not steal assets from other units.
- Ensuring no glitched FOBs are used.
- Ensuring no main base rules are broken during play.
- Ensuring no one spams mumble causing distress to other players.

If +200 player PR was utilized in the PRT or other organized type tournament I think very quickly the bugs in personnel would be worked out and some great games would be had. Once this core of players have had some experience playing at this level then their skills would spread into the public arena and wala no one would realize how they could ever play 64 player PR again.

If you can manifest a 256 server then I say please please DO IT. I did like the suggestion of having 128 and 256 layers for future maps.

[Arc_Shielder]

Honestly, no.

Going from 64 to 256 is going ahead of ourselves. You make progress by taking steady baby steps.

I can see alot of issues arising that don't have much to do with comms, assets and squad divisions - since that's all fixable - but rather with vanilla feel in 4km maps, performance issues and the inevitable creation of 8km maps that would be dull as the poo I released just now (unless you're a massive lover of islands). And even if the latter wasn't, no one can really expect for the DEVs to suddenly pull out such massive maps out of their asses in such a short amount of time. After all, they would have to take all 2km maps out of the equation.

128 seems very reasonable and that's as far we should ever go.

[Furst]

But what you think? What is best server size as now we know 128 isnt limit anymore

im fine with the 116 slots setting, but everything between 100 and 116 would be good for me, especially including the possibilities with the 8 player squad setting.
this whole new feature brings my PR experience to a new level which i dont wanna miss anymore.

most of the annoying things @ 116 players happen due to lack of a commander who could enforce some structure into the chaos and the lack of admins, but these both disadvantages do also appear on 64 slot servers, so i wouldnt call it that much of a unscalable problem.

plus: allowing the server owners to individually decide which setting they want to use sounds pretty comfortable to me.

[101 bassdrive]

Jigsaw;1581271']You're missing two key points:

1. The Devs will make the game that they want to play, as always. If they deem that a certain figure is enough then so be it.
2. More importantly, different player limits create different demands on everything, right from squad sizes to kit availability, vehicle layout, map size/layout and (perhaps most important) performance. If you start to let servers set their own limit that is beyond what would normally be supported you open the game up to extreme difficulty with all of the above.

I posted this elsewhere but I may as well say it here:


If you consider that the above is based on 116 players being the maximum then the issues increase exponentially as you increase that limit. Given that most of the time the in-game population hovers around 500 you'd only end up with two, occasionally three, servers up and populated.

your whole post is essentially just a huge pile of socialist politbureau bull****.
frankly but sorry.
just from top to down think-like-me or gtfo elitism.
you DEVs may code an awesome mod "which you yourself want to play" ( which you barely ever do I might add with certain disappointment) and you've done so with all it's ensuing epicness and unfortunately also with all the horrible bugs that come along and never get fixed.
and you've done so, and many of us have loved and stood true to it for years and we are grateful. that goes without question.

the disturbing fact is though that you've always said that you'll don't interfere with serveradmins choice on how to run their things.
so, do I sense that after forcing certain spawntimes on players and assets that this'll be the next political correctness propagated move you'll pull off?
why?
is the brilliant achievement soppa has pulled off a bad thing of a sudden?
why do many of you DEVs feel the urge to tell us exactly HOW to play the game right down into the tiniest little aspect of gameplay?

I would've never thought a DEV would actually say this. it's just so much newspeak over it all.
you guys were once so proud a few years ago about breaking the BF2 mapsize limit. everyone cheered. it was nice, from a technological standpoint, it was damn impressive, but we also all know that the maps felt empty.
and now we get the playersize to suit it and you guys act adverse?

look, it doesn't need balancing. it's just upscaling. everything actually stays exactly the same and many maps are unbalanced to begin with.
it's just more people,
more people mean nothing else but increased unpredictabilty. it makes me forget all those microaspect bugs that ruined the game for me about 2 years ago.
glitches, bad handling vehicles, odd agility of my avatar, whatever.. don't matter as much.
they don't matter when the main aspect of winning is coordinating or assisting fellow human beings into achieving a common goal.

this can mean absolute clusterf*** or the most mindblowing experience you'll ever have in a FPS.

it just needs a rethinking of the current VOIP and mumble system; a way to minimize spammage but let info filter through in the best way possible and secondly the chain of command where with the increased squad size a fireteam leader kit might come in quite handy ( who'd also be able to set waypoint markers just as the SL; or just generally, more and easier accesible visual intel on the map)

common guys. cheer up! this is INSANE. once again, congratulations soppa! amazing what you've pulled off!

the rules of the game have changed. better adapt.

[Sidewinder Zulu]

your whole post is essentially just a huge pile of socialist politbureau bull****.
frankly but sorry.
just from top to down think-like-me or gtfo elitism.
you DEVs may code an awesome mod "which you yourself want to play" ( which you barely ever do I might add with certain disappointment) and you've done so with all it's ensuing epicness and unfortunately also with all the horrible bugs that come along and never get fixed.
and you've done so, and many of us have loved and stood true to it for years and we are grateful. that goes without question.

the disturbing fact is though that you've always said that you'll don't interfere with serveradmins choice on how to run their things.
so, do I sense that after forcing certain spawntimes on players and assets that this'll be the next political correctness propagated move you'll pull off?
why?
is the brilliant achievement soppa has pulled off a bad thing of a sudden?
why do many of you DEVs feel the urge to tell us exactly HOW to play the game right down into the tiniest little aspect of gameplay?

