Project Reality Forums

Used to hate 4k maps.... now?

Not so much.

DesmoLocke wrote:Used to hate 4k maps.... now?

Not so much.

Exactly the same thoughts.

Think it would help client side lag problems if server size was lowered. When servers are 90 players and lower I seem to get 10-20 more fps (depending on the map size 1k maps are much more laggy than 4k maps) than on a full server.

tankninja1 wrote:Think it would help client side lag problems if server size was lowered. When servers are 90 players and lower I seem to get 10-20 more fps (depending on the map size 1k maps are much more laggy than 4k maps) than on a full server.

or get a better computer?

yellodeath wrote:or get a better computer?

pff, kiddie....no idea of ​​the matter ...

have the same problem ... i7 processor, gtx 670, 8gb ...
always the stupid sayings ... if I ever see your joining date, I know that you have no idea and an arcade are the player has no idea of pr ...

sorry for my bad english .... I use translator

but I see less and less of players on the servers, why?

also you can see only 4 servers that are full and the remaining with a few players ... you have no choice possibility as before ... 100 server do not match battlefield, just as the 8 man squads!
i play only vehicles, the rest is just confusing and crappy ... back to the good old times with 64er server, 6 man squads and especially nametags!

metal wrote:pff, kiddie....no idea of ​​the matter ...

have the same problem ... i7 processor, gtx 670, 8gb ...
always the stupid sayings ... if I ever see your joining date, I know that you have no idea and an arcade are the player has no idea of pr ...!

Good for you, I have a 4 year old computer and I'm running constantly at 60 fps with Vsync enabled on all maps with 100p during most situations. Lowest I had were 40. Guess it's an issue on your end.

metal wrote:also you can see only 4 servers that are full and the remaining with a few players ... you have no choice possibility as before ... 100 server do not match battlefield, just as the 8 man squads!
i play only vehicles, the rest is just confusing and crappy ... back to the good old times with 64er server, 6 man squads and especially nametags!

Or, you know, you could just join the 64 servers and leave the 100p servers to those that wish to play on them. There are 64 and 80p servers running, why moan about something when you have the choice.

Brainlaag wrote:Good for you, I have a 4 year old computer and I'm running constantly at 60 fps with Vsync enabled on all maps with 100p during most situations. Lowest I had were 40. Guess it's an issue on your end.



Or, you know, you could just join the 64 servers and leave the 100p servers to those that wish to play on them. There are 64 and 80p servers running, why moan about something when you have the choice.

Yes ,they are running but i tested 64 rus server...same shit, no nametags !!!!!!!!

whole pr 1.0. is sucking... i go today on QRF server. they had a passwort and play better things like official...

you all can lick my ***, i go play Arma 3 !!!!

metal wrote:Yes ,they are running but i tested 64 rus server...same shit, no nametags !!!!!!!!

whole pr 1.0. is sucking... i go today on QRF server. they had a passwort and play better things like official...

Fair point, didn't think of 64p server lacking name tags aswell.

metal wrote:pff, kiddie....no idea of ​​the matter ...

have the same problem ... i7 processor, gtx 670, 8gb ...
always the stupid sayings ... if I ever see your joining date, I know that you have no idea and an arcade are the player has no idea of pr ...

sorry for my bad english .... I use translator

but I see less and less of players on the servers, why?

also you can see only 4 servers that are full and the remaining with a few players ... you have no choice possibility as before ... 100 server do not match battlefield, just as the 8 man squads!
i play only vehicles, the rest is just confusing and crappy ... back to the good old times with 64er server, 6 man squads and especially nametags!

You'd think if these performance issues were as rampant and affecting such higher-level computers that there would be more people complaining. But the thing is, there aren't.

I have a computer similar to yours with the exception of a 660Ti that's OC'd instead of a 670, and I get solid 60fps in most situations. Occasionally and in certain situations it'll drop as low as 40~ but even that is definitely playable. Not that it solves your problems, but insofar as the "100 player servers too much for high-level gaming computers" argument, speak for yourself.

