Project Reality Forums

imo the DEVs should do what they think it's best for the game. if that involves over 9000 player then so be it. personally i'd say around 100 for PR. however mods like PR:V and FH2 could benefit more from having more players than usual.

imagine PR..WW1!

i would really liek the cap time to be increased for objectives, with 64 players per team the team that gets the choppers can send men in and have the objective captured almost instantly

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

But how long will these new players stick around? Sure every update there is new players but enough to fill huge servers every day of the week I think not!

ok first of all.

only a few months ago we were all flabbergasted at the prospect of 128p servers, and now we talking about 256 P.. I find that quite funny..

ok when I first played on 128 p servers i noticed how disorganized and chaotic it was, so many people not on coms or doing anything valuable in teamwork for team, but however, after some TIME and as more and more people got used to it, I noticed a change and that teamwork and co ordination was improving and the games felt so much better.. Now I cannot play on any servers less than the 116 that currently runs....

I feel that people UNDERESTIMATE time and time again, the natural ability of players to adapt and embrace new things...

I think people should stop being so negative and judgemental at such an early stage, I think that with this new level of game play, there is a much more emphasis on teamwork and coms, and this is what IT BOILS DOWN TO.. you can have 1000 players all on coms and communicating and it would be the best game in the world, in the same way you can 32 man single lone wolfs and it would be a total farce...

Personally I like the idea of 256 players, but only if everyone is in mumble.. this is a critical feature I believe, all players must be on mumble, you don't even have to use mumble, but simply having it on, shows that as a player you are contributing in the overall teamwork efforts that are needed...

also I really really be beleive that if all the loudmouths on the forums who have alot to say, they SHOULD be the SQUAD leaders.. lol gee.. whoosh.. you seem to have so much to say, but when it comes down to it, you dont want to lead a squad, which would improve the game so much.. mark my words if this was to happen.. then that equals epicness..

ok so some people have remarked how some servers will be empty and never populated, and someone even mentioned competition laws. ( just a note.. competition laws apply to entites that seek to make money, so I dont think a free server would be restricted by these laws ).

but anyway.. what would make a great trade off to keep as many servers running is that, server clans should combine forces, that way they can share costs and also have more admins, strike two birds with the same stone..

Also I belive that in teh same way that servers have to the choice on whether to run 16, 32 or 64 player servers, taht should continue for servers who wish to run 256 players or whatever, and realistically I do not belive that many servers will even choose to run 256 or even 128 for that matter..

so to sum off and conclude.. GIVE IT TIME.. dont judge too early.. and HELP with teamwork.. be a squad leader !!!

In my view there should be no hard-limit, allowing admins to set their playercount. Which could be helped by specific map layers or game modes appropriate for different amounts of players.

If most people choose to play on the largest servers that will inevitably have a negative effect on the smaller servers, however that is just the reality of majority rule. The choice of full servers in each region is already quite limited anyway.

IMO the sheer epicness of having so many players on the same battlefield makes up for some of the mentioned (albeit somewhat exaggerated and generalized) gameplay issues.

Besides any solid judgments on gameplay are quite premature at this point, as there have been no client side patches yet and the community still needs to get used to it.

The biggest problem with having this one huge *** server with over 9000 players is the fact that it takes players away from other servers. The usual teamworkers and good players pretty much stay on the 116 player server, while other servers(which usually dont have problems filling up) can barely get 40 players on theirs.

L4gi wrote:The biggest problem with having this one huge *** server with over 9000 players is the fact that it takes players away from other servers. The usual teamworkers and good players pretty much stay on the 116 player server, while other servers(which usually dont have problems filling up) can barely get 40 players on theirs.

That is the current situation, but there are still plenty of people that don't go on it. More and more teamwork oriented players keep popping up, it should settle just fine.

L4gi wrote:The biggest problem with having this one huge *** server with over 9000 players is the fact that it takes players away from other servers. The usual teamworkers and good players pretty much stay on the 116 player server, while other servers(which usually dont have problems filling up) can barely get 40 players on theirs.

Hello L4GI,

I think that is a very valid argument. That is why You need to increase the amount of 128 player server slowly over time i.e. start with 1, then wait three months, add a second.

A second problem, as mentioned so many time already, is the squad size/number of squads in the game, and the moderation on such a server.

On the other hand, at least the PR:Tournament Server might want to upgrade to 128+ players, offering really a unique feature for PR. With the tight organization in PR:T, the good players conduct can be guaranteed even with higher player numbers. Logically, this would mean a expansion of the PR:T to allow more players to participate.

-- Patient-Bear

BrownBadger wrote:That is the current situation, but there are still plenty of people that don't go on it. More and more teamwork oriented players keep popping up, it should settle just fine.

The problem wont be solved by itself.

The other servers do have some tw oriented players but thats because the 128 servers are full of derp that they decide to rage quit and go to other servers

Lets make a MMO, why not

I wanna play CnC (Command and Controll) with 100+ players! I think that could work much better with a lot of players than it does today!

I don't want to go back to 116 players on the server... it looks so empty.

