Project Reality Forums

Vicious302 wrote:There must be a commander before squads are created. There is to be a commander at all times.

Forcing this particular rule might be a bit difficult. I mean if no one's gonna become the commander what you gonna do, kick all the players?

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.

Yes, but with 64 players the game felt like playing without any ball, especially on 4km maps.

Some of the 2km maps do feel a little full IMHO.

Regrettably the population risks to decline as V1 gets old, so try to enjoy it.

Server admins presumably set the next map regarding how many players are on, Asad Khal is and choice for +64, but the big asset heavy 4km maps are perfect with 100.

If you cant handle 100 players ->Join a 64 server --> problem solved. Personally i would like to have 128 server and 10men squads back but i can understand that u need professional players for that. And for the newcommers here with<20 posts we already had this disscussion but it was more about 100,128 or 200 players...

Frontliner wrote: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.

Thats not what he's saying. He's saying that that strategy no longer work. Just like it wouldnt work on that in real warfare. In smaller engagements you can sneak around the flank more easily.

You can still flank on 100 player servers (with 2 km maps) you just need more work to pull it off. It also depends on the team. I went around the enemy frontline in Muttrah a few times with my squad of 8.

But you can contact the front infantry unit and ask them to put a lot of fire down and put on a show. Ask mortars to be built and fire away with smoke and HE. Ask APC's to put some fire down. Now, you actually need the mechanics from real life tactics. Instead of just sneaking around like you used to do.

Thats what Bringer of D is saying. In the old versions you could just sneak around as there where not enough people to watch all the sectors. It was more ike special forces teams engaging each other instead of army's. Now theres plenty of eyes to watch everything and you get real frontlines going. So you wont get away with just going on the flank.

In my opinion theres a lot more things that open up tactic wise that you can actually do on 100 player servers. Instead of it being a dumbed down "meat grinder" version like the "haters" call it.

HAAN4 wrote:More meat comes handy, more two squads help defend and atack, has well incresses the intesity of action in the game

100 players is a advance in PR history of updates, in my opnion.

Very well put! I agree 100%. Great job devs.

Haole wrote:Very well put! I agree 100%. Great job devs.

So do I very well put!

100 players creates messy and uncoordinated teamplay?

What kind of servers do you play on jesus christ.

1km is just perfect, lots of action and on a good server you have a bunch of coordination, and if you're saying 50 insurgents scattered around like a bunch of idiots is a problem, then obviously you shouldn't be playing an insurgent anyway.

If you're whining about your computer not being good enough, I don't understand that really, my computer is like 8 years old and it has absolutely no problems whatsoever. Besides, such a major gameplay change shouldn't be removed just because some people are having performance issues.

64 players feels way too little, 100 players is just awesome, lots of communication and action and teamwork, atleast on the servers that I usually play on.

Oh yeah, prior to 100 players, the game was pretty much 80% players doing assets, 20% doing infantry, nobody defending a flag and all infantry scattered around on the offensive flag with the assets scrambled elsewhere on the map, that was immensely boring and that's why I was playing quite little back then.

But with 100 players we get a bunch of more infantry squads, and since squads are 8 man now, we have much more infantry and infantry seems to be working more together too, with the assets such as APCs and tanks being closer to the infantry as well, with usually atleast 1 squad defending a flag.

Issues with 1km maps with being a mess? Huh, sure didn't seem that way when I played today on Fallujah.

And what some people said above, before 1.0 there was a lot of espionage Metal Gear stuff going on, going behind enemy lines and being all special forces stuff. Now there's actual frontlines where you must fight to gain ground.

Maybe a good comparison, squadwork works on 64, but on 100 you need teamwork to advance?

PLODDITHANLEY wrote:Maybe a good comparison, squadwork works on 64, but on 100 you need teamwork to advance?

Pretty much.

I just simply can't imagine 32 player teams anymore.

So little going on, really.

2 tanks = 4 players (6 players if .50 cal gunners)
1 attack helicopter = 2 players (+2 players if possible as spotters with the other one being as a buddy there)
3 APCs = 6 players
2-3 trans heli = 2-3 players

Now there are many more assets depending on the maps, but that is pretty much the average and that leaves out 13-18 players on infantry, which is quite little on a 64 player match. And that 13-18 players on infantry is quite utopic actually, since there are many unassigned players and players that are pretty much doing nothing in asset squads and such.

