128 Players? Still Testing?

[angellfall]

Ive just noticed that the SISU 128 player "test" server is still going strong.


Only still testing now 2 years later....

Not time to give up or offer server files to other admins? Im sure like myself and many more agree, the community suffers in the smaller and more DEDICATED areas because of the monopoly on players.

You might as well but an "inferior" tag on all 64 players only servers.

I like to share my POV when poss. So i did.

"Bring back 0.86"

I must be retarded mentally somehow when i fail to understand why ppl need to have the "code". Is it just "cool" to be able to run the server by ur own? You like "own" the playerbase and when you have ur name in the servername it makes you better person?

When we runned the server with olut we didnt really give players so much chance to vote about rules or become admins. It was a time when the server was quite new tho. But now when PRTA is renting it they give their members chance to become admins on the server vote about the rules of the server ETC. ETC. So in my mind the server basicly belongs to everyone. And there was a time when sisu was looking for someone to rent the server so if you would have wanted it why didnt you take it.

Only thing what i agree with is that USA players dont have their own 128 server and i bet it might be quite frustrating for some players (there is quite huge USA playerbase in sisu) to have big ping, even if its not so important in pr.

So sometimes i just laugh at this "sisu is stealing the players from our server" why cant the ideology be if you want to play 128 go play there. Usually there is slots to join in. If you want to contribute with money shut one of the allready empty PR servers and move that money what goes in the empty server to PRTA.

Do i just horribly fail to see the point in this all? O.o

[Kain888]

Yes I agree, but no. To easy for grievers to destroy the game and you can't really recognize squad mates names.

About admining I disagree strongly. I admined a lot in the beginning of BF2 RTA and it's nothing like that. You always check griefers by squad (caps lock) screen anyway, only ones you can't are squadless people. It's the most efficient way and most of times fastest. Almost all servers and all good have rules preventing being squadless, so problem with admining is solved.
The issue with names - yeh, it's more irritating, but you can do the same as squad leader.

Do i just horribly fail to see the point in this all? O.o

Well free market allows for improving by competition. From player standpoint I would love to see more servers with 128 option to see the best survive, with best admins, rules, teamwork, etc. (ofc there also will be server that are populist, but that's the other thing). For example I would love NEW and NwA to have their representation, that would be cool for both diversity and "bottom-down voting" which IMO improves PR.
You said PRTA has system (which is great btw) that allows anyone to become admin, but most times the quantity doesn't go with quality.

[Arc_Shielder]

You said PRTA has system (which is great btw) that allows anyone to become admin, but most times the quantity doesn't go with quality.

Which is not the case. Be it a large quantity or poor quality.

[Cassius]

For me 128 is all about the squads until either more squads can be permitted or restricted to less than 100 it'll all be a bit of a mess.

Totally agree with aquatic:

I must disagree, I have seen squadleaders handle 12 men squads just fine. Oc it helps if the squadmembers arent the slowest people on the internet.

[Rudd]

I do sympathise with the people who would prefer servers with a population around 90

there are serious benefits to it, perhaps all 100+ servers should be locked and only used for big events

[AquaticPenguin]

I must disagree, I have seen squadleaders handle 12 men squads just fine. Oc it helps if the squadmembers arent the slowest people on the internet.

I don't see any benefits to 12 players over limiting it to 8, but I do see downsides. It takes one sub-par squad leader and the squad will be ineffective, and a couple of sub-par (but not necessarily bad) players and the squad leader has to manage them rather than dealing in tactics.

There are definitely squad leaders than can handle 12 players, though I think handling 12 average public players is less likely. I also think you would end up with plenty of 12 man squads being led by average squad leaders who can't handle the extra players particularly well, and everyone would suffer as a consequence.

[MaSSive]

I do sympathise with the people who would prefer servers with a population around 90

there are serious benefits to it, perhaps all 100+ servers should be locked and only used for big events

Interesting idea, about locking and using for events only, considering all said in this thread.

I mean sometimes on some servers even 64p pubbing is disorganized and looks pretty bad, and now imagine that in twice the amount or 128. Sounds like a big clusterF to me.

Maybe not much of an argument but still something to take in consideration.

[Arnoldio]

12 people in the squad is good, if they arent retards, so there is the main problem. 6 man squad means less chance of finding retards.

64v128, if i give a nice school example; If you have a small rotten apple and a big rotten apple, neither of them are edible. Doesnt matter if there is 10 palyers or 1000, if they suck, they suck in any number.

