Project Reality Forums

Train all ze troops. For war....

It sucks with all the rain though.

Anyway, 128... Is big and its epic, so long as people are on mumble and they arent being lonewolfs with snipers.

Psykogundam wrote: @ :O P
When this info gets released, your still gonna have a big problem with maintaining the server. sure there are rules involved now and we can predict when its going to crash and stuff but your still going to have to buy a big server and maintain it and its going to crash often.
Try not to become too frustrated, there will be a payoff eventually for the servers who have suffered, im sure of it.

'[R-COM wrote:MaSSive;1743311']128p code is now PR official project. Its being worked on and once its ready it will be released for all. Unfortunately as most people said here it requires very powerful machine only for himself ( one 128p bf2 r server ) or at least one per core, and in my opinion its not worth it.

For this you will need at least quad xeon with 1333Mhz fsb and high clock rates 3Ghz+, and same type of ram, running on headless linux x64. Afaik there is no Windows version, its being worked on linux 64bit.

Running cost for that kind of server is not cheap, and many clans/communities will not be able to afford it. Bottom line, are you starting to get the picture what I'm talking about?

Let it be as it is now, cause that is the best atm.

Just one question, If the above comments are true? Why bother? All this work and all the players that are taken away from other clan servers of normal population types (64 player) If we wont be able to afford it with out a big cost increase and still be crashing, Why bother wasting time on it. To me it seams as its a we do it cos we can not because its adding any thing that will be used in PR once and if clans can afford it.

Just a simple question, not intending to flame, Why bother? atm alot of servers are feeling the pinch of 128 players playing on a server and helping to devolope code that will never be used due to cost and stability as mentioned above.

May be the time could be better spent forcing 64 player servers to crash and debugging them. The clans that run 64 players servers would LOVE to have random crashes fixed before a buggy 128 player server code is released.

Valid point Orford, but its like that for now. They are testing it and tweaking so it doesn't crash so often, and maybe use less resources. But I cant see that happen soon. Just look at your server power and its load on core when its full *64p* and then think what would be if you had 64p more on the server. Load on cpu/network. Hm? Heck even club with 128 ppl in would be overloaded...yep depends on its size...

I suppose our dedi box could take it, we pay a lot for the beast. It's running 3 PR servers, Teamspeak, Some dig and build game server and hopefully soon ArmA2 and it would still have loads of resources left. Although would like to see some effort going into debugging 64p server files if the brains are around that can do this sort of thing. Help the many who run servers now would be better than helping the few who would be able to afford 128p+ in the future.

Either way good luck with what your doing, moving PR forward is always a good thing.

*NwA*Orford wrote:I suppose our dedi box could take it, we pay a lot for the beast. It's running 3 PR servers, Teamspeak, Some dig and build game server and hopefully soon ArmA2 and it would still have loads of resources left. Although would like to see some effort going into debugging 64p server files if the brains are around that can do this sort of thing. Help the many who run servers now would be better than helping the few who would be able to afford 128p+ in the future.

Either way good luck with what your doing, moving PR forward is always a good thing.

Im fairly confident the problem is not only with the resources, but also with the network connection. I can imagine you need atleast a 1Gb connection on the box to be able to run the 128.

Then again Im not familiar with your guys server.

[R-CON]Wicca wrote:Train all ze troops. For war....

It sucks with all the rain though.

Anyway, 128... Is big and its epic, so long as people are on mumble and they arent being lonewolfs with snipers.

Even not 128, there are ppl being lonewolfs with sniper or marksman even anti-tank in 64 mode.
Mumble is epic, but I can't find one single guy when server is full.

BTW, I am much more looking forward PRV!

I'm really psyched for 128 players, but this transition does represent a bit curve for the PR community,

what I would do if I were a server operator right now is identify another server they'd be willing to work with, to pool their resources and playerbase; because eventually 128 will surely be public and when that day comes you're gonna need to have the hardware and player following to take advantage of it.

Though I do want to see 128 code on other servers asap, simply to see if it actually ports well to other server hardware/software.

But even if every server has the 128 code....I think the community will have to change to meet the challenge. You'll have to work together, there won't be much point for small clan servers outside of PRSP imo; the 128 server will become the standard with a few 80 player servers etc thrown in for those who want a less busy game or don't have the hardware for the full number.

More PR players altogheter perhaps?

*NwA*Orford wrote:Just one question, If the above comments are true? Why bother? All this work and all the players that are taken away from other clan servers of normal population types (64 player) If we wont be able to afford it with out a big cost increase and still be crashing, Why bother wasting time on it. To me it seams as its a we do it cos we can not because its adding any thing that will be used in PR once and if clans can afford it.

Why does Lamborghini make cars? They are very unpredictable, go fast as hell and on top, extremely expensive. Yet they still make them, because they can. Same with 128.

