256 player servers.. or not

[Tartantyco]

Invest in something other than a dial-up modem.

[myles]

100 i think is good squads can be too big sometimes and also not fitting the map is to overloaded on 1k or 2k

[Bob of Mage]

For the next big update PR should go to 8 players per squad and 146 players per team for anyone who wants it. 8 players per squad will be a good thing for any server, and it would really change PR for the better (can anyone think of a downside?). 146 players just fits well with 8 players per squad.

9 squads x 8 players each = 72 per team + 1 for CO
x 2 for teams = 146 players in total

All that's needed besides the limits being raised, is bug fixes and map fixes. If people are making deathmatch sized maps for PR, there should be no worries about a lack of smaller servers for those who want it. So lighten up and enjoy the new milestone PR has passed.

[Vicious302]

PRTA has a lot harder time filling up since the 128 server is there. Because a lot of the regulars play there.

Well maybe so for you, as a player all I noticed is plenty of full servers still. What is the difference between having 10 servers or 5 if there is still the same amount of players. The servers and there amount don't mean jack shit.

This is about gameplay. The gameplay that still could use more players.

8 Player Squads x 9 Squads - 72 a Side + 1 Commander + 1 Admin = 74 a side
148 minimum.

[cyberzomby]

I'm also a player I was just stating that theres servers that are no longer easy to fill

And in your math you forgot the clan locked squads, asset locked squads etc. You'll need to deduct a few players from the max to ensure people are not forced to sit in a transport squad that only has 2 choppers up.

[killonsight95]

guys we can't have 148 players with 8 per SQ, what if someone wants to lock their SQ? then people are going to be left out, that is why 100 players is good because it leaves room to allow people to lock their SQ.

at the moment there is currently room for 54 players per side with 6 men per SQ, that leaves 22 free spaces for people to lock their SQ's etc.

with 8 per SQ that gives you 72 per team, with 50 players per side that again leaves you with 22 free spaces, however pushing it upto 108 total players giving us 54 per side would leave us with what i think a better number of free spaces with 18 free slots left, that allows each SQ to be locked at 6 players without harm being done of course there will be the odd 4 and two man SQ's for transport etc. that again brings us back to saying 100 (50 a side) would be the best number.

[Imchicken1]

I personally think the magic number for good matches is around 100 players, with 7 or 8 per squad. But thats an opinion based off of playing on TG

Why dont we just finish breaking the game code so we can get 1337 f@s7 r0p3s and 3 factions per map

[Bob of Mage]

The 146/148 number would only be the limit the servers can set to if they feel like it (tech problems are an issue for some). It would be much like 64 players is now. 128 or some number like that might be the highest you would see commonly, but a random server would still have the choice to set it higher. Think of it this way, how many servers out there have 60 players? The numbers are normal set to things like 64, 48, 32, or 16. With a raised cap new standard player caps will be set (96, 128, 146 so on). For the point about locked squads or squad type, they would require players to go about the game in a new mind set. Once player levels reach a certain point any smart server would have a rule of no locked squads (you can live without them right?). And I'm pretty sure the CAS squad can live with a Black Hawk in their private club (unless it's too much of a burden for the high and mighty CAS to share slots with others).

[Hotrod525]

With mumble you can talk to other squad leaders over sql chat directly without typing. You can also talk to blue guys who are not in your squad to warn them about the tank you just spotted(which if you would've taken the time to type it out it would've killed you).

Commander can relay information.

Whats the next step ? Real NATO / Russian / ETC. Radio procedure ? I'm not arguing about mumble, i'm arguing against the fact people want to force somone who already spend quite alot of money every month to maintain is server to pay for a mumble server, or to force him to do something he might not want for is server. There is still alot of server without mumble, and PR still as awesome as it was. Yes i know there is license, but if the license is too picky there will be a third of what we can have in a matter of Big server, and admin will still keep kicking/banning people who dont have it, and we will end up with just more people angry and may be even some quiting PR.

[Mouthpiece]

Eight per squad is the limit so far I enjoyed the most. So, yeah, 146 players. Think (72+1)x2

[ratlover232]

You could always go to 9 man squads and actually enable the use of proper fireteams.

[Brainlaag]

IMO the current 10-men squads are perfect as you can still fit in 2 vehicles (2 jeeps, or 1 transport truck + 1 logi, or APC + logi truck,...) and have an almost perfect amount of player given for proper and independent fireteams, thus increasing each squads effective radius quiet a lot.

[illidur]

any smart server would have a "no locked squads rule" and if you wanted smaller squads go to a smaller server.

the higher the squad number the better ( for greater numbers than 128 ). i would agree that having it too high would not be good for kit balance. The SL's that can handle it would, and result in more teamwork than now. as its like a step below commanding if its a decent size group.

mumble wins even if you think its inferior because its the only voip program that comes with PR.

