Project Reality Forums

Well first off i think 100 player servers is a bad idea unless we are able to make more than 9 squads, because if were only able to make 9 squads there will be alot of people not assinged to squads and with that leading to low teamwork and people leaving because they can t get in into squads.

2nd, I think we should be able to see atleast our squad members name tags from close because when there is alot of people like in big assaults etc it gets really confusing and normaly people get lost in squads, some of the new players that came into PR already sed that with the no nametags atleast from squad members it will be very difficult to organize.

Thats all for now and this is just an opinion nothing more.

Tanaka wrote:Well first off i think 100 player servers is a bad idea unless we are able to make more than 9 squads, because if were only able to make 9 squads there will be alot of people not assinged to squads and with that leading to low teamwork and people leaving because they can t get in into squads.

* >9 squads=hardcoded AFAIK.
*Squads now have more than 6 slots (8.), so all players should be able to find a squad.

Tanaka wrote:2nd, I think we should be able to see atleast our squad members name tags from close because when there is alot of people like in big assaults etc it gets really confusing and normaly people get lost in squads, some of the new players that came into PR already sed that with the no nametags atleast from squad members it will be very difficult to organize.

*Seeing players who have a number above 64 (76, 91 etc.) is hardcoded AFAIK.
*Soldiers on the same team look alike.
*Big assaults are confusing IRL.
*People can find each other using markers, map and local VOIP.

Hi,

I usually play SL and I have a few comments on the amount of squads and the amount of players on a server.

I prefer to play with a smaller squad that allows me to sneak into the ennemy territory without being seen. As of now, when I lead a 8-man squad there is often someone being seen or just shooting at ennemies when I ask not to... that brings us into firefights that I wanted to avoid.

You could say, lock your squad or whatever. The problem is that I usually play with a friend (SL + Med) and this would make the team lose 6 squad slots. Not good for other players.

So, I support the idea of increasing the number of squads if we maintain the idea of 100(+) servers even if it may not be possible.

Some people don't want huge firefights and prefer to slightly move into ennemy area. I'm one of those people.

Hell wrote:ds if we maintain the idea of 100(+) servers even if it may not be possible.

Some people don't want huge firefights and prefer to slightly move into ennemy area. I'm one of those people.

Thats the reason why 64 players server still exist. For the others there is 100p.

I got a great solution!

Update the compass to show friendlies with dots on the direction they are.

The more out they are, the more smaller the dots would be. Friendlies would be marked with blue.

That way, it allows the player to quickly identify friendlies, and allows the user to look at the compass before engaging.

The only advantage is that looking down and then up won't be enough when an enemy discovers your position. But this method is much faster than pulling out your map and checking your position.

The community went through the whole player quantity debate a long time ago, we had a long testing session with even an event or two with 200 (karez).

Alot of players would prefer 128 but devs have decided on 100, as most inf players like 8 man squads you'll probably find space or a relaxed SL who'll let you go to spec ops anyway.

Tanaka wrote:Well first off i think 100 player servers is a bad idea unless we are able to make more than 9 squads, because if were only able to make 9 squads there will be alot of people not assinged to squads and with that leading to low teamwork and people leaving because they can t get in into squads.

Wow, you should atleast play on a 100p Server once before you start to complain. Squads take 8 players, thus 9 x 8 = 72.

Tanaka wrote: 2nd, I think we should be able to see atleast our squad members name tags from close because when there is alot of people like in big assaults etc it gets really confusing and normaly people get lost in squads, some of the new players that came into PR already sed that with the no nametags atleast from squad members it will be very difficult to organize.

Thats all for now and this is just an opinion nothing more.

Agreed, it's often a pain in the *** to find your squadmate. You have to check your map much more often to only look where you are, and then look where the SL is/teammates are (which is annoying). Maybe integrate this as a toggle-option (on/off)?

PLODDITHANLEY wrote: Alot of players would prefer 128 but devs have decided on 100, as most inf players like 8 man squads you'll probably find space or a relaxed SL who'll let you go to spec ops anyway.

Yeah, 128p would be a bit more awesome than with 100p.

The limited amount of squads compared to the amount of players can end up in more 'experienced' (in their own mind) players to think they deserve to take a SL's place, causing conflicts and bad games.

PoisonBill wrote:hardcoded blah-blah-blah hardcoded hardcoded blah-blah

BREAKING NEWS! 64 players is also hardcoded.

It's all up to the skills of those who changes these hardcoded things. And I'd say 100p its good idea with worst implementation due to lack of skills/time/whatever and should not be exist at all in that way.

And if someone thinks there is enough room in squads for everyone then you're completely wrong because there always will be closed clan squads.
Just yesterday there was only 2 closed inf squads and we ended up with 12 unassigned people had to join asset-squads or just do nothing and there is no way I would allow them into my closed squad at least because of different languages. Now you have the choice: try to kick 5 ppl in closed clan-sq or leave it as is. Is 100p still looks as good idea?

