Project Reality Forums

Well without clans, you could only play on PRTA and TG.

DesmoLocke wrote:Lead, follow, or GTFO.

I would prefer squad leading more but recently I've been more impatient with people who can't follow simple orders or lack communication.

I need to get more of my active duty military friends to play.

Or just stick with us.

Bellator wrote:Well they should be kicked in that case. I don't know.

I just hate clans. They are truly ruining the game with their behaviour.

Just recently I played like three games in a row: all cut short because the clan players were all on the blufor side. It seems increasingly that the veteran players don't even want a challenging game: they just want to bully the noobs and pretend that they're great team players because they can prevail over mobs.

Teamstacking is a problem, indeed. Espcially on Insurgency its pain for the Ins Team when Bluefor is stacked, on AAS i even dont see the point why you want to be Bluefor...but the problem is the stacking itself. Sometimes you can easy tell that you should support the other side, but players change every round so its not that easy. A squad that leaves or split up can change the balance of the round. But get steamrolled several rounds is really something that shouldnt happen. A fair game is more fun for everyone. A round where you lose 0-40 is way better than one were you win 400-0.

On the other side clan squads are often the only squads that actually defend or attack the flags while others derp around somewhere. So why teamstacking happens? If you want to have teamplay and your team is full of people that do not answer PR Mumble, dont mark anything on the map and wont attack or defend flags you dont want to play in that team...
Why defending a flag the whole round when nobody attacks? Its not like all these people are newbies that dont know how to play the game, often they just dont care what happens and rage around when they lose. But build a fob themself or stay in caprange? No way....

So the question is why are there so many people that are not interested in teamplay and only care about shiny kits and vehicles instead of communication and playing together. Why people create 2 Recon Squads, 3 Tank Squads, a CAS Squad but no real Infrantry Squad and then they are suprised that they lose the game?

btw do you realise that most servers that a still running the ones that are hosted and seeded by clans or fixed communitys?

Is it just me, or is 8 people/squad just not enough sometimes? Their aren't enough good leaders usually to run enough squads to cover everyone in the server, and maybe increasing the squad cap to 10 or 12 could help with that. Many times I have wanted to join a specific squad leader who is good, just to not have enough room.

Rolling_Ruedo wrote:Is it just me, or is 8 people/squad just not enough sometimes? Their aren't enough good leaders usually to run enough squads to cover everyone in the server, and maybe increasing the squad cap to 10 or 12 could help with that. Many times I have wanted to join a specific squad leader who is good, just to not have enough room.

Become that good squad leader and be part of the answer instead of being a part of the problem.

If you know how to play as an infantryman and aren't shy on Mumble, then you can squad lead. Maybe not effectively at first, but just like anything, it takes practice. It's that simple folks.

Its hard enough to lead a 8 people Squad, if you increase the squadsize it will lead that not so many people want to squadlead and communication will get more complicated.

We already have 49 man squads; we just call that leader a Commander.

Clans aren't the problem. Team stacking certainly is a problem, but that is a problem solved by individuals and not clans. Sure, you can take tags off and change names, but individuals do that, and you can't control or legislate that.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

CR8Z wrote:We already have 49 man squads; we just call that leader a Commander.

Clans aren't the problem. Team stacking certainly is a problem, but that is a problem solved by individuals and not clans. Sure, you can take tags off and change names, but individuals do that, and you can't control or legislate that.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Agreed!


I only noticed "clan stacking" on the HOG server.

But I always see on insurgency.

Blufor: 64
Opfor: 46
I hate seeing that. It's making me AANNGGRRYY.

But still, you can't do anything about it.. Unless KICK or something.

Team stacking is exasperated by competent players being frustrated with incompetent players. They eventually end up on the same team because of that.

Team stacking is not server or game specific. It's a tale as old as time.

matty1053 wrote:Blufor: 64
Opfor: 46
I hate seeing that. It's making me AANNGGRRYY.

But still, you can't do anything about it.. Unless KICK or something.