[Biggaayal]

We all know the BF3 is on the way. Meanwhile there is Arma2 PR as well. Both will draw on the PR playerbase.

It is clear to me that PR is nearing the end of the cycle. The only way to extend this lifetime IMO is to take full advantage of the new and (nearly) unique thing that has happened to old bf2: have a lot of players.


I've played for a few weeks on the +100 sisu server, and I cannot go back. THe gameplay is simply superior, and brings a finishing touch to the game that I had never expected. It simply feels so much more convincing. The 64 ppl servers just seem like spec ops vs spec ops wastelands now. They feel so unnaturally empty.

IMO pr has to go for this all the way, focus on +100 gameplay....or die.

[Orford]

Alot seams to have been lost on a couple of small facts. Being a server admin I know how hard it is to get a server running every day and how many months it has taken to get a solid core number of players who come on every day and help to populate the servers. ATM there are say 5 servers players can count on to be full or neearly full and would be willing to wait for a slot knowing there going to get a good game all day/night.

My point being ATM there is 1 128 player server that fills every day due to novaltey like all other servers it falls into chaos if no admins are about. Taking alot of effort to get to the point where the games are fun and full of skill and tactics. Due to licence rules it is passworded so this helps alot. Now lets take a look at making this perm for all servers. If its a good game which it is new player will come and populate the server. leading to more hasstle for the admins as vetran PR player want noons off the server so they can play, rarely teaching the new guys the ropes.

Now as a player looking at the server list at what point will you join the server 20v20, 12v12, 40v40 what is the critical mass to get a server running full. so you will end up with who ever gets their server seeded first running full all day (asuming they are admined to the same standard the currant top 5 server are) the other running half full to nearly empty. No fault of there own, what clan would 1. pay for a 128 or even a 256 slot server at GBP ?0.89 per slot per month.
2. Have enough player to seed the server so the pubbers would come and play before another server gets full first.

To run a PR server with PBban or GGC you need to host the server in a data centre not in your bedroom, to have a PR licence you need to have a website with a forum also costing money. Some things to consider if you think self funded clans who have PR server licences and currantly run liegit servers are going to jump to 128 man or 256 man servers.

Most server owners have PR server cos they wanted to play the game and be able to do it the way they wanted and the way its expected to be done. at the moment I see alot of people who want to turn up for a game on a nearly full server and not see what gose into it.

Dont get me wrong I think what has been achived breaking the code and getting 128 player server to work is awesome and a great achivment but from a server owner point of view unless more support is givne to PR-Devs and server owners you aint gonna see many if any clans running 128man servers.

*NwA* Orford.

[Bob of Mage]

While I doubt we'll see any servers hitting 146 right after the option being open, at some point they'll be ready to go there. I feel it's best to have the option to test the water with out needing lots of updates changing the global max player setting limit (0.96 is 70, 0.961 is 75 etc). We should be ready for when, not if, servers have the money, hardware, and manpower to go to 146 players. The PR set can't really set when this time is (and shouldn't try to ethier), so it should leave it up to the people who run servers (as in give them the choice to set anything from 64 to 146) and not try to control it too much.

[Jorgee!]

Currently there are not too much servers that fills 64.

Having a 250p server would be like a having a monopoly.

The base of players in PR is not too big, how much are we? We are like 500 at the same time.

There are a lot of things to think about.

First, people likes playing with others speaking the same language.

If we play at SISU we get like 300ms because we are in Argentina.

Sisu is like "stealing" players from others servers, like Hardcore and TG.

I think the correct move would be to release 96p servers only for some communities and based in regions and amount of players, the normal 64p server for all.

example: 2 Servers for South America, 3 servers for North America, 3 for EU, 1 for China, 1 for Japan, 1 for Russia, etc

[Vicious302]

compared to other mods, PR is thriving with players and there is no reason for that to slow down.

you can't steal players, players decide where they want to play.

and what is everyone going on about servers for... is this about servers or players. If you have 4 servers with 592 players or 9 servers with 592... what is the difference.. is that not still 592 players that are having fun? seems like it's only the server admins that want their servers full that have a problem with any of this... the average players want MORE!!!

[killonsight95]

and in the end guess who control's the server population? the people who own and control the servers, instead of saying we want MOAR! trying thinking about practibility and not jsut what you want, I to would love 1000 players, however I know that in PR that'd be stupid and pointless with everything considered, even 250 is to much, we need to be practible about it. I say give every server the right to vote for the server size they want/wish to have and the most amount of votes will be the limit set by the server license.
If a server wishes to go voer this they will have to hold a event where they provide all the neccessary requirements, for example a TS server, mumble and a stable server etc.

[Vicious302]

well its funny that you guys think soppa and pr will be the only one in control of this code, once it's released, it's released, and anyone can take it. luckily there are no laws that covering stealing stolen code.