Best thing devs can do is stop fooling around with bf2 engine and switch to arma.

When it comes out servers will have to make rules for 100p squads. This is a beta to test issues and game breaking stuff, the server admins and community will sort out rules when the time comes.

For now try to enjoy the three remaining days, although it can a bit of a mess at times.

Really nice comments dude when the general community is feeling very very appreciative of the teams free work they have done for us. You complain about locked squads when you lock your own your English sounds great too.

sirfstar wrote:BREAKING NEWS! 64 players is also hardcoded.

Is it now... Actually I don't think you understood what I wrote. The change was likely implimented since 18 players have no tags whatsoever (hardcoded issue). Not being able to see their tags will make you presume they are an enemy.

sirfstar wrote:It's all up to the skills of those who changes these hardcoded things. And I'd say 100p its good idea with worst implementation due to lack of skills/time/whatever and should not be exist at all in that way.

And if someone thinks there is enough room in squads for everyone then you're completely wrong because there always will be closed clan squads.
Just yesterday there was only 2 closed inf squads and we ended up with 12 unassigned people had to join asset-squads or just do nothing and there is no way I would allow them into my closed squad at least because of different languages. Now you have the choice: try to kick 5 ppl in closed clan-sq or leave it as is. Is 100p still looks as good idea?

There are good servers which are administrated, which the beta servers aren't. Then there are hardcoded things which are just impossible to work around.

sirfstar wrote:Best thing devs can do is stop fooling around with bf2 engine and switch to arma.

wtf?

I don't want to be forced to have 8 people in my squad at all times, I already have problems running a 6 people squad since half of the community is always acting in a way they shouldn't. It is so obvious, you tell your men to move left and they'll run to the right. When you say them to hold fire, they all start shooting goddamn rockets and machine guns into the air. I think 80 people is good enough for the servers, enough room for everyone and enough room for tactics and giant assaults.

the server admins and community will sort out rules when the time comes.

So I understood it right you guys would kick 5/8 closed squad just because its locked? Then i just open it and mute all who is excess. Issue solved? No.

Really nice comments dude when the general community is feeling very very appreciative of the teams free work they have done for us.

Yeah sorry I'm not one of those who fills 100 pages in the release-thread with mindless comments like "AWESOME" and that screenshot from south park.
Being appreciative does not means praising and not criticize anything.

You complain about locked squads when you lock your own your English sounds great too.

Even if my english is enough to interact with 99% of players I wont just because its harder to me and maybe someone from my squad does not speaks english at all. It will always come up and will end with kicking whole effective squads just for 3-4 unassigned (the question is do they really need a squad or just kit) in the worst case and it wont help.

B.Pronk(NL) wrote:I don't want to be forced to have 8 people in my squad at all times, I already have problems running a 6 people squad since half of the community is always acting in a way they shouldn't. It is so obvious, you tell your men to move left and they'll run to the right. When you say them to hold fire, they all start shooting goddamn rockets and machine guns into the air. I think 80 people is good enough for the servers, enough room for everyone and enough room for tactics and giant assaults.

Well you can always kick the asshats out of the squad and tell an admin you are locking it to stop them from getting back in. That usually works. Some people are just bad squad members. Ignore your orders and just run off in any direction or grab random kits like a sniper and run off.

Like im sorry but when you join a squad and instantly run to the crate and grab a sniper rifle BEFORE being told to do so by your squad leader. You just proved you are the biggest asshat in the world. And you just got a reward. And it is a kick from the squad XD

sirfstar wrote:
Best thing devs can do is stop fooling around with bf2 engine and switch to arma.

There is an Arma2 PR mod that got released and one for Arma3 in the making.

I still prefer modding for BF2 personally this is why I'll stick to it. As I don't earn money and do everything for free I'll also not switch only because people want me to.

[R-DEV]BloodyDeed wrote:There is an Arma2 PR mod that got released and one for Arma3 in the making.

I still prefer modding for BF2 personally this is why I'll stick to it. As I don't earn money and do everything for free I'll also not switch only because people want me to.

You cant really mention A2PR since its halted and there is not a single server for it. And I know about the one for a3.
Also I did not said anything about I want you or someone else to do something for free or whatever.
But BF2 will die and this will happen definitely before A2/3 will.

sirfstar wrote:But BF2 will die and this will happen definitely before A2/3 will.

Isn't this a discussion tread? How is it of any importance to mention this so nonchalantly?

Focus on what is changed and if improvements could be made, 100 players is obviously not the only settings servers can choose. You can still play skirmishes 8v8 if you want or the standard 64...