Come on, Soppa bring out the big 150!

I would not get too enamored with the standard gameplay prospects of ultra-high player counts (Which I consider to be past 128 ). I think that would be fun as an event (much like it is currently), but server and client demands are big enough that the barrier to entry could put off a lot of players.

That being said, pushing the hardcoded limits is a vital pursuit, and I support it wholeheartedly. Most of us agree 128 (or even 100 players!) and 8-man squads is already a tremendous leap for PR gameplay, and I think that should be given the opportunity to become optimized balance-wise before we push a norm beyond that.

I would like to test a 96 man USA server, because of the ping i have difficulty sometimes enjoying the 116 man server even back when it was 128. Soppa if you can help us to test this let me know???


32+ 16 extra
32+ 16 extra

that should be easy enough to run.

I think for a public server 100 or so players is probably good.

However, 250 for tournament purposes, opens some unique possibilities.

factors for limiting player numbers

1) complexity a public player can assimilate
2) server hardware, is your clan willing to pay the amount for the required powerful server?
3) unwillingness of clans to work together to run a larger server?
4) squad system unable to support more players
5) vehicles
128 works reasonably well with the same vehicle numbers as 64, though requiring alot more team transport. more than that may require more vehicles, not only will that vastly increase the number of networkable objects, it'll also increase the number of complex objects you'll be rendering. (tank = 10k polys for example)
6) Netoworkable objects, some PR maps will require a serious re-look to decrease the number of destroyable objects...even Kashan will have trouble imo. PR has seen in the past when there are lots of destructable objects it can help cause server crashes, which is why we use a destructable advisory limit.

regarding problems seeding servers - 128 players is already on the horizon as a public option guys. you will need to adapt to it. Smaller clans/communities merging/agreeing to run a server together is probably your best option; and honestly I prefer it when people do that anyway, rather than rely on 5-10 people to jump on the server at 1700hrs and seed so everyone else can play Fewer, better servers is the way forward.

However, 250 for tournament purposes, opens some unique possibilities.

I bet the T-ADM staff are thinking 'christ...we're gonna have to let in 2x the amount of people!??' *grabs bottle of whiskey*

Actually we're salivating at the idea.

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote:factors for limiting player numbers

1) complexity a public player can assimilate
2) server hardware, is your clan willing to pay the amount for the required powerful server?
3) unwillingness of clans to work together to run a larger server?
4) squad system unable to support more players
5) vehicles
128 works reasonably well with the same vehicle numbers as 64, though requiring alot more team transport. more than that may require more vehicles, not only will that vastly increase the number of networkable objects, it'll also increase the number of complex objects you'll be rendering. (tank = 10k polys for example)
6) Netoworkable objects, some PR maps will require a serious re-look to decrease the number of destroyable objects...even Kashan will have trouble imo. PR has seen in the past when there are lots of destructable objects it can help cause server crashes, which is why we use a destructable advisory limit.

regarding problems seeding servers - 128 players is already on the horizon as a public option guys. you will need to adapt to it. Smaller clans/communities merging/agreeing to run a server together is probably your best option; and honestly I prefer it when people do that anyway, rather than rely on 5-10 people to jump on the server at 1700hrs and seed so everyone else can play Fewer, better servers is the way forward.



I bet the T-ADM staff are thinking 'christ...we're gonna have to let in 2x the amount of people!??' *grabs bottle of whiskey*

I just read your post. All I see is:

1) 205 players, flip yeah
2) 205 players, flip yeah
3) 205 players, flip yeah
4) 205 players, flip yeah
5) 205 players, flip yeah
6) 205 players, flip yeah

We don't need many more vehicles for any amount of players, but the squads are definitely an issue. Tournament sounds very interesting with more players...

guys your getting player syndrome.

Okay lets look at this from this from different points of view:

250 players for all:
100 (ish) players for public servers, 250 for PRT and large clan events (so no 250 player sundays):

vishuddaxxx wrote: ok so some people have remarked how some servers will be empty and never populated, and someone even mentioned competition laws. ( just a note.. competition laws apply to entites that seek to make money, so I dont think a free server would be restricted by these laws ).

but anyway.. what would make a great trade off to keep as many servers running is that, server clans should combine forces, that way they can share costs and also have more admins, strike two birds with the same stone..

Thus cutting down on the amount of servers available!

L4gi wrote:The biggest problem with having this one huge *** server with over 9000 players is the fact that it takes players away from other servers. The usual teamworkers and good players pretty much stay on the 116 player server, while other servers(which usually dont have problems filling up) can barely get 40 players on theirs.

Agreed, I like to play 64 players as well as 116 and so having that choice is really important!

wuschel wrote:
I think that is a very valid argument. That is why You need to increase the amount of 128 player server slowly over time i.e. start with 1, then wait three months, add a second.

-- Patient-Bear

Or even like suggest before have one server per continent.

Coxy

edit ... Just realised that these points have now been covered!

I think one 116 server is great and gives players the choice and save 256+ for PR-T and special events!