Project Reality Forums

stealing stolen code? what stolen code are we talking about?
Well actually it's the DEV's mod and they don't need to release it if they don't want to.
Also the PR dev's can limit the server numbers by using a license, if you break it the server can be taken down. AFAIK

Jorgee! wrote:Sisu is like "stealing" players from others servers, like Hardcore and TG.

Poor 64p servers.
BTW you know how many BF2 players has PR stolen? Poor BF, we gotta do something with this.

liscensing this code is like charging admission to a musuem showing off stolen artwork. bf2 isn't soppa's game, it's EA's, so the second this code is released it's no longer up to soppa as to what happens to it. unless he plans on sending lawyers to the us, i don't see the flood stopping.

Vicious302 wrote:well its funny that you guys think soppa and pr will be the only one in control of this code, once it's released, it's released, and anyone can take it. luckily there are no laws that covering stealing stolen code.

hmm, maybe we should build some protection for it then.. thanks for the idea
And what part of code is stolen? I dont follow you.. My 64bit pr server loader will be fully written by me and its copyrighted by me as well. It will not include ANY of dice/ea code or binary.

I think big server should go under licenses and only few licenses should be allowed until community will grow big enough.

I totaly agree with Soppa, well they won't send lawyers but they'll take your server down.

illidur wrote:any smart server would have a "no locked squads rule" and if you wanted smaller squads go to a smaller server.

^This.

Instead of limiting player numbers to allow room for locked squads, just don't have locked squads. There's no need to have small separate squads for individual assets and exclusive clans.

If there are more members in a squad than there are asset positions the extras can do something supportive like recon.

Snazz wrote:^This.

Instead of limiting player numbers to allow room for locked squads, just don't have locked squads. There's no need to have small separate squads for individual assets and exclusive clans.

If there are more members in a squad than there are asset positions the extras can do something supportive like recon.

Which on the other hand could be a plain waste of manpower, but yeah if the squads get the crowded (which is yet not possible cuz of hardware limitation), just split em up.

Soppa, since you adjusted the limit of the squad, is it possible to adjust the limit of players that an asset can carry?

Snazz wrote:^This.

Instead of limiting player numbers to allow room for locked squads, just don't have locked squads. There's no need to have small separate squads for individual assets and exclusive clans.

If there are more members in a squad than there are asset positions the extras can do something supportive like recon.

not good imo unless everyone has mumble, which isn't going to happen everywhere in the public domain. even then its just not practical.

squad of 10, 6 guys in 3 tanks and the rest infantry. The squad leader is in a tank, he'll not be able to give his infantry boys ANY SL kit support, he probably won't be in the same location to give them guidance. His Coms will increase 2x because he'll be commanding 2 separate squads, without mumble the infantry wll be using VOIP, talking about stuff the tanks lads don't need/want to hear etc etc etc.

Squads aren't just places to sit in and get kits from, they are supposed to act as a cohesive unit. I don't see the point in a 100 player server +50guys who just wander around doing stuff because they couldn't practically join a squad that had a role for them.

This may sound odd, but why not have a huge squad number/capacity limit?

This will allow leaders to command as many people as they like, and the nlock the squad when they feel they have enough. It will also allow clans to operate as one, and for VOIP INF squads to become a large force if the squadleader allows it. The lack of a proper limit on the amount of squads also mean that Asset squads for rare things such as air assets can be locked without worry of stopping another squad from being created.

Jorgee! wrote:Soppa, since you adjusted the limit of the squad, is it possible to adjust the limit of players that an asset can carry?

You cant really add new functions into game which needs a lot of new code.
I haven't check vehicle limits but I know there is only support for 9 different spot so that would be top max.

hi soppa , today testing 256 ? let us know password if you need help

Pesticide wrote:hi soppa , today testing 256 ? let us know password if you need help

Nope, not yet. There will be closed event on Sisu 128 at Saturday and Sunday is open event with Wicca's new map.
Next week I hope we will test some +200 players without lag

a pr tourny event ? or private as in 10 people testing stuff n maps ?

Some WC teams getting togheter for fun fun fun! Its friday!

Sunday will be after Saturday, and we will meet my map.

Which works.

Soppa was all like, Wicca there is capitol letters in your map, my server cant run it. Im like WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT. But we were lucky and it ran anyway.

Ive never been so scared before soppa... Never.

hey whats wrong with our 120 players sisu server ? i saw that the server name was red :S

It's down till Sunday, because Wicca has no **** and tries to compensate that by make a selfish closed WC event only (God I hope so badly that you wont get enough guys together )

Yeah, that makes sense.

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote:squad of 10, 6 guys in 3 tanks and the rest infantry.

Armor squads should be Tanks and APCs.

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote:The squad leader is in a tank, he'll not be able to give his infantry boys ANY SL kit support, he probably won't be in the same location to give them guidance.

That particular scenario wouldn't be ideal but the SL doesn't necessarily have to be operating an asset themselves or separated from elements of his squad.

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote:I don't see the point in a 100 player server +50guys who just wander around doing stuff because they couldn't practically join a squad that had a role for them.

If asset squads combine appropriately there shouldn't be substantial amounts of extra troops in them. Regardless, whether they are assigned to do anything is up to the SL.

Snazz wrote:If asset squads combine appropriately there shouldn't be substantial amounts of extra troops in them. Regardless, whether they are assigned to do anything is up to the SL.

Aswell don't forget that many assets are under manned as it stands. Take tanks for example, they can take 3 players with everyone still having a useful job. The light attack helicopter such as the CAS Huey have a FLIR system that rarely gets used.

If infantry are forced to work with armour they can work as scouts. There is all so an option to take minor solo roles that are normally under manned such as driving the supply truck around or laying minefields. Infantry can work in transport squads as armed guards that stick with transport (things like full time door gunners).

The fact of the matter is that there are a number of roles that are under played due to the player limit. Also there are times right now where the only open/unfilled squads are asset squad with no leftover assets. I have found ways to be useful playing some of the under used roles when this happens.