TL;DR: 100 players =

Not_able_to_kill wrote:snip

I don't know who you're talking to, certainly neither OP nor me because the point both of us are making is that tactic and strategic decision making take a huge backseat in favour of action. I don't mind action, but I do mind if there is no strategy behind anything. Almost every game I played has some 50+ish people on the flag, and the remaining respawning and mindlessly running in, maybe a few will attempt a flank but there's so many people it's almost impossible to do that in a timely fashion.

And what some people said above, before 1.0 there was a lot of espionage Metal Gear stuff going on, going behind enemy lines and being all special forces stuff. Now there's actual frontlines where you must fight to gain ground.

Again, if you think that flanking, streaking the enemy from behind, disrupting reinforcement lines and diversion tactics are like 1337 shit to regular armed forces, you are wrong, simple as that. The current meatgrinder action bears heavy resemblance to WW1, only difference is the equipment.



PS: Also, to the people who think 100 players make the game more strategic, I would love to know how so and what exactly is there in terms of new strategies you can do in 1.0 but can't in 0.98.

Guy lets agree on that 100p provide alot more action, as everyone who favorizes 100p mentions it somewhere in his post.

So you guys like action and thats ok. I do not like action at all. I actually cannot stand it, thats why I cannot play any other FPS shooters for a long period of time. It just gets boring or makes me rage.

I like small action spikes with a overall relaxed strategic and tactic gameplay.

It was like that in 0.98. Now this is gone and action and some leftovers of tactics replaced this. Strategy is basically not apparent anymore. Good for you guys, bad for me. I will have to live with that and hope that there will be more than just 1 or 2 servers which will run 64 players.

As said 100p would work perfectly if it would be limited to 4km only, if there would be the 0.98 RP system, a FOB Limit of 2-3, and with the old vehicle spawn times. But by changing every single gamemechanic, which was working perfectly fine before, they simply made every 100p round to end in a clusterfuck. Since most of the people here seem to like this, I guess I will have to back off and deal with it. I am pretty sure alot of action-oriented players will be gone in a couple of months though, since there are or will be alot of other better alternatives for them...so I am not that worried about this anyways. Gameplay will settle down to what it was before at some point. We just need to be patient.

Spook wrote:Guy lets agree on that 100p provide alot more action, as everyone who favorizes 100p mentions it somewhere in his post.

So you guys like action and thats ok. I do not like action at all. I actually cannot stand it, thats why I cannot play any other FPS shooters for a long period of time. It just gets boring or makes me rage.

I like small action spikes with a overall relaxed strategic and tactic gameplay.

It was like that in 0.98. Now this is gone and action and some leftovers of tactics replaced this. Strategy is basically not apparent anymore. Good for you guys, bad for me. I will have to live with that and hope that there will be more than just 1 or 2 servers which will run 64 players.

As said 100p would work perfectly if it would be limited to 4km only, if there would be the 0.98 RP system, a FOB Limit of 2-3, and with the old vehicle spawn times. But by changing every single gamemechanic, which was working perfectly fine before, they simply made every 100p round to end in a clusterfuck. Since most of the people here seem to like this, I guess I will have to back off and deal with it. I am pretty sure alot of action-oriented players will be gone in a couple of months though, since there are or will be alot of other better alternatives for them...so I am not that worried about this anyways. Gameplay will settle down to what it was before at some point. We just need to be patient.

Well, the thing is, PR is a tactical action FPS game, not an RTS game.

There is lots of coordination and tactical planning to be done, it's just up to the squads themselves to make the strategies.

The game isn't a god damn clusterfuck, I've never seen players work so tightly together before 1.0.

Also, RPs expire after a few minutes anyway, and FOBs haven't been changed in any way, except they're harder to destroy, which also promotes more team play.

And by the way, on 32p teams, there were most of the time only 1-2 inf squads actually doing stuff with armor assets far from the infantry, and pretty much nobody defending the flag. It's the very opposite from what I've seen in-game lately after 1.0 release.

