Project Reality Forums

For all those people complaining about server/admin/player/gameplay issues:

puckett wrote:Oh my god. The server needs more admins, less chat spam. I couldn't handle it after someone teamkilled both of our attack helicopters. Its worse then vBF2 teamplay wise. The server also does not switch your teams so, squads stay active after map change and it becomes a real mess. I'd love to see some other clans adopt 128 players such as TAR, UKWF

dtacs wrote:The biggest problem testing this is the lack of vehicles and lack of admin-ship on the NEW server, we had people spamming and teamkilling without any sort of punishment.

Regardless of the problems, its good to see this on such a large scale. Will be insane on servers like TG with Bn CO's, Coy CO's all the way down to fireteam leaders.

[R-CON]Burton wrote:I'm really torn. 128 players in theory is great, but in practice it doesn't work.

REMEMBER before arguing like those guys i've quoted:

If u really think u can play like on a well administrated public server for now, u r still not getting the point.
Atm we are just testing alot of stuff; Adminscripts, Voip functionality, Squadlimits and more.
May some of those features are disabled atm.
The banlist and the atreaming to AC-hosters too. so it could be that some "antiteamplayers"
are playing on this server. Nvm.

So, it is not about the admin ship or smthg else. There is just no admintool yet.


be patient. It is still a stresstest, nothing more.

Here is a idea, fix it and make it work before giving it to anybody and if you do give it out give it to everybody so you can prevent conflicts and/or attacks and competition between servers etc. I think giving it out to a select few is mediocre. Everybody or nobody.

I wasn't arguing K4on - where in my post did I argue?

Too many noobs on the server. It made me rage quit . The maps are HUUUGGEE in the first place so I don't see how this even dumb's down the teamwork.... It's just all the noobs waving there **** the air.

It's pretty obvious a 128 player server in BF2 would attract people who never or hardly played PR..

Cronik wrote:Too many noobs on the server. It made me rage quit . The maps are HUUUGGEE in the first place so I don't see how this even dumb's down the teamwork.... It's just all the noobs waving there **** the air.

It's pretty obvious a 128 player server in BF2 would attract people who never or hardly played PR..

Aka you? You jumped in my apache on Iron Ridge without a pilot kit then ran away saying you had a few drinks lol

ShockUnitBlack wrote:I wonder if anybody has ever looked into an effective way of managing a fireteam system.

Me and Foxxy were talking, most effective way would be as follows IMO:

HQ

• Squad Leader
• Platoon Medic (responsible for pickup of squads if they wipe)

FT1

• Rifleman - FT1 Leader
  
• Rifleman
• Medic
• Automatic Rifleman (if possible, heavy AR IE M240 if its implemented)

FT2

• Rifleman - FT2 Leader
  
• Rifleman Specialist
• Marksman (or equivalent special kit)
• Automatic Rifleman

Protocol would be as FT1 assaulting with FT2 providing fire support, even then FT2 might benefit from having both AR kits and having FT1 with solely assault kits.

Thats similar to how I roll now with having 4 guys on assault with 2 staying in a cover position and suppressing the shit out of the enemies that are pinning the assault team.

dtacs wrote:Me and Foxxy

Foxxy and I is the correct way

Kidden but for something like this to work, would need pure mumbleness. Mumble is a perfect tool to connect with other squads to understand whats going on around the battlefield. Even if it's not in your "AO".

puckett wrote:Aka you? You jumped in my apache on Iron Ridge without a pilot kit then ran away saying you had a few drinks lol

I guess ill remember to change my kit next time?

Pesticide wrote:It was awesome devs!! Besides a few tag isseus and lagy moments which im sure mappers and you guys will iron out, its a dream come true.

Also thx everyone for watching the my cast of the test of this new 128 server, next time it will be more teamplay, i didnt expect to cast this long or even get onto the server at some point. The video is already online and the link is in my signature. Over 60 people tuned in at the same time, a new alltime record for my little PR stream

Yeah, this was really nice! Watched it for a while yesterday, in the living room, on my tv . Pretty awesome! Hope to see more of this .

dtacs wrote:Me and Foxxy were talking, most effective way would be as follows IMO:....

Definately worth trying and tweaking

UberWazuSoldier wrote:Isn't this against the EULA though?

"Your right to use Tools & Materials is limited to the license grant above, and you may not otherwise copy, display, distribute, perform, publish, modify, create works from, or use any of the Tools & Materials. Without limiting the preceding sentence, you may not modify, reverse engineer, disassemble, license, transfer, distribute, create works from, or sell the Tool, or use the Tools & Materials to further any commercial purpose."

