Project Reality Forums

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?

Because the game mechanics of vBF2 neither require nor facilitates increased player numbers. The reason why vBF2 and similar games have population restrictions is because, due to the game design, the point at which an increase in population has either no impact or a negative impact is so low. Bigger pop limits means bigger maps, more assets, technical hurdles(Whereas PR as a mod doesn't have to aim for optimization, a commercial game kind of does), etc.

This is not the case with PR. Let us, for instance, take the HMG emplacement as an example. Let's say that an HMG manned by 1 player can effectively engage 10 people(Just as an arbitrary value). However, an HMG emplacement is a static and local asset and assigning 1/32 of you total manpower to an asset is rarely ever economical as 10 people will rarely come within its range. However, if the pop limit is increased to 128, doubling the manpower to 64, then that investment into manning HMGs suddenly becomes more economical, not only because the manpower cost was halved, but also because the enemy footprint is increased as well.

In PR increasing the population decreases the manpower cost, whereas in vBF2 it would simply be adding more of the same.

The 120 player server IS NOT PR. Its terrible gameplay.

I suggest you play more on the server if you think it's terrible gameplay.

The only actual problems with higher pop servers is squad limitations. What would be required for a functional high pop server is a change in the squad system and/or the organizational structure within squads, on both a developer and player level.

Bravely following orders, as is expected of me as a German by the international community (do not mention the war pls), I will address the Big Picture.

As we go into the higher player numbers organisation becomes a major issue.

You have to have competent players around you in all kinds of situations.

Starting small. If you want your squad to function well with 8-13 people you'll need people you can trust to fill in as fireteam leaders.

Now you need a competent SL who knows when to micromanage individuals and when to just let his fireteamleaders manage their men.

If you now add that a person can probably control no more than 3-4 individuals very effectively, you get some pretty definite numbers about praticality of player numbers.

Say a Commander is a very talented individual and can control 6 people simultaniously very effectively.

6x13
+1 commander
=79

So 158 players would be the absolute Maximum until everything descends into chaos. If you wanted more you would probably find that you'd have to embrace military doctrine much more thoroughly in order to still function well.

Without a commander you are pretty much bound to get anally violated at anything more than the 64 player maximum.

killonsight95 wrote:All the of the things you've said are not possible.
1024 players will need a HUGE server that wouldn't be possible and would take so long for the technology to become cheap enough PR2 would probs already be out.

Firstly you guys still arn't seeing some of the problems we're facing:

- We are barely able to run 128 players with the current server, and it costs a lot to run/buy a server.
- After the 9 SQ limit is breached we cannot use voip, also the commander cannot see any of the SQ's past the 9th SQ.
- Even with a 4KM map 100 players is enough to make it seem crowded anymore than that and it'll become spammy, and anything under 4KM will not be a viable option for a map, also 4KM maps take AGES to make and create.
- The more vehicals and players there are the lower FPS you will have 256 players will make a good 40-50% of players be forced to play on low.
- The game mehanics at the moment arn't quite ready for 128 players yet nevermind 256.


50-60 players a side lets us keep voip, allows lockable squads without leaving anyone out, as well as keeping SQ numbers at a good easy level to command.

50-60 players per side is optimum for everyone, both server owners and admins (imagine admining 256 players?) as well as keeping the game-play good and realistic for the player.

You completely missed the point of my post. 1024 players was sarcasm - couldn't you really notice it without " " mark? I mean we should not increase player limit until there will be conditions for it and there will be designated training mode. But no training mode like we previously had in PR but training mode that won't let people play until they learn how to. Otherwise more players means more pain for server admins and more anarchy instead of better gameplay.

About vechicles - I don't want more vechicles, I want more space in vechicles that have more space IRL.

And more possible squads + designated commanders for each server. Otherwise 256 players is chaos, nothing else.

Look mati you missed the point that this

mati140 wrote:About vechicles - I don't want more vechicles, I want more space in vechicles that have more space IRL.

and this

mati140 wrote:And more possible squads

is both hardcoded. No that I agree with killonsight, just wanted to correct you ??:.

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.

There are bad rounds, and there are brilliant rounds on the 128 server. That's something to be expected when something is new and exciting.

I honestly dont think there is a PR "Standard" that comes across all servers.

There is no enforcing rules made by the Server license Agreement. Nor does all servers have the same rules by default. A few is shared. But with the amount of maps, players, nationalities and admin numbers per server. Gameplay will never reach an overbearing standard.

The core element of PR is Squad Cohesion. After that comes Team Cohesion. The real issue i see. Is not who is good Squadleaders, who is good at leading, playing with people you know etc. Its all about the tools the players have, on each side, and how they then utilize that to win or lose.

