Will PR ever have 128 players mandatory?

[the_epic_pooh]

Well, I am just asking because... I think SISU has been around in PR for a while now... and when I play online w/ it... It has 0 issues, unless it goes over 128 player's which is basically
Lag-con, PR edition. There are no issues IF you actually play on SISU a ton, like when ever 100+ players or somethin' are online.

But I think that maybe TG should start off w/ 128 players MAX... For another 'test' server for like a week.

This isn't about discussing about SERVER's... I am just asking a simple question.

Will PR ever have 128 players permanently?

Mumble server's w/ 128 players are just perfect. Mumble doesn't crash, neither does the server... (Unless you have 5 players w/ 1.0MBPS speeds.)

It's almost amazing how PR Dev's conducted this 128 player's. And I would like to see it expand more, not just 1 server.


-pooh

[ryan d ale]

No, it won't ever be mandatory.

If it was mandatory players wouldn't be able to sleep

Then there's training servers and small skirmish servers.

Not everyone wants to play 128 ALL of the time.

[the_epic_pooh]

How about have the option to play 128 or small ones's?

To solve training server's... have a certain amount can join, then rest have to be supporting memberships!

[BoZo_135]

As far as I know, Soppa made 128 a reality and the Devs just allowed him to implement it into the game. But I think that there should be one, maximum two, servers that run with 128 players. Reason being that if every server had 64+ players, almost none would be filled up and two or three servers would just linger around the 70-80 player mark.

Having only one server that makes PRMumble mandatory attracts (for the most part,) the best audience of tactical PR players and concentrates all players currently interested in 64+ into one server.

Just my two cents

[Rudd]

128 will not be mandatory, it requires serious server hardware anyway so only the better servers will be able to actually run it no matter what anyone says

[Navo]

I don't like the 128 server, as the the level of skill is insanely low.

[Buren06]

Honestly, I would much rather play 64 players than 128 players with 12 man squads. If the devs were able to increase the number of squads per team, then maybe - but as it stands, universal 128 player games would not be a good thing.

[SGT.MARCO]

I would like it a=on the TG server but my problem is my poor computer. if i go above 64 players the game is unplayable unless on Jabal or Iron eagle, maybe kashan. That is my opposition to it

[the_epic_pooh]

Well... how about this?

One server has 128 players 24/7 (That is sisu!)

How about RAISING the player limit?
84 player's max?

42v42...

That would work, I can see that working.

Is it JUST me or is 32v32 constantly... getting dull?

[rushn]

I would like it a=on the TG server but my problem is my poor computer. if i go above 64 players the game is unplayable unless on Jabal or Iron eagle, maybe kashan. That is my opposition to it

I wonder how good peoples computers are now

what happened to that video settings chart?

[the_epic_pooh]

I wonder how good peoples computers are now

what happened to that video settings chart?

BF2 Vannilla still has well over 10,000 people a day playing on it...

And really, I hit BF2v up a second ago (litterally) and people still complain on teh all chat saying that Back To Karkand lag's so much!

I have a computer that is like a donkey. (you know what I mean)

I have an ATI Radeon HD 3450 (Can run some games from 2008 w/ no lag)
I have a CPU, Pentium Dual Core 5400 @ 2.70Ghz (It's like a donkey! ;] )
Really, I wanna upgrade my computer, I need to buy a figgen power supply and that...

OT...

64 Player's doesn't lag anyone. It's just their internet or their computer is from the 1980's.

The only time I get lag in 64 player server's is when the server has lag spikes (dont wanna mention some names!!)

Also... BF2v does have a test server for 128 players... it's less laggy then PR's SISU.

(PR's SISI has people w/ .5mbps internet speeds!)


Just sayin', but I wouldn't want 128 players YET. Maybe after 1.0version release. (I am guessing 1.0 will be out around August-December of this year.)

[Rhino]

And really, I hit BF2v up a second ago (litterally) and people still complain on teh all chat saying that Back To Karkand lag's so much!

Do you base everything on what a few people are saying in the short time span your ingame?

[IINoddyII]

fwiw - the_epic_pooh has been banned due to this being a duplicate forum account.

This decision will be reviewed by the PR management team.

[angellfall]

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Rhino;1726458']Do you base everything on what a few people are saying in the short time span your ingame?[/quote]

Well it might be just his computer...

fwiw - the_epic_pooh has been banned due to this being a duplicate forum account.

This decision will be reviewed by the PR management team.

