Project Reality Forums

Quite the contrary. 100 players makes tactics and strategy even more necessarry. If you are dealing with 6 guys, does a tank really make a difference? Is it worth calling it in so it can kill 1 or 2 guys before the rest scatter?

Now if you have 20 to 30 guys sitting on a flag, you might not get away with sniping 1 or 2 and rushing the rest. You might have to call in armor, try to fix them in position and finish them off with mortar/CAS . If a platoon sized team manages to coordinate well I am sure you will see how effective it is.

If anything tactics are even more relevant now.

And as for the hardware limitations, yeah they are there I can not argue that. Hopefully they will go away as machines evolve.

Well I have rarely played even as a squad leader not to mention Commander, but I'm pretty sure there is no tactics atleast on 1km maps, it's a mess(but it can be a fun mess sometimes), so I hope we will not see any good 100p servers running 1km maps more often than occasionally.

Can somebody explain to me as to why more players mean more strategic depth? I don't know whether you took a good look at just about ANY competitively played game, but just to illustrate how void your argumentation is:
Starcraft 1v1/2v2
Warcraft 1v1/2v2
CounterStrike 2v2/5v5
Dota 5v5


Outside of Dota(2), every other game may be played with at least double to triple the player numbers, so IF more players were to mean an increase in strategy, WHY then is the opposite the case?

I'm sorta busy the whole week through, but I'll give a full 1.0 feedback in shortly.

This might interest you guys:

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f29-pr ... ost1930141

The [QRF] CombinedArms Server will run with 64-80 slots pending further notice.

We will try and balance out the best ratio between 64 and 80 players on the server in the near future.

I. We feel that now, shortly after the release, having 64-players in the server makes it easier for people to organize themselves, get to know the game and it's new features while still providing quality gameplay.

II. We enforce Teamplay and Mumble. You must have a working microphone to play on our server. You must obey the chain of command and follow orders given to you. We are not a training server, but we welcome every new player that has what it takes to learn PR: Willingness to cooperate and communicate.

Nate(GER) wrote:This might interest you guys:

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f29-pr ... ost1930141

The [QRF] CombinedArms Server will run with 64-80 slots pending further notice.

We will try and balance out the best ratio between 64 and 80 players on the server in the near future.

I. We feel that now, shortly after the release, having 64-players in the server makes it easier for people to organize themselves, get to know the game and it's new features while still providing quality gameplay.

II. We enforce Teamplay and Mumble. You must have a working microphone to play on our server. You must obey the chain of command and follow orders given to you. We are not a training server, but we welcome every new player that has what it takes to learn PR: Willingness to cooperate and communicate.

Thanks, sir! Thumbs up for more servers like this in the near future!

carmikaze wrote: Might sound harsh, but what about adapt or leave?

Check your attitude, dude.
First you tell me to shut the fck up for expressing my opinion. Then you tell other guy to fck off because you disagreed with him. Now this one.
Seriously, check your attitude.
(Sorry for the off-topic).

Frontliner wrote:Can somebody explain to me as to why more players mean more strategic depth? I don't know whether you took a good look at just about ANY competitively played game, but just to illustrate how void your argumentation is:
Starcraft 1v1/2v2
Warcraft 1v1/2v2
CounterStrike 2v2/5v5
Dota 5v5


Outside of Dota(2), every other game may be played with at least double to triple the player numbers, so IF more players were to mean an increase in strategy, WHY then is the opposite the case?

I'm sorta busy the whole week through, but I'll give a full 1.0 feedback in shortly.

I'm going to have to disagree and argue that what you've said is based on a lot of false assumptions. The reason successful competitive games have small player counts is two-fold with very little to do with strategic depth and more to do with how interesting they are to watch.

1. Prizes and earnings. The larger the number of players, the lower the earning potential. Professional leagues can only attract the absolute top players when those players can actually earn something.