As i said, the core is squad cohesion, and bf2 voip enables that very well. Since its built into the game. If you want team cohesion "easily" you have to download a 3rd party tool, such as mumble or ts3. And hope the rest of the team is in the same program/server/channel.

Then the objectives the team has, will dictate if its a good game or not. Some players, have excelled themself on rushing, or blocking an enemy capping a flag. To huge frustration of other players. Since essentialy, they are using the game mechanic in a way to win, by not honourably following the structure given by the devs. IE follow the AAS order. Some may argue its realistic to attack a white flag, i agree. But the gamemechanic itself makes it harder to win, and more frustrating because

1) You werent expecting the enemy there. Since there is an AAS order.
2) The only way you can win, is by capping the enemy out. (Or kill them) And thus, by blocking your flag your team has now been hinderd to cap it which slows the down considerably. And will most likely lead to the enemy team winning.
3) It concentrates alot of manpower, and therefor you lose tickets because of fighting. Which in turn makes this more of a game of. GET TO THE CAP.

In real life, AFAIK. I havent been in a warzone so correct me if im wrong. There are no "cap zones". Its not like you have to have a certain amount of people somewhere to win.
Its all about killing the enemy, outmanouvering and making him fall back.

Objectives as you call them are usually surrounded special forces or airborne troops taking a specific objective, or a brigade securing a specific area, or "objective". And PR doesnt nearly reach the vicinity of 3000-5000 troops ingame. Still you choose to implement veichles for the immersion. I have no issue with it. But now we stand at the oppourtunity to change this. We can have alot of players ingame.

I suggest, we reinvent how we play PR, with the core mechanic of squad cohesion, and team cohesion. By removing flags, and enforcing mumble on all servers.

Flags usually focus alot of players at one point. In real life you usually spend alot of time watching and looking for the enemy. Before any real battle ensues. Therefor i suggest removing flags, and Entrusting the players to play this game correctly. Yes trust us, we can actually play this. We have been for quite some time.

In my oppinion, flags are like COD 4 gamemode in the engine. In a server with little to no mumble, where SLs rarely use Teamchat. There will be a general "ok, lets attack. ok lets defend attitude."
The decisions are made by the SL, with the squad. Not based on a team strategy. So what do we want PR to be? Do we want to say, yes this gameplay does occur in our game. Or do we want to say no. Stop. Lets actually work and take action to stop people from playing PR without teamwork.

Why cant PR be about enforcing teamwork by default, rather than just squad cohesion. Flags just promotes slaughter, instead of coordination. Its like, you can have someone say. Ok you attack i defend. You cant call that coordination. Its just.... I cant describe it.

Its like pointing your finger at the enemy, handing a gun in someones hand and saying go.

I would really enjoy, playing a game that would center the game around the players, rather than the flags.

Just what ive been thinking about for a while. If you feel angry, sorry.

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 just think we will have only 2 128 slot servers full and the other will stay empty.


On the ladder the find 10 servers full with 64 slots, the other are empty. As the ping is different on all server due to the host, we can play on 6/8 of it.

If there is 3 servers with 128 players, how many 64 slots servers will be full ? No one...

That's my point of view, dont forget PR don't have so many player as BC2 or COD


edit : i like the 128 slot very much, but it could be dangerous if PR only looks on this way

one thing to note about the possibility of 256 players is the NUMBER of servers. i mean, the 128 person server took a pretty large chunk of the PR population. the more servers there are, the less chance there will be that they can reach their full capacity and potential which would nullify the whole point of massive players in the first place.

a more personal concern is the location of the servers. as im currently in the UK i currently dont have much lag problems with the current server but when i go back to hong kong in the summer even with my 100mb connection, playing on any european server will be impossible, already many american players complain about lag in this one and are clamouring for a server of their own.

in the most wonderfully ideal scenario, having one massive server in central europe would be able to service much of europe, the east coast of north america and west asia/middle east with decent pings below 200. while another huge server on the west coast of the US will be able to cover much of north and south america, east asia and australia. this would ensure the widest and least laggiest coverage while still allowing for large enough numbers in each one.

im admittedly talking out my *** on this subject so feel free to correct me.

Megagoth1702 wrote:DICE write a few weeks ago

Rico wrote:Even DICE have dismissed the idea.

What Patrick Bach (not DICE) said is irrelevant to PR, it was also frankly generalized bullshit.

