Project Reality Forums

How about a bigger size server depending on the map? Some of the biggest maps in PR could definitely do with the largest amount of people on.

Having 10 people in a squad would be a recommendation aswell or 12.

illidur wrote:so you think that 128 + is a bad idea because you want to make a 4 man spec ops squad?

well the naysayers can always play on a smaller server. they aren't all going to be 128 or more. i say let the clans make that decision for themselves and not let killonsight make it for them.

i think people are just afraid of change.

no.... i don't want a 4 man spec ops SQ.... i hardly ever lead a spec ops SQ if i run a SQ it's a normal inf SQ or a mech inf SQ of 8, a SQ of 8 works perfectly for vehical size and also locking at 7 men allows your SQ to be transported all at once.
Anything more is just awkward.
I will play on a 128 player server, bigger isn't always better. Also I think you'll find not many running those large servers just because they'll be very hard to run and will just like a lot of the under admined servers these days, become un playable.

bigger is better, just needs a password and organized mumble. Perfect for tourny play!

I think we need to allowed only 1 or 2 server with 128 or more player. The other one stay to 64 players.

qs-racer wrote:I think we need to allowed only 1 or 2 server with 128 or more player. The other one stay to 64 players.

so... what you're saying is that if there are more than 256 people who like massive battles... they should search for another game?
I don't get it, how come you feel you have the right to force people into playing 64 battles, if they want to play 256?
How come I'm the one saying, I'm ok with few 200ppl servers, instead of you saying please leave few 64p alive?

I said it before, but I feel the need to say it again - nobody is forcing anybody to do something they don't want to. Even if the new patch comes with 256 option, I'm sure there will be plenty of 64 servers out there.
So what's the argument for you to say more than two 128 players servers is too much???
How come you don't feel rude saying that?

Agemman wrote:Anything more than 128 will be too much. It will be hard to coordinate as a team, and as squads. The fact that you have so many people will also increase the number of ways things can go wrong since you have to rely on more people overall.

128, enuff. Nothing more.

DICE write a few weeks ago - you need to balance player number vs. fun factor. Is 1 more player = more fun? How do you balance maps so they work with 30 people and 120 people? Stuff like that. Kinda hard to do it all.

To all the people saying 64 and 128 players is enough... No, no, and no! . There can never be enough player slots. I say bring on 256 players so people with the proper hardware can host these servers. For the people that don't like it, they can go play on many of the 64 player servers that will still be around. That is what is awesome about dedicated servers, people can choose how many players they want to play with. I've been watching the 128 player updates closely and I was very excited now I see this. Great job PR Team!

Lets make the best of what we have. Pushing everything to the limit is one thing. But planning is what makes operations great. Planning is what makes us win. So thats what we will do. Lets plan big servers

Planning does take time though, and as much as id love to jump into this. Alot of people are right, its quite much to drop into.

Wicca, are you implying what I think you're implying?



You want to extent the Time until Deployment to fifteen minutes?

You want to extent the Time until Deployment to fifteen minutes?

HAHAHHAHA GOOD ONE

well, I'll give my opinion about this. The only way any amount of players is fun is if they are working together. It doesn't matter if it's 10 or 500! This is what makes PR so much more fun than any other FPS out there, TEAMWORK! That's is what makes these kind of multiplayer games addictingly fun, not gun types, not vehicles and jets, not maps, just teamwork. Those things are cool and add some fun for a while, but then we people get bored of them. But teamwork is what will keep you playing, time after time. Recently PR has had a drop in players on the game at any given time, I think, because there is beginning to be a lack of teamwork.

ANYWAY....

I really like the amount of players as long as they work together. I've had absolutely awesome matches and absolutely horrible matches, depending on the amount of teamwork. I also really like to be Commander when there is teamwork involved. People don't even have to be using mumble, just use the ingame VOIP or TYPE SOMETHING FOR GOD's SAKE!! I hate it when I walk into a squad or get in the CO position and say "Can everybody hear me?" wait a little bit then get a "Yeah, I can hear you." back and then I say "Can anybody else hear me?" and get no response. Soo yeah... we need to train noobs or something cause teamwork is failing fast! And I think that we should give servers the choice of players but only to about 256, that way the Devs won't have to make as many modified maps for the player count. Well I guess that's all for my rant so...
Teamwork............
.............
.............
Teamwork teamwork teamwork teamwork teamwork teamwork teamwork teamwork!
................................yeah......

I may be slightly intoxicated but my opinons comes down to this:

We can't increase squads beyond 9, and the reasonable amount a SL can lead is realistically no more than 10. Yes, we have seen squads of up to 13 but most are poolrly coordinated and therefore detract from teamwork. Personally I feel 8 to be a good number for both practical and vehicle wise.

The more people you put on the a map, the more complicated the battle becomes. Do mappers spread the battle out so the fight isnt centered on one area? Or do they have numerous areas contested? If its spread out, it might as well be a different server if the whole team is never in the same area. If its in the same area, can the hardware and majority of users have a decent enough fps?

The idea of 250 people on one server excites me greatly, but the decision as to whether it can be employed practically and for FUN is doubtful at this stage. Even DICE have dismissed the idea.

Personally I believe the best number, atleast for now to be around the 140 mark with the current maps. I dont think the maps should be larger, it would be like we are now with 64 players. A denser battlefield is more fun!

Rico wrote:The reasonable amount a SL can lead is realistically no more than 10!

The function of the SL as it is now might, in actuality, be a lesser form of commander when in a server with more than the normal amount of players. In my mind, I don't see an SL wandering around the map dragging 12 or so guys along with him.

