Project Reality Forums

That seems a little to "gamey" for my taste.
I think the most important point is the choice among servers.
If the overall population can't support 128 or 256 servers then limiting them is beneficial to everyone.
We are, after all, militaristic style illuminati and should behave as such.
PR is something special because of the teamwork and much of that teamwork is directed by the game.
I'm sure, given time and the need, the developers can include features that focus teamwork in larger population environment but for now I would prefer to see only 1 super-sized server out there.

ONe problem i had in 128 players was the FPS... My computer cant hold 128 player and FPS falled to 15~20... 256 is insane

CallousDisregard wrote:I'm sure, given time and the need, the developers can include features that focus teamwork in larger population environment but for now I would prefer to see only 1 super-sized server out there.

I would like to see 1 super-sized (~200), and one 128.
If we can have that, I don't mind the rest of the servers being limited to 32.

As discussed recently run serious playtests with a PW at each level -100, 150, 200?

Even on the 116 server I think we run into population problems, as in so many guys who clearly don't understand the basics.

The more player we have on this server is making it more like regular battle of two powerfull armies, less like skirmish with vechicles. I think 256 could be awesome but, I would like to take your attention on the FBs system I'm thinking that with so many players it doesn't work corectly and it need to be changed.


Level of players on 128player sisu is so low, becouse everyone in BF2 comunity know that we have 128 server, most of vanilla players are joining this server blocking it for PR players. Probably admins just resigned from kicking nomumbleRS, becouse new still are coming. I think the best solution could be pragram that automaticly kick nonmumblers.

Rico wrote:There problem seems to be the bigger squad sizes I find. When you get 12 people in a squad its just too much to coordinate. 8 is a good number as allows you to create a couple of useful fireteams and still maintain control. That said, you need to be able to have atleast 2 medics, 2 saws per squad.

If we can't increase the number of squads, then realistically I don't think each team should exceed 70 players (140 total)

Agreed with this man! 8 people in the squad is perfect! It seems to be manage'able by people who want to be the sole squadleader and offers the perfect fireteam set-up!

Maybe try to increase the number of squads as a next objective?

BIG Kudo's on the fact that you managed to break the 128 limit btw!

I have been playing on 116 and really enjoying it so I would definitely like this to stay.

I can also understand how moving to 256 would be amazing as well but my fear is having a server running 256 is going to empty 4 regular servers to fill it. This would reduce the choice of server we have at the moment and I am not sure that's a good thing! Don't get me wrong I would love to see it but maybe stick to 128 for now and have special organised 256 nights or weekends!

Coxy

A lot of people on here seem to had bad luck playing on the 116 server. In the last couple of days I;ve been on there exclusively and had terrific games with Squad-Leader coordination and intense fights.

I dont understand why people call 116 players gamey. It felt more realistic to me. Not like vanilla run and gun. You still have the PR mechanics but firefights last longer. You need to think more out of the box than in 64 player limit servers. You got 2 more guys against you and it becomes a lot harder! You also have the increased chance of running in against a vehicle.

we are limited only by hardware and the squad system at the end of the day

Is this a chance to test it for viability before the idea gets shelved for future implementation, to try and work out some of the logistics behind it?

I know most servers would hardly be able to implement 256 players, but I don't think it should entirely be dismissed. I know that some servers that I like to play on are populated to the point that it is difficult to get a spot. The idea of at least having a single server running 265 means there will always be a spot, and a war.

I have no idea of the complexity of managing and admining a regular server, much less one that size, so while I'm sure there are serious concerns, it shouldn't be tossed out as impossible.

Real large scale battles do include claustrophobic amounts of troops so I see no problem with going as high as possible.

Im with Jigsaw on this one. We need first to get few servers running with 100p as a standard, with everything vehicles, number of kits, etc. etc changed to accomodate this, and then we can think of taking it further.

The biggest problem imo is how to manage such a big team. If DEVs would allow lets say 200p servers, then the commander need to manage 100 people in his team, that is 3x more then now.
If the command tree we have now (max. of 9 sqds, no fireteams in sqds) cant be changed to accomodate such big numbers as 250 ppl on server, then i dont like it.

Do I want 256p servers implemeted? Hell yeah!
Do I want it now? No, thanks.

-lucky

the problem about 256 players is not the amount of players at all. Its the amount of players per squad. 256 players would be 128 on eace side. divided through 9 and we see 14,222 players in each sq. That's far too much. It would work when there are more squads as 9 to open. Maybe double the amount. But that's (as far as i know) not possible.

coxy52k wrote:I can also understand how moving to 256 would be amazing as well but my fear is having a server running 256 is going to empty 4 regular servers to fill it. This would reduce the choice of server we have at the moment and I am not sure that's a good thing! Don't get me wrong I would love to see it but maybe stick to 128 for now and have special organised 256 nights or weekends!

I totally agree with you. With this amount of people we really cant have many +128 servers.
So imo it would be best if we leave huge servers only for events atm.

How many 96-128 servers.. thats more tricky question. One per continent?
Servers will vary with game styles which is only good thing.
This makes difference and if we fill field with big servers we loose this.
Some people like to play in servers where some others wont even think to join.

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote:we are limited only by hardware and the squad system at the end of the day

Scrims with big clans, and community events like the tournament, coupled with advantage of TS and Mumble rank layouts could limit the kit requests.

Did you notice how the slight increase in liberal kits didnt effect the game in a bad way?

Battlefield 2 - Xfire Video

128 Player Test SISU - Xfire Video

Strela2M [Tommy]'s Screenshots - Xfire

Strela2M [Tommy]'s Screenshots - Xfire

I say 96 as it really is overkill.

I think some people are too afraid of changes, with all the retards, noobs and griefers on 116 I still prefer it over 64, infact I havent played a 64 serv for atleast 2 weeks now. 116 seems just fine to me, but id be happy to play 200 on a good map.
100+ makes PR more.. fast paced, thrilling and unforgiving compared to the small squad skirmishes and medic spammage on 64 so many people are used to.

Soppa for world domination!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4mnmXioJ8E&hd=1

[R-CON]Soppa wrote:I totally agree with you. With this amount of people we really cant have many +128 servers.
So imo it would be best if we leave huge servers only for events atm.

I expect thousands of new players with PR 1.0, so I believe there will not be a shortage of players.

[R-CON]Soppa wrote: How many 96-128 servers.. thats more tricky question. One per continent?

Yeah I think sounds about right as then everyone has an opportunity to play if they wish but players aren't sucked away from 64 so there will still be plenty of servers for people preferring 64 matches!

Coxy