- "the most fun you can have is when it's between 32 and 40 players"
- "tested 128...it's not fun"
- "there's no point in going higher than 64"

Source: Battlefield 3 interview - 256 players... Please! - PC Games - Game - Features - Atomic MPC

We'll probably never know how he came to those conclusions, however PR and FH2 are a completely different case.

qs-racer wrote:If there is 3 servers with 128 players, how many 64 slots servers will be full ? No one...

How many out of the ~120 PR servers we have now are ever full?

The playerbase is already centralized, the difference with 128 player servers is that more people can play on the same ones. I'd much prefer that to waiting for a slot to open up on a popular 64 player server or hanging around an unpopular server hoping for others to join.

I've been playing since 2007, I can honestly say the 128 player server is some of the most fun and best gaming on PR i've had, and if it were to go now, i probably wouldn't play as much.

If a 256 player server came out i would play more.

I don't understand the argument against it... if people don't like it then go and play on smaller servers...

the scale of it will attract new players, small skirmishes are ten a penny and found in every other online fps.

naykon wrote:I don't understand the argument against it... if people don't like it then go and play on smaller servers...

IF I disliked larger servers I would be resistant because since I'm probably in the minority I would expect to struggle to find enough like-minded people to play with on smaller servers (of which there is already a vast redundancy). Hence it would be in my interests to block such changes and ensure others remain limited to my preferred game experience.

That's the selfish way of looking at it which isn't necessarily the case for everyone. To be fair those supporting the change could also have their own self-serving agendas, however they are selflessly proposing that everybody has the choice of 64 or 128 (as a rough example) rather than forcing the entire community to stay with 64.

Tartantyco wrote:Because the game mechanics of vBF2 neither require nor facilitates increased player numbers. The reason why vBF2 and similar games have population restrictions is because, due to the game design, the point at which an increase in population has either no impact or a negative impact is so low. Bigger pop limits means bigger maps, more assets, technical hurdles(Whereas PR as a mod doesn't have to aim for optimization, a commercial game kind of does), etc.

This is not the case with PR. Let us, for instance, take the HMG emplacement as an example. Let's say that an HMG manned by 1 player can effectively engage 10 people(Just as an arbitrary value). However, an HMG emplacement is a static and local asset and assigning 1/32 of you total manpower to an asset is rarely ever economical as 10 people will rarely come within its range. However, if the pop limit is increased to 128, doubling the manpower to 64, then that investment into manning HMGs suddenly becomes more economical, not only because the manpower cost was halved, but also because the enemy footprint is increased as well.

In PR increasing the population decreases the manpower cost, whereas in vBF2 it would simply be adding more of the same.



I suggest you play more on the server if you think it's terrible gameplay.

The only actual problems with higher pop servers is squad limitations. What would be required for a functional high pop server is a change in the squad system and/or the organizational structure within squads, on both a developer and player level.

this is so very true! nice post.

From what I read, 64ers are afraid if 128 and 500p servers come up, no one will play on 64 servers. I understand what they feel like... but... if most of the players prefer 128 to 64... and if there are only 32 guys who want to play 64... well, it can be a problem for them...
Than again, what kind of silly argument is that?

@plodit,
you are underestimating the "pure epicness" of massive battles. What if having 200 player servers increases PR population to 10,000? I believe one really good huge battle and a skilled camera man can recruit thousands via youtube. There is no game that comes even closer to epic battles than PR, don't forget that.


THERE IS ONLY ONE BIG FAT ARGUMENT FOR LIMITING PR SERVERS

... and that is, if having 500p server will kill PR... than I vote for server limitations.
I'm playing PR since the beginning, and with every new patch, we lost few good players. It is possible that having nothing but 128+ servers will result in the loss of a certain number of good players.

If I would be the one to choose, I would be careful about unlimited regular servers, but I see no reason for not having one big 200p beta server out there (preferably Europe ).

One more thing... 64 is way low guys. If there is gonna be a limit, it has to go pass 100. After one week of 100p battles, it's hard to notice the difference from what you remembered 64 - but if you go back to it, it feels half-filled and lame

Snazz wrote: Source: Battlefield 3 interview - 256 players... Please! - PC Games - Game - Features - Atomic MPC

We'll probably never know how he came to those conclusions, however PR and FH2 are a completely different case.

he does make sense, 128 players on vbf3 would NOT be fun. why? no kit limitations and unlockable items.