A Fireteam Leader would do the work that an SL does now.

The function of an SL in a server with higher numbers of players would need to be organizing the fireteams into cohesive task forces by: giving them directives, requesting and coordinating trans, updating CO orders, etc. That's what a real life SL is supposed to do.

The game engine doesn't supply a means to increase the number of squads, as far as I know, but given that we are currently able to have squads that surpass the original limit, we have the ability to shape the squads into workable assets.

If a system becomes standard within these servers, then players will adapt to the changes and learn to understand/use it. In the same way that people adapt when some servers require mumble, or that players be in a squad at all times.

Rico wrote:The more people you put on the a map, the more complicated the battle becomes. Do mappers spread the battle out so the fight isnt centered on one area? If its in the same area, can the hardware and majority of users have a decent enough fps?

This continues to be an issue, for me.

Any individual person shouldn't command more than, say, 4-5 things.

That's why a squad leader should seperate his squad into fireteams. He then commands 3 groups while each group's commander commands the 3 people in the group. Every 3 squads gets a platoon commander, and the team is commanded by a single leader who commands the 2ish platoons and specialists.

This is all very achievable.

Pirate wrote:Wicca, are you implying what I think you're implying?



You want to extent the Time until Deployment to fifteen minutes?

Obvious troll is obvious?

Maybe you want to reread the thread pirate, or stop typing in this thread/forum.

Other than that, i put my hat off, gave me a good laugh

The information that is crossed in this debate sometimes make people confused and have a vague notion of what's possible or not that someone is bond to repeating stuff. It's an endless cycle.

Having said this, I have no idea if what I'm about to say is accurate. But for what I understood the only possibility to make 256p real is if squads are indeed extended (to ease the spread of the team) and we live without the in-game voip. That means having to rely on a next version of Mumble that is mandatory, more accessible and compensates for all of that.
Of course it doesn't retract the possible performance issues and how the current maps were not designed for such. At the end of the day this is the DEVs game and I think at this point anyone should of realize that they prioritize strategy (and all that comes with it) over numbers. There is the need of room for tactical maneuvering according to the size of those strategical points (NOT THE MAP'S SIZE PER SE). And if you take out the flags, then what will happen is there will be less inter-squad teamwork for the sole purpose that you can now fly straight and camp next to the enemy's main base. There would be no purpose, no concentration of efforts to have a frontline feeling.

Considering that for the most part, some want 96 and others want 140/150, it seems to me that we're back at where we started. 120/128 sounds like a reasonable and satisfying number for all.

KingKong.CCCP wrote:so... what you're saying is that if there are more than 256 people who like massive battles... they should search for another game?
I don't get it, how come you feel you have the right to force people into playing 64 battles, if they want to play 256?
How come I'm the one saying, I'm ok with few 200ppl servers, instead of you saying please leave few 64p alive?

I said it before, but I feel the need to say it again - nobody is forcing anybody to do something they don't want to. Even if the new patch comes with 256 option, I'm sure there will be plenty of 64 servers out there.
So what's the argument for you to say more than two 128 players servers is too much???
How come you don't feel rude saying that?

Ok, so why didn't BF2 have massive player servers? Why do other games limit the amount of players even if its possible to have much greater?

For gameplay reasons. The 120 player server IS NOT PR. Its terrible gameplay. New players to PR will ofc go to the highest player server as they want 'epic big battles' they will see the gameplay there and may never come back as its not what PR is about.

So yes, I think it is fair to say that if you want 256 player battles; 'Go find another game'. As this one and its player base is not ready for it.

LudacrisKill wrote:Ok, so why didn't BF2 have massive player servers? Why do other games limit the amount of players even if its possible to have much greater?

For gameplay reasons. The 120 player server IS NOT PR. Its terrible gameplay. New players to PR will ofc go to the highest player server as they want 'epic big battles' they will see the gameplay there and may never come back as its not what PR is about.

So yes, I think it is fair to say that if you want 256 player battles; 'Go find another game'. As this one and its player base is not ready for it.

This pretty much sums it. I love the idea to have 126 players on server, but only if it's still PR. If not then I will stick to 64. Developers hopefully make it pr-like and made a good decision about it, but still it's about quality of gameplay. Also I hope they will remain with their policy of standardized demands from servers.

With that limited space you still have to take a lot of factors into consideration. In normal world even enormous army can be flanked or tactically overwhelmed by attacking key objects, here you have same space like we had and more players, on some maps that just doesn't work. Also another note is replayability, most of us tick to PR longer than to any other game. The reasons are few, but mostly they are fairly simple. You have very unique rounds on maps that are well designed, you often have other objects to attack, other asset layout, etc., etc, also game is not constant action which makes you not bored of it so soon, as with other games. With more player on smaller maps, it's getting hectic, arcadish and repetitive - I played 3 times on Muttrah on this server and all looked the same so far.

Saying this, I'm still supporter of 128 ppl on server. :>

I think its safe to say that the PR-DEVs will choose a player limit that works best with the rest of the mod.

I would like some of you to consider a few aspects of this before becoming overexcited:

1) Soppa's server is technically excellent; because large player numbers work here does NOT automatically mean it'll work well as the standard in PR.

2) as a beta server with a very public server thread etc alot of regular PR players are playing there, which may indicate that gameplay for the average public player will not be the same

just keep it in mind, don't get overexcited. When the 128 player stuff was being discussed in teh team section there was a very overexcited vibe to the discussion which threatened to override good sense; so we understand that you're excited. But try and keep the big picture in mind.