230 Players

LieutenantNessie · Post by **LieutenantNessie** » 2011-12-21 13:14

Dev1200 wrote:128+ Players will make it impossible for new servers to come up, unless they find a deal on servers.

With prices being ~$1 / slot, not many people/groups can afford $128+/month for a server rental. And honestly, after 128 maps and server code is out, who's going to play 64 =\

With only so many people being on PR at once, I don't see there being more than 2-4 128+ servers being on at one time.

Awww. But why would people play on 64 servers if the quality is doubletimes better on 128 :3

Brainlaag · Post by **Brainlaag** » 2011-12-21 13:18

Dev1200 wrote:128+ Players will make it impossible for new servers to come up, unless they find a deal on servers.

With prices being ~$1 / slot, not many people/groups can afford $128+/month for a server rental. And honestly, after 128 maps and server code is out, who's going to play 64 =\

With only so many people being on PR at once, I don't see there being more than 2-4 128+ servers being on at one time.

I don't think we wont have more than 2-3 128 servers at all. There'll be like 2 for Europe and 1 for the States (or the other way around). So you can keep a balance between those who still like to play 64 (I don't understand why anyone would play 64 anyway but oh well) and the massive 128 servers.

Cassius · Post by **Cassius** » 2011-12-21 13:33

ReNiki wrote:Hopefully soon. Now 64 players feels like server is empty after playing there...

Most importantly, it plays way different too. While you used to be able to roam pretty much anywhere and approach the enemy any way you wanted, in Vadso you had something like a frontline going on with 70 vs 70. And as for server cost, maybe several clans could merge and share a server, or sell tickets to play there. I would pay up to 12 bucks a year to play on a server. 12 times 128+ is a nice sum. Also why all that talk about 128 when we played with 140+ stable? Not to mention that large scale games with more action and less downtime might attract more players. Also I dont see the problem with less servers being on because of a higher player cap. I only need one server to play on and I bet many people on here play mostly only on their fav. server as it is.

krillepille · Post by **krillepille** » 2011-12-21 13:43

this is the future for pr no doubt, i hope that 128 player (or more) will be standard soon. And yes its sad that allot of servers will have to shut down but it worth it, pr will be so much better and attract more people so it will survive longer. And for me at least its not a bad thing that there will be less servers, as long as there is a good server running in your part of the world (in my case northern europ). Its sad for all the server owners that will have to shut down but its a huge improvement for the rest of the pr community. I myself have not played pr for a while, i am actually waiting for the 128 players server to play when i do it, dont feel like 64p is that interesting anymore.

angellfall · Post by **angellfall** » 2011-12-21 13:47

Cassius wrote:Most importantly, it plays way different too. While you used to be able to roam pretty much anywhere and approach the enemy any way you wanted, in Vadso you had something like a frontline going on with 70 vs 70. And as for server cost, maybe several clans could merge and share a server, or sell tickets to play there. I would pay up to 12 bucks a year to play on a server. 12 times 128+ is a nice sum. Also why all that talk about 128 when we played with 140+ stable? Not to mention that large scale games with more action and less downtime might attract more players.

Server runned 512 stable with the old build. The amount of the players is not a problem. Organizing em is. Since SQ amount locks etc are yet to be broken. And later when you start to exeed the player amount maps get kinda small... however in arma2 PR 500 player PVP fights F* YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!.

krillepille wrote:this is the future for pr no doubt, i hope that 128 player (or more) will be standard soon. And yes its sad that allot of servers will have to shut down but it worth it, pr will be so much better and attract more people so it will survive longer. And for me at least its not a bad thing that there will be less servers, as long as there is a good server running in your part of the world (in my case northern europ). Its sad for all the server owners that will have to shut down but its a huge improvement for the rest of the pr community. I myself have not played pr for a while, i am actually waiting for the 128 players server to play when i do it, dont feel like 64p is that interesting anymore.

Its a joke anyway to run empty servers but everyone must have their own -.- (its so leet to have one) Why cant ppl just play and enjoy. Hell im happy to take some vacation from admining sisu for xmas when wicca and his little gnomes are taking care of it for the sisu admin team! + They are supporting the project! Gratz for PRTA.