And if you want relaxed gameplay, then just make an inf squad lock it up at 6 and steer away from the rest of your team and focus on your own little objectives.

It's the players manipulate the flow of the gameplay, not the devs.

Play on US servers or something, because I've noticed that EU based servers tend to be quite clusterfucky while on the other hand US servers are 98% of the time far from clusterfucks.

The main issue with 100 player servers is that currently there are a lot of maps that simply aren't designed for so many players.
It would be nice to see more servers with 64/80/100 player settings with a maplist that fits the player count.
Yamalia is much more fun in my opinion now that you have more people on it. But Asad Khal is a really bad experience with a full 100p server right now. Also Muttrah, which is a narrow map anyway should have <100 players. The choke point between North City and West City is now worse than ever. And the problem is definitely not a lack of tactics, as one of you guys suggested.
I see clans that have an emphasis on tactics on squad level and strategy on team level now perform much worse in the current version of the game.


Of course in the real life battle of Fallujah there where many insurgents cornered in a small part of the city, but in real life you can't respawn, sprint around like crazy etc. The gameplay in PR is really fast-paced. Having a ton of players works in Arma2:ACE, because people are more careful and the gameplay is slower (which leaves more room for planning, logistics, etc) but not in Project Reality.

And what some people said above, before 1.0 there was a lot of espionage Metal Gear stuff going on, going behind enemy lines and being all special forces stuff. Now there's actual frontlines where you must fight to gain ground.

Yes, there was actually time for reconnaissance, planning the attack and manouvering. Now it's Zerg army 1 vs Zerg army 2 in a constant shootout that never stops until the tickets run out.

/

Well, the thing is, PR is a tactical action FPS game, not an RTS game.
There is lots of coordination and tactical planning to be done, it's just up to the squads themselves to make the strategies.

And if you want relaxed gameplay, then just make an inf squad lock it up at 6 and steer away from the rest of your team and focus on your own little objectives.

(We're talking about actual tactics and long term strategy here, not just "Everybody start shooting! I'm gonna run towards them!" - "Lol, gotcha" tactics here.)

You are really acting like it's 100 vs 100 instead of 50 vs 50.

There have been absolutely no problems on H, HOG or even CIA with 100 players on Fallujah and so on.

You sure you're not doing this?

btw asad khal is like million years old, if you ask me, it should just be removed because it is very boring and a huge choke point just really doesn't even belong in PR.

I think he wants change, but not into fast action gameplay.

There must something that counters this clustering and faster contact time.
More double flags or something else.

I like the 100p gameplay. It's a great addition.

I have to disagree with what some are saying that there is not enough strategy now, there still is. Most of the time, I'm seeing people actually defending/assaulting objectives than being scattered all throughout the map.

It's pretty much down to the SLs and Commander to control the flow of the battle. If you think other squads or your own isn't doing well, then leave it and join another that suits your needs, or lead your and coordinate your own with others and set the example.

Although I do agree that some maps or layouts that are not suitable for 100p gameplay, but I think that's another thing that should be addressed to server administrators.

ChallengerCC wrote:I think he wants change, but not into fast action gameplay.

If he doesn't want that, then why won't he play an RTS game or Dota 2 or something?

This is a tactical action shooter.

Yeah Dota 2 is a nice tactic shooter thanks for the info i will play it.
Does Dota 2 handels 32vs32 ?


I am out of this discussion. The arguments are so nice and sweet i will actual get diabetes.

ChallengerCC wrote:Yeah Dota 2 is a nice tactic shooter thanks for the info i will play it.
Does Dota 2 handels 32vs32 ?


I am out of this discussion, it pisses me really off.
The arguments are so nice and sweet i will actual get diabolical.

Sorry, but no, the devs aren't gonna roll back such a major game change because some players are having personal issues with them.

Adapt or leave, or find or create a server/community that runs a 64 player server.

I am out of this discussion. The arguments are so nice and sweet i will actual get diabetes.

So, you ran out of other arguments such as "I don't like 100p because I can't squad lead"

the 1K maps are much better suited to 64p, I'd encourage server admins to treat them like that and only use them to seed in a 100p server