!ab on

7

The single biggest and most annoying thing that is keeping me and a ton of my friends from playing the game is the constant crashing of servers. Fucking pointless to try and get a round going when theres a bigger chance of the server crashing than there is to play 2 whole rounds in a row. Imo devs should focus on fixing this and then think about editing other things.

This is also one of the biggest reasons a lot of people who have usually led squads dont give a shit anymore. Whats the point of trying to get something going when you know its out the window within a round or two.

Devs have said there is something causing it, they just havent been able to locate the cause.

I guess youre lucky, but every EU and US server I've played on in the past month or two have made me just stop playing completely.

Server crashes and - for me anyway - the ridiculous FPS problems post-v1.0 are the two reasons I no longer play (haven't really since v.95, to be honest). Most of my friends quit due to server instability about two years ago and I see very few guys I know still playing.

Just waiting for PR2 at this point. BF2's pretty much hit the end of the road IMO.

ShockUnitBlack wrote:Server crashes and - for me anyway - the ridiculous FPS problems post-v1.0 are the two reasons I no longer play (haven't really since v.95, to be honest). Most of my friends quit due to server instability about two years ago and I see very few guys I know still playing.

Just waiting for PR2 at this point. BF2's pretty much hit the end of the road IMO.

Pretty much where I am at. I don't think you can turn it around. End of the road.

ShockUnitBlack wrote:Server crashes and - for me anyway - the ridiculous FPS problems post-v1.0 are the two reasons I no longer play (haven't really since v.95, to be honest). Most of my friends quit due to server instability about two years ago and I see very few guys I know still playing.

Just waiting for PR2 at this point. BF2's pretty much hit the end of the road IMO.

Pretty much the same. I've only played PR twice since the release. The horrible performance is the main reason.

bahlye wrote:If every server crashed constantly I would also point the finger at the code, however as not all servers do I would say is more a case of the individual server set up than anything the devs have control over ? .
Our servers crash very rarely.

If this is the case then there needs to be a standard developed for every server as far as operating system, hardware configuration and server settings. Perhaps your sever should be the standard for all other servers. It would be in the best interest of the mod if the DEV team were to do this, otherwise their years of hard work is absolutely pointless. It may very well be that they need to produce a server specification for their game and not give a license unless the server complies with those specs.

To be honest, I've spent countless hour upon hour of my time (both at work and at home) tweaking things on TG to get it stable. All for absolutely nothing. No matter what we did, and we did everything conceivable, the server still crashed. So I reject the assertion that it is the individual server set up and I would instead say with utmost confidence that the server code is the culprit. It needs to be fixed, because it is absolutely killing the mod. There are too many new choices for people to spend their free time on to enjoy a good game, and once those people are gone they most likely won't be back. TG is a group that falls into that category.

ShockUnitBlack wrote:Server crashes and - for me anyway - the ridiculous FPS problems post-v1.0 are the two reasons I no longer play (haven't really since v.95, to be honest). Most of my friends quit due to server instability about two years ago and I see very few guys I know still playing.

Just waiting for PR2 at this point. BF2's pretty much hit the end of the road IMO.

Man that sucks. I by no means have a "Stellar" rig, but the .98 to 1.0 change for my system has been flawless. A small drop in FPS but nothing to cry about. And like I said, my PC is nothing special. It seems to me the majority of the regulars playing aren't having as quite as serious issues as you guys are. I wonder if it's something within your systems causing problems. I know the development point of PR:BF2 is at the end of the road, but with the addition of different faction's, weapons, and WW2 mods the game still has plenty to offer to the regular's who frequent. The game just needs to be more stable and optimized better, which is being worked on by the dev's. Who knows, the next update could have 1.0 running flawlessly on your computer.

bahlye wrote:If every server crashed constantly I would also point the finger at the code, however as not all servers do I would say is more a case of the individual server set up than anything the devs have control over ? .
Our servers crash very rarely.

Yeah but seeing that you're in Australia makes me think as to how often your server is filled to the brim with people playing? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that your server very rarely hits the 100 player mark if at all. Could just be me not paying attention/being online when Aussie PR hits it's peak so yeah.