I would've never thought a DEV would actually say this. it's just so much newspeak over it all.
you guys were once so proud a few years ago about breaking the BF2 mapsize limit. everyone cheered. it was nice, from a technological standpoint, it was damn impressive, but we also all know that the maps felt empty.
and now we get the playersize to suit it and you guys act adverse?

look, it doesn't need balancing. it's just upscaling. everything actually stays exactly the same and many maps are unbalanced to begin with.
it's just more people,
more people mean nothing else but increased unpredictabilty. it makes me forget all those microaspect bugs that ruined the game for me about 2 years ago.
glitches, bad handling vehicles, whatever.. don't matter as much.
they don't matter when the main aspect of winning is coordinating or assisting fellow human beings into achieving a common goal.

this can mean absolute clusterf*** or the most mindblowing experience you'll ever have in a FPS.

it just needs a rethinking of the current VOIP and mumble system; a way to minimize spammage but let info filter through in the best way possible and secondly the chain of command where with the increased squad size a fireteam leader kit might come in quite handy ( who'd also be able to set waypoint markers just as the SL; or just generally, more and easier accesible visual intel on the map)

common guys. cheer up! this is INSANE. once again, congratulations soppa! amazing what you've pulled off!

the rules of the game have changed. better adapt.

Just so you know, he's not a DEV, he's a MOD, a moderator. So don't make arguments and insults based on false assumptions.

That being said, the DEVs made Project Reality; us playing it and not having to pay anything is a luxury. The result is that they decide how things run generally in game. I would argue they give a suprising amount of freedom to the admins of servers. Especially since they're providing us with a remarkably professional and polished mod for BF2 without, as I said, demanding any money in return.

By the way, they didn't break the player limit a few years ago. It was recently, more like this year. I have a feeling you don't really know what you're talking about.

[Wicca]

The only way for us to actually have numerous big servers out there is a mature community. And a new server license agreement.

I do not agree that anyone should have access to the server files. Infact, there are about 120 empty servers or smt in PR atm.

This number should be at 0.

The server license should only be given to people who has 1/4 admin population to 3/4 slots.
It doesnt mean 1/4 has to admin the server at any given time. But if there is 16 admin hashes on a 64 player server, not all online at the same time. Then there should be 32 hashes on a 128 server, and 64 on a 256 server.

I do not wish to sound offensive, but i do not like the Developers approach to the server license, it should be more restricted. Only those servers who has control of the population, and plays the game with teamwork and communication. Should retain their license. Empty servers, or servers with no such teamwork on it. Should be given infractions and sanctions by the dev team.


If we want to make this community grow, we need a big brother. We obviously arent mature enough to be our own big brother, let the dev team take that responsebility.


EDIT: Also lol at bassdrives overreaction

[Conman51]

There really should be some limit to how big servers can go. If server populations get too high i can see many problems in insurgency for example, with more players around the map most of the time there is a greater chance of a cache spawning on a blufor position.

[Wh33lman]

breaking the 64 player limit was impresive enough not just going to 65, but straight to 128. and your bored with this already? from what i understand, there are still some kinks to be worked out with 128. finish 128 properly, get it stable, then set your sights higher.

50v50 is more then enough. its a nice middle ground from the "impressive"(and uncontrolable) 128, and the "boring" 64.

[=Romagnolo=]

you set for 9001 players so we can joke with OVER NINE THOUSAAAD!

[Lt.Dan_991]

Personally, I like the bigger scale. 50-60 per team seems like an excellent number at the moment.

If the hardware could handle 100+ per team and the maps could accommodate, I'd be all for that as well. I just think that for this to work, it could really only be with the larger maps, and squads would have to become more manageable somehow.

With respect to squads, things are really crazy with 13 squad members. Even using Mumble and splitting into two teams is difficult, mainly because of the name tag bug. It's about impossible to keep track of your squad members in your sub squad when 3/4 of them don't have name tags. Which brings me to my next question; is the name tag bug fixable, or is it something we'll have to live with?

The Fallujah match today had a few epic moments. Having 20-30 guys defending one FOB with everyone on Mumble makes for some killer gameplay. It can get quite hectic, but overall I much prefer it to the tiny (by comparison) firefights on the 64 player servers.

[FullMetalMonkey]

The Fallujah match today had a few epic moments.

[SGT.Ice]

There should not be 2 SAWs in a squad. The SAW has a lot less deviation then a guy with an M16. even when standing. That's ridiculous. It's even more accurate in full auto then someone standing up with an M16.

[goguapsy]

lol! Reminds me of when my squad charged a compound covered by squad 6... got wiped out in 2 minutes I think. That's 13 ppl!

[Muffins]

You know, why not both?

I mean, how about giving server hosters the option of how many people.

Well, for one, its going to be really hard to fill 250 slots, but if you did it would be epic.

New maps would need to be made for the occasion!

However, i have so much fun on 128 player servers

So maybe it doesn't matter.