Prople need to start playing PR wither witch brains or heart, or both, then we can have any amount of players and any map avaliable, not just the 4 popular ones.

[Cassius]

I don't see any benefits to 12 players over limiting it to 8, but I do see downsides. It takes one sub-par squad leader and the squad will be ineffective, and a couple of sub-par (but not necessarily bad) players and the squad leader has to manage them rather than dealing in tactics.

There are definitely squad leaders than can handle 12 players, though I think handling 12 average public players is less likely. I also think you would end up with plenty of 12 man squads being led by average squad leaders who can't handle the extra players particularly well, and everyone would suffer as a consequence.

If a squadleader can handle 5 players he can handle 12 just as well. It really depends on the players mostly, how well they respond to a squadleader, but so far I have seen good things on the sisu server. Although it would be ideal if the number of possible squads could be increased.

[AquaticPenguin]

12 people in the squad is good, if they arent retards, so there is the main problem

I don't think players have to be 'retards' to affect the squad. Just one person not being as co-ordinated, talking on mumble too much/using the wrong key is enough.

If a squadleader can handle 5 players he can handle 12 just as well.

Disagreed, 12 players is a much more daunting task, certainly for a less assertive squad leader. Then again, those who may not feel comfortable could just limit the number joining their squad.

Although it would be ideal if the number of possible squads could be increased.

Agreed

I guess my objection isn't really based around squad leaders not being able to handle it. My objection is more because why would you have a 12 man squad when you can have more 8 man squads which are more versatile?

I've suggested 8 because it gives modest increase in fire power, can be divided into small fire teams, and you get more squads to behave on a more tactical level. I think intra-squad teamwork breaks down when you have too many players.

Then again maybe I'm just being stubborn. I've also gone quite off-topic...

[Kain888]

Prople need to start playing PR wither witch brains or heart, or both, then we can have any amount of players and any map avaliable, not just the 4 popular ones.

Please note that not all people are hardcore players that know game, have time for it and spend enough time on forums. Many people want to have fun, immersion and some action in environment that PR can offer. It's IMO ignorance to say that many players that do worse in PR are not using brain or, like you mentioned, are retards.

Learning curve is steep and "caring for PR" doesn't have to be same for everyone, so closing PR to only most skilled is bad step for the whole mod.

It's obvious that in ideal scenario we will have tactical games with proper teamwork, but that doesn't happen, unless playing with clan. Mod is for people so definitely I don't agree that "retards" should go and only "proper" people should stay. It's too arguable. Mod should be hard but helping people find themselves in it is the future of PR - hence it's better to propose something solid like other people in thread than use dodgy argument that people just need to be smarter.

[Arnoldio]

I am not asking anybody to sit on the forums, to play PR 5 hrs a day, read the manual 5 times, join a clan and train everyday, read all hanbooks from all the armies in the game, etc.

I just want common sense. What is elite about that? And when you lack common sense, you are entitled to be a "retard".

What I do if i am unsure about playing PR. I go watch BoB, Pacific, Restrepo and various firefights/documentaries. I remember useful stuff and it pumps me up, wich yields a good game, because im into it. Most people seem to get tired of CoD and hop on PR, just because it has guns and spacebar. Also, im not blaming new players who are willing to learn atleast the basics, quite the opposite, those are the new breed of PR vets.

Steep learning curve? Well it is steep if you are new and want to be a jet pilot, helicopter pilot, grenadier, auto rifleman, sniper, squadleader, tank crewman, apc crewman at the same time. If you are a rifleman, all you need to know is: Msbtn1=Fire, Msbtn2=Scope in, WASD movement, SPACE jump. The rest of riflemans work is self explanatory or under Sls command. Warning, advanced tactics: Staying alive, using cover - that means putting an impenetrable object between the enemy and you.

Thats it what you have to know really, and if you fail to grasp those few simple points, you need serious help.

I play CoD occasionaly, but that doesnt mean i am moving around all tacticool and using supressing fire. I, instead jump around, throw frags, camp in hidious spots, just so i can rack up kills and win the round. I play some racing sims, but that doesnt mean i need to be agressuive and cheaty like in PR and CoD, because that is another "sport" and it isnt played like that.

You need a correct mindset for every game, to play it at full potential and not get downs syndrome the moment you doubleclick the PR icon.

