Project Reality Forums

I love when Wicca screams on TS <3 haha.

Wicca wrote:Cropcop please type properly? Your saying im smoking pot, but i cant make out what you type. Refrase it so i get your point.

First of all every single word is properly typed there.

Secondly, you cant understand or you dont want to? Because my point is clear, more or less. I will sum it up: Your post contradicts itself. Mature players wont hold the extreme majority of the server. Admins are biased. Too many admins increases the issue.

Now you wish to know the details of these points I was trying to make? Read my previous post then.

I wasnt able to understand your point. You said i was smoking pot, hence you offend me. And then you say herrp derrp and use "" as if i get what your saying, im not.

Now so what your saying is, mature players wont play on large servers? Where did you get that info?
More admins means more biased attitude towards players you? Their own power gets abused? What do you mean?

Wicca and CroCop, if you want to have an argument over semantics then could you please do it via PM, and not on the public boards.

Has anyone suggested intergrating mumble and PR in some way that people who want to join a server HAVE to be in their respective mumble channel?

(posted this in the 128player feedback thread)

I think 128 players servers is a chaos.... IMO shoukd be 96p.

Also, with many many servers empty, I think PR team should give licences for large servers (96 or 12 according to the amount of players in each continent.

Example: South America: 2 128 Servers (1 for Brasil and other for Spanish Latin American players, which would be enough since we don't have more than 50 players in latin america and Brasil does have like 64).

Europe: 2 or 3 128P Licences.

China: 2 or 3 128p licences.

Australia: 2 licences.

North America: 2 or 3 Licences.

Russia: 2 Licences.

And they would have to select who would be carrying the licences according to admining level.

I would like to see the player amount start from 80 and increase from there. The gameplay with 116 people is really poor.

Like jigsaw said, lets crawl first.

The gameplay with 116 people is really poor.

wouldn't particularly agree tbh, but I do agree with taking this one step at at time.

Need better squad management. was just playing and we had a "Kiowa", "blackhawk" and "mortar" squad. On a normal server this is fine, but on this server they should all be under one "asset" squad IMO.

I like pot, just saiyan.

User infracted for useless/unhelpful post content - Jigsaw

Damian(>>>PL wrote:I dont agree with you mate, I agree with the fact that FOBs system need some remake.
Even with 80 pleyers per site we still need some spawns.

sorry i guess i should have been clearer, when i said remove spawn i meant if the player count was to be upped to somewhere near 256. with ~160 players current FOB system should still work. however increasing the area in which assets can be built would still be useful, even with the current team sizes.

around 100 is good, with 150 it gets disorganized and stupid. 100 increases the battles so you dnt have to wait 1 h untill you see an enemy

soldier19919 wrote:around 100 is good, with 150 it gets disorganized and stupid. 100 increases the battles so you dnt have to wait 1 h untill you see an enemy

When do you ever have to wait 1 hr to see an enemy ? unless you suck hella bad of course.

gazzthompson wrote:When do you ever have to wait 1 hr to see an enemy ? unless you suck hella bad of course.

I've played a few 128 player games where I've had to wait one hour to actually see an enemy....
But I've been sniped at, mortared, bombed, and everything else during that one hour, so it was fine.

Like a game of Command and Conquer I played on Kashan yesterday on the 128 server; I was perched on the hill overlooking North Village for a lot of the game, and I didn't see any enemies, but it was still plenty of fun, since the Americans were hitting our Firebase with mortars and our tanks were shelling the Village.

PR is pretty much the only game I know of where you can not fire your weapon once during the whole game (happened to me one or two times in my PR history) and still have a great time.

Design maps, or versions of maps, around 256 players. Do not have a 256 player server playing 64 player maps.

Perhaps increase the map layers, after 64, 128, and also 256. A 256 player server isn't going to always have 256 players in them.

If I use kashan as an example, 3 tanks, a few trucks, 2 helicopters, 3 bradleys, 2 apachies/jets, 4 aa, and 2(?) logistic trucks won't work for 128 players.



You would also have to increase how many squads you can make per team, or drastically increase squad sizes. 8x9=72. That leaves 56 people without squads.

You also have to think of Asset Squads, which may only have 2-4 people in them.

Perhaps increasing squad size to 12(2 fireteams?), and having the ability to make 12 squads. This leaves some wiggle room for locked squads and such.

Deviant we cant have over 9000 layers on maps. I dont think it goes above 4 (16,32,64 and 128 - if the 128 works that is)

CroCop wrote:Deviant we cant have over 9000 layers on maps. I dont think it goes above 4 (16,32,64 and 128 - if the 128 works that is)

dont need 32 layer. should be like this.

skirmish -16
normal -64
big server-128
omg -256 (probably not gonna happen without the loss of a major clan's server pop. survival of the fittest?)


i think the fobs work fine on 128.

CroCop wrote:Deviant we cant have over 9000 layers on maps. I dont think it goes above 4 (16,32,64 and 128 - if the 128 works that is)

Didn't know that. it would also take up a lot of memory :X


Just because we CAN have 264 players on a server however, doesn't mean we should do it. The dev's should have an official test server, and see how everything plays out.

Actually, i think its possible to have more than just 3 layers on a map. Like you have cnc, coop, aas, inf, std etc.

Its In the gamemode. You just create new gamemodes.

As far as the squad managing difficulty is concerned, I believe that with a certain protocol to follow, one could run a fairly large sized squad fairly easily.

If the SL treats his squad in the same manner that a CO commands his army, organization shouldn't be that difficult.

- Divide the squad into efficient fireteams each with their own leaders.

- Command the fireteam, don't lead them.

- Each fireteam can manage themselves under the SL instruction.

- Use the squad VOIP for inter-fireteam leader/SL comms; and if necessary, whole fireteam orders (generally forbidden for non-fireteam leaders/SLs).

- Use mumble for local communication.