2. Monetisation. Professional leagues can only exist if those leagues can make money. They make money by having viewers and fans of teams. People that actually enjoy watching the matches, streams, videos, buying merchandise, and using the forums and communities to discuss their favourite teams, or to generally argue with each other. This can only happen for small player counts because it is absolutely impossible for a viewer to watch high player count games, understand what is going on, and to watch the match without missing the important action. Battlefield for example will NEVER be successful as a high player count competitive game, not because 32 or 64 player counts don't have a huge amount of strategic depth due to the sheer quantity of things in the game but because you could be watching one area of action on a map while completely missing much more interesting action somewhere else on the map. Large player counts simply don't make for a good spectator sport.

To put it in perspective. The largest sports in the world happen in arenas where you can see all the action at all times. With very few exceptions besides perhaps racing sports.

***

To put it bluntly, size of a game does not dictate strategic depth. The difference between lower player counts and higher player counts is 1 thing, organisation. It is easier to organise smaller numbers of people than higher numbers of people. Higher numbers fall apart into a disorganised mess much quicker against an organised group compared with lower numbers.

I have played fort about 45 minutes. So I cant say a thing about the amount of the 100 players yet. In my opion 100 players are quiet a lot of players. To much and quick contact with the enemy.
I liked the 64 players unwell sometimes you didnt lose any shot in a gameround. The more what I dont like is the 7-8 members in a squad. Make it 5 or 6.

I love the 100 man servers. Everything in the game from the top to the bottom is more of a risk-reward (its harder to accomplish goals and more rewarding when you do).

If I wanted an easy game, I'd go play BF3. I want a challenge. I want it to be hard for us to flank. I want it to be hard to cap a flag. I want it to be scary to run across a street in combat. 0.98 did not have these elements.

After 6 years myself and plenty of experience for most of these other guys, I'm surprised at the people complaining about difficulty. I love almost everything that was done with 1.0.

100 players is perfect.

Nate(GER) wrote:This might interest you guys:

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f29-pr ... ost1930141

The [QRF] CombinedArms Server will run with 64-80 slots pending further notice.

We will try and balance out the best ratio between 64 and 80 players on the server in the near future.

I. We feel that now, shortly after the release, having 64-players in the server makes it easier for people to organize themselves, get to know the game and it's new features while still providing quality gameplay.

II. We enforce Teamplay and Mumble. You must have a working microphone to play on our server. You must obey the chain of command and follow orders given to you. We are not a training server, but we welcome every new player that has what it takes to learn PR: Willingness to cooperate and communicate.

Excellent initiative, Nate! Even though I personally have always preferred having as many players on the server as is technically possible, this shows that the invididual communities & clans within PR are starting to form their own preferences and standpoints. Diversity is a great thing! Players now have more options to choose from.

100 player is defiantly too much on all 100p servers when I get anywhere near the front lines my fps drops to 15 well lower than that actually but the game only measures down to 15. TG with 90 player max (well really eighty eight) bumps my FPS to the mid 20s (most of the time) which although still bad isn't like playing a cartoon. FPS problems aside teamwork seems to be better with a few less people.

I can understand lamentations in therms of technical performance. But not in therms of gameplay. Sure, small scale battles happen like in Afghan8stan. But when you take the battle of fallujah, which wasnt exactly stalingrad, hundreds of men were involved in 2 by 2 km area. fallujah is 30 square even if we detract 3000 10.000 combatants were active in an area of roughly 5.5 by 5.5 miles.

Also if a flag is held by 6 guys mortars armored support and cas dont matter as much. When it is held by 15 to 20 + they do matter.

The more the merrier.

The only problem is that people play on their calculators and expect same performance as 5 years ago. Nope, not gonna happen.

- Happy owner of such calculator.

Skitrel wrote:I'm going to have to disagree and argue that what you've said is based on a lot of false assumptions. The reason successful competitive games have small player counts is two-fold with very little to do with strategic depth and more to do with how interesting they are to watch.

I fail to see how business has anything to do with strategy determination in games. Just take a look at sports that are played with a ball: soccer, basketball, volleyball, eg. Imagine how it would be with 3, 4, 5 or more balls, it would be a broken mess and extremely chaotic to say the least. There would be an abysmal amount of strategy involved if anything, and, bringing this back to PR, that's whats happening with the 100p servers. In contrast to that, I had 4 man squads in 0.98 getting more shit done than three 8 man squads now, don't tell me that the current game play has major tactical prospects when we have the "action (seeking) crowd" signing back in again.