Weird i didnt know that is't allowed..


[quote="Navo""]I don't like the 128 server, as the the level of skill is insanely low.[/quote]

Also weird my experiences are quite different. And now when prta admins have gotten used to the server the level of the gameplay has even rised. I think if you feel otherwise you should spent 5min of your time at sisu.kompassi.com or at the server feedback thread writing little feedback so prta can make your game experience even better.

[BloodyDeed]

Weird i didnt know that is't allowed..

Make sure you read the PR Forum rules
Project Reality Forums - Forum Rules
Section 5 Moderation, part v. Multiple Forum Accounts

And please don't let us turn this thread in another one about the quality of certain servers.

[PLODDITHANLEY]

My self I only like 128 in an organised event.

On most 128 games I play squads are everywhere with multi assets in them, my mumble seems overloaded and I can't hear well.

If the squad amount could be increased maybe, but also 84 may be a compromise.

[LieutenantNessie]

BF2 Vannilla still has well over 10,000 people a day playing on it...

And really, I hit BF2v up a second ago (litterally) and people still complain on teh all chat saying that Back To Karkand lag's so much!

I have a computer that is like a donkey. (you know what I mean)

I have an ATI Radeon HD 3450 (Can run some games from 2008 w/ no lag)
I have a CPU, Pentium Dual Core 5400 @ 2.70Ghz (It's like a donkey! ;] )
Really, I wanna upgrade my computer, I need to buy a figgen power supply and that...

OT...

64 Player's doesn't lag anyone. It's just their internet or their computer is from the 1980's.

The only time I get lag in 64 player server's is when the server has lag spikes (dont wanna mention some names!!)

Also... BF2v does have a test server for 128 players... it's less laggy then PR's SISU.

(PR's SISI has people w/ .5mbps internet speeds!)


Just sayin', but I wouldn't want 128 players YET. Maybe after 1.0version release. (I am guessing 1.0 will be out around August-December of this year.)

Are you serious? Maybe it's because your internet connection sucks, and the server is in Finland and you're in the US. Your high ping might affect it, yknow? I NEVER experience any lag and I think noone in Europe does.

[Xander[nl]]

128 players might work on the 4x4km maps like Kashan, but its gameplay kind of fails on the smaller maps like Muttrah. With that much players in such a small area, the gameplay goes down a lot because it becomes too chaotic for proper squad management.

Quite awesome nontheless because of the massive CQC firefights, it's not something I (and very likely most of the other players) would want to play every day.

I think it's fine the way it is now, with the majority of the servers having 64 players with more tactical gameplay, with the 128p SISU up and running occasionally so people can have a taste of that gameplay every once in a while without having to play it constantly.

However, I do quite like the idea of upping the normal servers with ~10-20 slots to allow for one more infantry squad per side. On the 4x4 maps when all the assets are being manned, the teams lack proper infantry sections most of the time.

[LieutenantNessie]

;1726539']128 players might work on the 4x4km maps like Kashan, but its gameplay kind of fails on the smaller maps like Muttrah. With that much players in such a small area, the gameplay goes down a lot because it becomes too chaotic for proper squad management.

Quite awesome nontheless because of the massive CQC firefights, it's not something I (and very likely most of the other players) would want to play every day.

I think it's fine the way it is now, with the majority of the servers having 64 players with more tactical gameplay, with the 128p SISU up and running occasionally so people can have a taste of that gameplay every once in a while without having to play it constantly.

However, I do quite like the idea of upping the normal servers with ~10-20 slots to allow for one more infantry squad per side. On the 4x4 maps when all the assets are being manned, the teams lack proper infantry sections most of the time.

I beg to differ, 2x2km maps work fine, and tested many times.

[Kingy]

Personally I hate the 128 server, never actually had a good game there yet. The squads are way too big making them difficult to manage and achieve goals with, the amount of teamwork for me at least is some of the worst I've ever seen although I've heard the organised events are much better. I miss the social aspect of the game where you get to know your 5 squad mates, have a laugh and work together well, which has almost never happened to me on the 128 server.

So yeah if 128 were mandatory I think I'd stop playing PR. If we really were to go for a higher player count on each server I think 96 a side or 84 as mentioned earlier is a better starting point

However, I do quite like the idea of upping the normal servers with ~10-20 slots to allow for one more infantry squad per side. On the 4x4 maps when all the assets are being manned, the teams lack proper infantry sections most of the time.

+1