EVERYONE on vbf has access to snipers, EVERYONE can get an AT weapon that can destroy the biggest tank (provided they spend a gazillion hours on the game). the sniper spam was bad enough in BC2 with just 32 players could you imagine the equivalent with 256?

kit restrictions are probably the biggest factor that works in favour of increased players, with restricted kits and squad limitations you have a clear distinction between the average rifleman and a specialist whos rarity makes him a valuable asset to his team. as opposed to the jack of all trades supersoldier vbf makes you in the name of fairness for all those stat whores.

the distressing thing i find with direction DICE is taking (along with many other companies) is that they believe that the only way to retain players is rewarding them with tiny incremental unlocks for extended playtimes as opposed to delivering consistently good gameplay that would make players naturally come back time and time again. with unlocks there is no real impetus for your team to win when your real objective is to kill 12 more guys so you can unlock generic assault rifle that has a slightly faster ROF.

Yeah its like a resturant Some people think. OMG here is a cupon. But the food is shitty. But if i eat here again i get a free meal yay!

Infact the most popular resturants have great food and service. And strive to keep it that way.

idunno if its a sidetrack.

Anyway. PR= Great gameplay. Why? Cause the devs are amazing ofc!

128 = hard to admin, but great to play on. And really is like the new mumble. (you all know what i mean)

Adminning in 128 isnt hard due to lack of admins anymore. It just attracts sooooo many noobs. no offence peeps. But its like its a noob machine. New players, griefers, tkrs.

Pluss it stays up until like frikking 7 in the night. Like, with no admins. Gotta fix that.

Wicca wrote:Yeah its like a resturant Some people think. OMG here is a cupon. But the food is shitty. But if i eat here again i get a free meal yay!

Infact the most popular resturants have great food and service. And strive to keep it that way.

idunno if its a sidetrack.

Anyway. PR= Great gameplay. Why? Cause the devs are amazing ofc!

128 = hard to admin, but great to play on. And really is like the new mumble. (you all know what i mean)

Adminning in 128 isnt hard due to lack of admins anymore. It just attracts sooooo many noobs. no offence peeps. But its like its a noob machine. New players, griefers, tkrs.

Pluss it stays up until like frikking 7 in the night. Like, with no admins. Gotta fix that.

wicca you are so wise.......WHY CANT I HAVE YOU!!!!

Im pretty wicked arent i?



Maybe you should find a local sorceror, and remove the spell ive cast on you

Kudos for the_ganman for finding it.

______________


On a more serious note, can everyone please make sure they are in mumble, and then help us by !reporting people not in mumble? Thanks.

Wicca wrote:
I suggest, we reinvent how we play PR, with the core mechanic of squad cohesion, and team cohesion. By removing flags, and enforcing mumble on all servers.

Flags usually focus alot of players at one point. In real life you usually spend alot of time watching and looking for the enemy. Before any real battle ensues. Therefor i suggest removing flags, and Entrusting the players to play this game correctly. Yes trust us, we can actually play this. We have been for quite some time.

In my oppinion, flags are like COD 4 gamemode in the engine. In a server with little to no mumble, where SLs rarely use Teamchat. There will be a general "ok, lets attack. ok lets defend attitude."
The decisions are made by the SL, with the squad. Not based on a team strategy. So what do we want PR to be? Do we want to say, yes this gameplay does occur in our game. Or do we want to say no. Stop. Lets actually work and take action to stop people from playing PR without teamwork.

Why cant PR be about enforcing teamwork by default, rather than just squad cohesion. Flags just promotes slaughter, instead of coordination. Its like, you can have someone say. Ok you attack i defend. You cant call that coordination. Its just.... I cant describe it.

Its like pointing your finger at the enemy, handing a gun in someones hand and saying go.

I would really enjoy, playing a game that would center the game around the players, rather than the flags.

Just what ive been thinking about for a while. If you feel angry, sorry.

Flags promote defense and offense really. Honestly the flag system has no need to change as it represents key objectives that need to be held in the battle even if they don't promote an immediate benefit to the team.

Mumble should not be enforced on every server. There really is no reason for it, why can't servers be allowed to make the choice of whether they should enforce mumble or whether they should not? I'd much rather have the ability to choose between a mumble enforced server or a non-mumble server as it allows for a greater degree of choice for the player. If you want to play on a mumble server that is fine, go play on a mumble server, but don't try and push that on other servers who never needed nor wanted mumble in the first place.


Also I believe that the player limit should be maybe in the 70s and 80s so as to allow for greater players in games but in turn not harm other servers population too much. which would cause less diversity amongst the servers.

what form of communication do you think would work with 128 - 256 players using it?

chat has 4 lines of text at once.

illidur wrote:what form of communication do you think would work with 128 - 256 players using it?

chat has 4 lines of text at once.

it should be the servers choice really. If they want to have a ventrillo or mumble or TS enforced server then so be it. If they want to let it be purely an option then that is fine. Let the people who own the server make the choice seeing as they are the ones who have a vested interest in the servers survival and probably know what is needed for the server to survive and prosper.