Just to clear it up, Im looking forward to the epic large battles. It will bring better balance to large AAS maps that have to few INF squads in relation to heavy assets. Being able to do it with our set of rules when its ready. Keep up the good work. When its ready its ready.

@Arnoldio,

Your thinking has one serious overwhelming unmissable flaw. Lamborghini "SELL" there car`s PR server providers dont charge you to play and the DEV`s dont charge to download and play there game.

Spelling isnt my strong point.

Regarding hardware demands... Even if the 128p code is public no server is forced to offer 128 or more slots. I guess you can set the limit to around 80p and still can run it on average server hardware.

*NwA*Orford wrote: @Arnoldio,

Your thinking has one serious overwhelming unmissable flaw. Lamborghini "SELL" there car`s PR server providers dont charge you to play and the DEV`s dont charge to download and play there game.

I dont believe they make money from those cars really. Thats why they are under ownership of Audi and VW. They just fiddle with the money they are provided with and make some rich people happy or dead.

Rudd wrote:I'm really psyched for 128 players, but this transition does represent a bit curve for the PR community,

what I would do if I were a server operator right now is identify another server they'd be willing to work with, to pool their resources and playerbase; because eventually 128 will surely be public and when that day comes you're gonna need to have the hardware and player following to take advantage of it.

Though I do want to see 128 code on other servers asap, simply to see if it actually ports well to other server hardware/software.

But even if every server has the 128 code....I think the community will have to change to meet the challenge. You'll have to work together, there won't be much point for small clan servers outside of PRSP imo; the 128 server will become the standard with a few 80 player servers etc thrown in for those who want a less busy game or don't have the hardware for the full number.

Even 90 players would be a great leap forward. It feels like every player beyond 64 make so huge difference as all of them go into infantry units. 64+ really is great at every level.

What is the hardware requirement difference exactly? BF2 is a old game now. I used a old discarded desktop non-gaming computer for 64-server without problem. The python script for PR seems very linear but I don't know about the internal functions in BF2. Maybe n*log(n) or something for the load, theoretically.

[quote=""'[R-CON"]Wicca;1743672']More PR players altogheter perhaps?[/quote]
I certainly believe so. I for example only play when 64+ is available.

[quote="RedWater""]Im fairly confident the problem is not only with the resources, but also with the network connection. I can imagine you need atleast a 1Gb connection on the box to be able to run the 128.

Then again Im not familiar with your guys server.[/quote]
Shouldn't be a problem. When I measured I think it was like 11kB/s per client outbound for a ordinary server. That gives around 11 Mbit/s for 128 clients. Even given twice that rate because of more objects gives 22 Mbit/s.

I feel there is overall a problem with people using pro dedicated servers at huge costs. In the good old days, gaming servers were at home at low costs. Quake, CS, BF2, FTP, whatever...

manligheten wrote:Even 90 players would be a great leap forward. It feels like every player beyond 64 make so huge difference as all of them go into infantry units. 64+ really is great at every level.

Agreed, 96 players /w 8 man squads would be good. An extra squad and a bit per team, with no net increase in assets would make some of the combined arms maps less stale and more about the infantry. And 2 infantry squads makes for generally good gameplay. 8 men per squad is enough for one squad leader to handle and enough to be divided into reasonably effective fireteams.

Personally I think it can get a bit silly with too many players. Teams become less co-ordinated and less effective because there's too many people and the squads are too large for squad leaders to handle. Communication also starts to break down, and assets can become too preoccupied with blatting enemies instead of supporting their own.

manligheten wrote:What is the hardware requirement difference exactly? BF2 is a old game now. I used a old discarded desktop non-gaming computer for 64-server without problem. The python script for PR seems very linear but I don't know about the internal functions in BF2. Maybe n*log(n) or something for the load, theoretically.

I seem to recall someone had statistics for the bandwidth posted on the forums a while back, which seemed to be a quite dramatic increase as player numbers increased. Don't know anything about the server load though.

manligheten wrote:Shouldn't be a problem. When I measured I think it was like 11kB/s per client outbound for a ordinary server. That gives around 11 Mbit/s for 128 clients. Even given twice that rate because of more objects gives 22 Mbit/s.

That implies it scales linearly, but all players may need to know about what the other players are doing. The outbound for each player will increase as the number of players increases.

manligheten wrote:I feel there is overall a problem with people using pro dedicated servers at huge costs. In the good old days, gaming servers were at home at low costs. Quake, CS, BF2, FTP, whatever...

Home connection speeds generally aren't up to it.

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:

Agreed, 96 players /w 8 man squads would be good. An extra squad and a bit per team, with no net increase in assets would make some of the combined arms maps less stale and more about the infantry. And 2 infantry squads makes for generally good gameplay. 8 men per squad is enough for one squad leader to handle and enough to be divided into reasonably effective fireteams.