Frontliner wrote:I fail to see how business has anything to do with strategy determination in games. Just take a look at sports that are played with a ball: soccer, basketball, volleyball, eg. Imagine how it would be with 3, 4, 5 or more balls, it would be a broken mess and extremely chaotic to say the least. There would be an abysmal amount of strategy involved if anything, and, bringing this back to PR, that's whats happening with the 100p servers. In contrast to that, I had 4 man squads in 0.98 getting more shit done than three 8 man squads now, don't tell me that the current game play has major tactical prospects when we have the "action (seeking) crowd" signing back in again.

I do not understand why you think that 100p server causes lack of coordinated gameplay.
The amount of players has nothing to do with teamwork.

You have more players on the server so the chances to meet "lonewolves" and "newbs" are higher as well.

Frontliner wrote:Just take a look at sports that are played with a ball: soccer, basketball, volleyball, eg. Imagine how it would be with 3, 4, 5 or more balls, it would be a broken mess and extremely chaotic to say the least.

Maps are pretty large and if we get 64vs64 again it will be like 6vs6 on normal soccer field.
Chaotic it is...but isnt chaotic when you are in army in war? Like you get drunk and you lost you rifle,sleep over at some other squad place....then you wake up,start talking ,find your rifle,squad....so...dont drink to much,stay with clear head and try follow your squad...

more players making it less strategic is a false connection. i've already pointed out the flaw in that statement. The level of strategic depth has not changed at all between 64-100 players. the only difference is now that easy maneuvers work less often. previously many players felt really sneaky when going around the right side of the battle space and rolling in to wipe the enemy out of the cap zone. now they don't because there's more enemy covering arcs. being sneaky does not equate to being strategic, and the increase in players has only brought this fact to light. With more enemy troops covering arcs now only teams that use real strategies that deal with enemy rearward positions are successful. it "feels" a bit more like a front line advance style battle, but thats how it ends up feeling when you have to deal with a more realistic amount of enemy resistance. you cant just sneak around behind the enemy now and pretend you're a super 1337 ninja.

if you feel more players has made it less strategic then thats a sign that you've been doing it wrong to begin with.

a3dboy1 wrote:I do not understand why you think that 100p server causes lack of coordinated gameplay.
The amount of players has nothing to do with teamwork.

Which is why I never spoke of teamwork at all. It wasn't my point and it's not what's lackluster with the game right now.


Bringer_of_D; yeah, I play the game wrong when the amount of people limits my strategic options and neither small nor large flanks yield adequate levels of success Point of flanking is to go largely undetected, and only be spotted when it's too late, if you think that I think of this as 1337 ninja stuff, you should go read some books about warfare honestly. But as I said, you have people telling how awesome it is to see action all around, and while that is fine and dandy(for them), the decreased success of properly executed strategies leads to the clusterfuck on the flags we see right now.

The problem isn't the amount of players on the servers, it's how many people just simply don't listen to squad leaders and do their own thing. With more players, you have do have more of that, so in a way it is a contributing factor, but what is the higher road to take here? Simply implement the following rules on your server and everything should be fine. It's going to involve a lot of kicking and a steep learning curve but I'd rather have 80/100 with 20 people kicked and tempbanned then just playing on an 80 slot server. You might even find that after implementing sticter rules that 100 isn't even enough. imo it should be more like 166 but with respawns of atleast 5 minutes, up to 30 minutes for arrests, but that's another topic for antoher day. do this:

All players must be in a squad or be kicked within 2-5 minutes.
All squadleaders must give orders every 1-30 minutes. 2 Offenses = Resign
All squadmembers must follow orders. 2 Offenses = Squadkick
There must be a commander before squads are created. There is to be a commander at all times. Highly Encouraged
Commander must give orders every 5-30 minutes.
Squadleaders must follow commander orders or explain why they are not able to within a reasonable amount of time. 3 Offenses = Resign

I know it seems super serious pants but I'd rather play with 80-90 people following those rules then any amount doing what you get a good 50% of the time with random squadmembers, even if it be one guy, he can slow your squad down or give you false security and completly kill gameplay, over and out.