Brainlaag · Post by **Brainlaag** » 2011-12-21 14:54

Don't really understand the worry of some servers "dying". Why don't they just combine and share their donations and expenses to run 1,2, or 3 servers together. We got most of the European clans and communities combined within PRTA (with a few elitistic expetions being NwA, Pelitutka, some others and the Russian servers).

Thats the future, a united PR and in all honesty Wicca did a kickass job on that. Then we basically need only these 2 or 3 servers running, having a uniform regulation of rules and a cosmopolitan administration staff from each clan/community. I'm unsure about the American servers tho, as they seem to be rather shattered and completely split off from each other.

Doc.Pock · Post by **Doc.Pock** » 2011-12-21 15:00

I dont play on 128 untill its in the build as standard as i want to play pr when i can not when 128 is up. So i cant share xpirience but wicca is realy doing a superduperawesome jot at uniting us

Robskie · Post by **Robskie** » 2011-12-21 15:28

128player should be the max

Post by **Psyrus** » 2011-12-21 15:35

Robskie wrote:128player should be the max

Why's that? Why not 130? Why not 120? Why not 198?

Brainlaag · Post by **Brainlaag** » 2011-12-21 16:00

Robskie wrote:128player should be the max

And you base that on?....

Wicca · Post by **Wicca** » 2011-12-21 17:07

in war bigger is always better, and the same goes for games

Doc.Pock · Post by **Doc.Pock** » 2011-12-21 17:21

yup

7char

angellfall · Post by **angellfall** » 2011-12-21 17:39

'Limeni[BiH wrote:;1709950']In love too

On topic, I played on the first 200+ test and to be honest I didn't like it. Some things need to be sorted out before we can TRY to enjoy that many players.

yes and when you go above it you start to think.... how in hell they placed 2 airfields and s loads of tanks in the 4x4 km area O.o Game would need bigger maps to get along with the gameplay... but what does 8x8 km map sound like? :O xmas present?

Brainlaag · Post by **Brainlaag** » 2011-12-21 17:44

angellfall wrote:yes and when you go above it you start to think.... how in hell they placed 2 airfields and s loads of tanks in the 4x4 km area O.o Game would need bigger maps to get along with the gameplay... but what does 8x8 km map sound like? :O xmas present?

No,nonono to whole purpose of 128(+) is to bring back some proper infantry firefights in those dull 4x4km maps. Why would you alter it to 8x8 with 128(+), it'd just end up being the same as 4x4 with 64. Anyway some maps are too crowded for lets say 200 players but others (being it Yamalia, Quinling, Iron Eagle, Burning Sands, or Silent Eagle) work like a charm with this many players. I remember how empty, yes empty, Quinling was with 140 players.

And apart from that, we have reached the engines limits, we can't go any further than this. My prognosis is that we won't see anything over 200 players (maybe special events as exception).

Post by **Arc_Shielder** » 2011-12-21 17:51

It has to work fine for large AND small maps. So a middle term should be around 120 to 130. Exceeding that is just greed.

Brainlaag · Post by **Brainlaag** » 2011-12-21 17:53

Arcturus_Shielder wrote:It has to work fine for large AND small maps. So a middle term should be around 120 to 130. Exceeding that is just greed.

On the contrary, run multiple servers in different modes, or change the servers max limit on a daily/weekly basis. Its stupid to throw away this much potential.

Brainlaag · Post by **Brainlaag** » 2011-12-21 18:11

'Limeni[BiH wrote:;1709961']The fond of players is not that big, I don't think it can sustain multiple 200+ servers with different modes.

We had an average of +500 players the whole last week and it didn't change much during this. So atleast 2 or 3 servers are doable. Not to mention the weekend. OFC some players are...lets say not "ready" for 128 and shouldn't be counted but 2 servers are not really a big deal.

And as I've already said, you can also let a server just change the limit from time to time.

230 Players

Re: 230 Players

Re: 230 Players

Re: 230 Players

Re: 230 Players

Re: 230 Players

Re: 230 Players

Re: 230 Players

Re: 230 Players

Re: 230 Players

Re: 230 Players

Re: 230 Players

Re: 230 Players

Re: 230 Players

Re: 230 Players

Re: 230 Players

Re: 230 Players

Re: 230 Players