That seems to specifically prohibit this sort of thing, but I guess if you could get permission from EA/DICE it'd be okay.

Hah , who needs permission? they cant do anything

DarkSparky123 wrote:Hah , who needs permission? they cant do anything

Famous last words.

DDS wrote:Definately worth trying and tweaking

Well, it's not so much the protocol used - it's not incredibly rare to have SLs divide squads into three-man fireteams currently - it's the general mechanics of how comms and leadership abilities such as move markers would work that to me represent the problem. A modified Mumble and other third-party VOIP programs I'm sure could handle the comm promblems (full Mumble integration is the way to go), but the BF2 engine is probably going to laugh at any attempt to add an in-game fireteam system. Anyway, this is all hypothetical.

Is it just me or has this Thread set a new record for posts in a single thread in a single day?

Thank god for the opening up of Russia it gave us Tema ... Well done dude.

9X8 man squads = 72

2 or 3 2man spotter/laze teams for CAS = Epic

2 Tank squads with manned .50 and SL (lazes and counter lazes) plus Logy driver for repairs and supply drop would be useful.
Finally six man mechinf + 2 man APC = Epic

IMHO 2 X 4 man fireteam are possible just need an NCO and more patience (which can be hard for me at least).

I wonder if thats possible and workable : insurgent maps 40 blufor, 40 insurgents and 48 civi's ?

We already have 8 man squad trucks so np there, seat increase for the big helis could be possible?

I've been a medic in an eight man squad in Muttrah think two would be useful, but one AR is enough.

Be very nice IMHO not to increase armour or air assets too much to let PR do more of what it does best - infantry.

Very nice to see so much of the community constantly rejoining when the server was crashing in the afternoon - Imagine a faztropez test wouldn't be short of guys either

Looking forward and hoping all the silly stuff (tags, 8squad issues) is able to be overcome.

But it is a stunning reason to get PR Mumble updated to the current vanilla 1.2.3 version

8 man squads really makes fireteams both more importants and more potent. Now with mumble a fire team can talk amost themselfs and act semi independant while still maintaining clear squad comms. As jafar showed on Iron Eagle formations is also feasiable and not just a waste of time because your squad takes up more terrain and the distance between the left side and right side can be far enough for a squad in formation to flank a rag tag one if the two make contact.

IMO - make 10 man squads.If needed you can lock 8 man squad.It's could be better.
Like this - 2 squad in TS or Mumble.One got 6 man infantry,1 APC and one truck.Second squad got 6 man,1 APC and 1 IFV or TANK or Attack chopper.My opinion about wheeled mec.infantry
For flying infantry better idea make 8 mans squads(1 pilot and 7 infantryman)
Actually - never like idea,when 2 guys spotting targets for CAS or snipers(It's realistic,but ballistics still not work,and snipers must be hidden to not have any supports)

For this quantity of player would be nice to add GMPGs for those,who got LMG in AR kit.It's could be realistic.

Could really change the game -instead of uniquely asset squads like Samogen says - with self sufficent blobs with AA, anti armour and supplies capabilities.

But could that lessen the teamwork?

Exactly Ploddit, that is my only "fear" as well. I talked about it a small bit yesterday in the chat with Katarn. He said that the new AASV4 would help out a lot.

My gripe with increasing SM's instead of trying to add more squads is that you will have more seperate elements working alone like you said. You'r wording it perfectly

If you just add more squads, you'll have more small elements that you can use in your battle. Instead of being the only squad attacking an objective, you'll be with 3 other squads. When that happens now, the defend flag is pretty much empty on most maps. But with more squads in the team, you'll have 2 squads there as well WHILE you'll have another 6 to 7 other squads doing other things.

On the plus side of increasing the 9 squads to 8 people is that thats going to be the more stable version. I guess...

EDIT:
Final idea about the 9-8 man squads. On a usual server you get the trans squad locked with 3 to 4 guys. A sniper squad with 2, and an APC squad with 4. There wont be enough room in this case. If they open up, you got guys in squads that are not needed there.

puckett wrote:Here is a idea, fix it and make it work before giving it to anybody and if you do give it out give it to everybody so you can prevent conflicts and/or attacks and competition between servers etc. I think giving it out to a select few is mediocre. Everybody or nobody.

I guess the best solution is simply that you just dont connect again if you dont like it.