Personally I think it can get a bit silly with too many players. Teams become less co-ordinated and less effective because there's too many people and the squads are too large for squad leaders to handle. Communication also starts to break down, and assets can become too preoccupied with blatting enemies instead of supporting their own.

AquaticPenguin wrote:Agreed, 96 players /w 8 man squads would be good. An extra squad and a bit per team, with no net increase in assets would make some of the combined arms maps less stale and more about the infantry. And 2 infantry squads makes for generally good gameplay. 8 men per squad is enough for one squad leader to handle and enough to be divided into reasonably effective fireteams.

Personally I think it can get a bit silly with too many players. Teams become less co-ordinated and less effective because there's too many people and the squads are too large for squad leaders to handle. Communication also starts to break down, and assets can become too preoccupied with blatting enemies instead of supporting their own.

Best post in this topic. It would really allow for the best gameplay and compromise between use of resources and BF2 squad limit.

Also answering OP - there is still nametag bug present afaik (although I would prefer PR without tags at all ).

+1 for 96 spots

AquaticPenguin wrote:Agreed, 96 players /w 8 man squads would be good. An extra squad and a bit per team, with no net increase in assets would make some of the combined arms maps less stale and more about the infantry. And 2 infantry squads makes for generally good gameplay. 8 men per squad is enough for one squad leader to handle and enough to be divided into reasonably effective fireteams.

Could use more trans trucks and helis. 10-12 man sq works really well also. You can make 8 men sq out of 12, so...

AquaticPenguin wrote: Personally I think it can get a bit silly with too many players. Teams become less co-ordinated and less effective because there's too many people and the squads are too large for squad leaders to handle. Communication also starts to break down, and assets can become too preoccupied with blatting enemies instead of supporting their own.

Yea, but it much better with new mumble. Although, more than 128 players doesn't really add anything. Some maps are furthermore not very playable, like Qui Riwer, Muttrah, Ghost Train, Fools Road, Kozelsk and Kashan. It gets to crowded and leave no space for manouvers. Muttrah would work with some minor adjustments though. Only remove the wall by the west-east going street. Maps like Tad See works well so it's more about map design than size.

AquaticPenguin wrote: That implies it scales linearly, but all players may need to know about what the other players are doing. The outbound for each player will increase as the number of players increases.

Home connection speeds generally aren't up to it.

Twice as many clients and twice as many objects would imply 4 time as much data usage, but some what lower, due to headers etc.

Kain888 wrote:Also answering OP - there is still nametag bug present afaik (although I would prefer PR without tags at all ).

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

manligheten wrote:Could use more trans trucks and helis. 10-12 man sq works really well also. You can make 8 men sq out of 12, so...

True, though the usefulness of squads and the communication between members seems to break down at around the 10 player mark. If the squad is spread out then mumble squad chat is often drowned out, but equally having 10-12 people close together is bad for the team. When you have so many people in a squad it's hard to tell who's who, hard for the squad leader to control, and all too easy for the chat to become overwhelmed, incoherent and frustrating.

The name-tag problem is exacerbated when you have so many people in a squad, I've been deeply frustrated when there have been two disparate groups, even if just one or two people can't maintain mumble squad silence then you can't tell who's talking, can't tell who's next to you and who's in the other 'fire-team' and as soon as you get in contact, all elements of coherency in mumble break down as contact bearings are called out and you don't know where the bearings are relative to.

It can be pulled off, certainly, but if you want to have an effective team it's better to divide and conquer.

edited to add: I think there should be the same number of helis, with trucks to take up the slack. Just having more helis unnecessarily takes people off the battlefield. Two Helicopters should be enough for most situations, and losing them should make things more difficult (then your pilots could perhaps use the trucks to resupply.

The majority of problems I've seen with helicopters has been that they've been shot down, not that there's too few of them to cover the team. More helis would just mean more would get blown up, it wouldn't mean your team would be supplied any better. Also it would mean there would be 3 or 4 helis milling about in base doing bugger all rather than just the normal 2.

manligheten wrote:Yea, but it much better with new mumble.

The new mumble is a massive improvement, and makes the large scale possible. However I've noticed garbled voices on local chat with large numbers of players, and it generally cannot alleviate the general communication clusterf**k it can turn into with large squads.

manligheten wrote:Twice as many clients and twice as many objects would imply 4 time as much data usage, but some what lower, due to headers etc.

Yeah that's what I was imagining as a worst case.

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

Well there's one way to find griefers, either they'll team kill one of your guys and you can report them from that, or if they're being sufficiently annoying you can team kill them to find out their name. It's far from ideal but a solution if name-tag problems can't be solved.

I was thinking that mumble has an overlay, and it also has player positions for doing local chat (are close players positions held client side?), and it also has some information about yourself. It would be quite a hack and a hell of a mumble plugin, but could it be possible to show name-tags in position via the mumble overlay?

I have grown accustume to large squads, and I do not have a problem leading them. JUst spend some time with it, it grows on you, more easily than you think.