Personally, I love 100 player servers. The only thing that could make it better would be 128 player servers. My biggest gripe with PR has always been the effect assets have on gameplay. Which is to say, I hate that on asset-heavy maps like Kashan, you used to get one, MAYBE two full 6 man infantry squads doing their job on each team, and everything just felt like a vehicle war.

Now I'll admit, certain maps do not work spectacularly well with this amount of people. As should be expected, considering most (all?) of the maps were designed solely with 64 players in mind. It's going to take awhile of map and asset rebalancing before 100 players works to its fullest potential, but I for one am happy and willing to wait.

PR is going to lose players cause its laggy to all (dont matter what PC you have). Think 100p is too much, old maps are not suitable for 100p. Its became unbalanced. Huge FPS drops are very bad when I trying to attract new players and invite old good veterans to play.

zloyrash wrote:PR is going to lose players cause its laggy to all (dont matter what PC you have).

Obviously you must have done a lot of research to come up with a statement like that.

I have many friends playing PR. But I have much more friends played PR.
When I invite them to play 1.0 they come, but leave very soon cause its became unplayable now.

hope devs watch the playerlist on prspy ....

1.0 stink and whats the updater for.... little things like medic bug with one peach iin the *** is still there and much more small things....

but at all newbies, who post such shit, i wish you nice play on more and more empty servers

Noddy - if you want to be repeatedly disrespectful towards the Dev team - do it on a forum other than the one they provide. Temp ban to reflect upon his attitude.

You are complaining all the the time about bugs and didnt send only one bug report. Player counts were decreasing after release with EVERY RELEASE. It was in 0.9, in 0.95 and 0.97 and 0.98 that the release week was much more populated then the time after. Why? Many people play together, even those who have not the time to play regulary will take a look if the new version is out, but its completety normal that the playercounts decrease like this.

If you look into the Bug section there are many bugs to fix and iam sure the DEVs are on it, but they are not paid for that and do that in their freetime so bring a bit patience. A update for every bug is not what we want to see, they want to fix some bugs together before bringing an update because it can cause new problems. So stop playing PR or stop spamming every thread about how shitty 1.0 is and that you gonna stop playing it and give some constructive feedback instead.

Hm, moving from 64 to 100 is not that much of a deal... you can say tag names not showing up is a problem, but then again this is a plus from the reality point of view, game looks more real. It was the same when the minimap was removed.

I am a fan of big scale warfare, and my nickname in game is KingKong300, with 300 meaning the amount of players I would like to see on one server - yet, I would say that the increase of 50% of players is not that much of a game changer. PR 1.0 with 100 players looks almost the same as it used to be on good servers before, or PR tournament games.

Yes, all of the people who like 64p servers can feel bad about it, but you have to admit, keeping in mind there is no real reason why not allowing one server with high specs to go 300p - this limit (100p) seems pretty fair.
I think it is a good choice, regarding the opinion of all the players.

KingKong.CCCP wrote:Yes, all of the people who like 64p servers can feel bad about it, but you have to admit, keeping in mind there is no real reason why not allowing one server with high specs to go 300p - this limit (100p) seems pretty fair.
I think it is a good choice, regarding the opinion of all the players.

There's no real reason not to do that, however it wont happen cause as devs stated many times before, such server would drain all the population from other ones, and that's somehow supposed to be a bad thing. Dunno why, ask devs.

150 players per side with 9 sqauds ....have fun 8[

Why does this thread exist?

I much prefer playing PR1.0 rather than .98 and past versions. I like the majority of the changes the developers have made. Now, if you can flank an enemy and surprise them effectively, it has a more massive effect on the battle. And the old tactics still work, you just have to go further than you previously had to. And if you think that a defending team has too many eyes looking around... I don't even know what to tell you. I'm not trying to flame anyone, but saying that a defense has too many eyes is like saying that a tank is too well protected from a 5.56 round.