Im not talking about not knowing where to fire, being a bit slow on reactions, not knowing some tactical procedures. I can understand that. I play racing sims for fun and my times are way off the records, but that doesnt mean i drive the wrong way and do donuts on the grid, wich PR people do by not listening to simple orders like "Dont spawn, dont shoot, follow me, take cover, wait for rally and we are spawning on H6, not A1, like you just did."

[Brainlaag]

You need a correct mindset for every game, to play it at full potential and not get downs syndrome the moment you doubleclick the PR icon.

I loled (in a positive way) at your post but that sentence is the truth, only the truth and nothing but the truth.

[Cassius]

I loled (in a positive way) at your post but that sentence is the truth, only the truth and nothing but the truth.

It isnt even that hard. If you manage to split your squad in 2 fierteams and are able to make one fierteam retreat while the other surpresses and finish it off by calling an airstrike on the enemy, you are already an 4 star general by PR standards. Simple and effective and yes the simple stuff works, but dont tell me its complicated or that you need to have an super IQ or be a cesarian tactician to bring your head into the game.

[Wicca]

I always thought that increasing the number of players, also increased the number of great squadleaders avalible. Aswell as avalible Fireteamleaders etc.

We still Lack COs. And all the "organized" people are in clans and could help out alot more by leading some public players once in a while, instead of stacking up in their clan squads.

This is especially true on 128. But having a competent squad of people in a clan togheter, is good for a CO. And when the shit hits the fan its the clan that wins.

Would be nice to see some more public players get "organized" not to the extent arma units do. But atleast to a semi PRT/community standard. Such as NEW or NwA. Most of the active players go on TS. and usually coordinate alot better/ promote gameplay in that way.

If 128 has a stable community behind it per server, with leaders, grunts pilots and all the other stuff that makes up a great game of PR, its quite easy to get good games. Regardless of the server.

I have spent my good portion of time as a public Squad Leader. In short of a few battles in PRT and events. I have only led people who choose to join my squad. Not people with the same Tags as myself.


The 128 is great, but as with 64 players it needs the right approach when it comes to squadleading. The SLs job gets easier, when he has a set of standards that reflect upon what also the server requires of the player. Such as a mic, mumble, english and to some extent, the ability to stay with the squad. This is basic ofc, but gives the SL less to worry about.

Everytime someone in my squad does something wrong, I spend alot of time resolving said matter by/Linking//helping or kicking the individual. So he is out of my way.

As they say, lead me follow me, or get out of my way.

This is very true for 128, anyone can fire a gun but can you follow orders/ reply to them. Can you not run away and get shot cause your "bored/ADD". Etc.

I usually take upon myself as being the retard, to advance the squad from that level togheter, until we turn into a tactical fire machine. Its easy. Expect everyone to be a retard. And then go from there. Take 1-3 min in base/field. Explain a few tings, get to know eachother and then go and kill, it does wonders for cohesive units.

TIME is not a thing you need to worry about, you have 4 hours to complete your objectives, chill and be sane about it as a SL. And get used to your role. If someone pisses off, and you have a group of loyal people around you. Then just stick with those. If you have the social awkwardness of a bird, then dont Squad Lead. Its all about assertivness as its been said. If you cant walk the walk, then there is about 63 others in the same team who might, so dont take 12 people on a wild goose chase.

[Arnoldio]

I will try some experiments with pub players, like you said, have a little chat in the main etc. But as I said, everybody must have a mind of SL for the squad to work at full performance.

[Arc_Shielder]

I don't SL anymore, but when I did, the first thing I would ask my squad who is new in PR. You would be surprised with the nr of newbies.

That saves a lot of rage fits down the road or forum whining. Above all, gaining conscience about the crowd you're trying to lead and educate them if needed. While I understand the principle that it's the newbie that should warn the SL about his lack of experience, it also seems kind of moronic to potentially jeopardize a whole round of fun or team efficiency because the SL couldn't spend 2 seconds typing in the squad channel. It saves a shitload of trouble.

[Bob of Mage]

By the way is there any plan to bring 64+ players to Co-op? As far as I know (which isn't much, but more than nothing) adding more bots will only really effect the server (unless all the bots are on your screen at once due to them all being stuck in a doorway). It shouldn't be too hard to up the limit of bots to 54 (max number of squad slots) and the player limit to 48 (or 54 if you want to be even) at the same time. The number of bots is set by one line of code whoes only requirement as far as I know is issues with licenses.

I would really like to see something done for Co-op since it appears so simple.