Project Reality Forums

I know that there have been threads about this before but 100 player servers are problematic. From my experience there are three main problems.

1. Squad size. 8 man squads are too big and clunky. If a squad is looking for transport from say a helicopter or an APC only part of the squad can go along for the ride because of the 8 person seat limitation of the BF2 engine. In the helicopter 1 seat will be taken up by the pilot and in an APC two seats will be taken by the crewmen. 8 person squads are also much harder to command as a squad leader because your guys will wonder off to get kills and then get killed.

2. Lag. I've taken careful note of this one. When server population is <64 the server runs smoothly. After that FPS seem to drop off a cliff. Servers also crash and freeze more especially on high performance maps (mostly 1km maps).

3. Teamwork. Teamwork has rapidly degraded people just follow the person in front of them and just tend to keep walking into fire over and over again. Only actual teamwork comes from clan guys who are smart enough to go around the massive clusterf**k of guys and do what they need to do.

Nah...

100p make the game far more interesting. Now it acctually happens something on the map. With 64 players almost everyone is tied up to assets. Now there actually are some infantry.

Furthermore it's way more fun to defend now, when you can actually anticipate that someone will attack.

I personally haven't noticed any lag.

Personally one of the most valid reasons I believe for going back to 64p is server variety.

Currently there are maybe 2/3 full servers at peak time weekdays and 3/4 at the weekend. But the player base is getting smaller and has been for a while, trying to get a new server up and running in PR is incredibly difficult as there just aren't enough players to go around.

1. Lock your squad at 7 players, I frequently find myself doing that

2. Nope, it's more of a drain on your CPU for sure, but it does not cause the server crashes. They've been there for much longer than the introduction of 100 players.

3. I think that's more to do with the playerbase and some of the new changes to do the mod in the latest version.

With 64 players almost everyone is tied up to assets. Now there actually are some infantry.

Unless my memories fuzzy I can't recall any difference in the asset~infantry ratio, assets were increased across the board to accomodate 100 players. The ratio between infantry and assets is pretty much the same.

It depends on the map. 100p on Muttrah is too much but 64 on Wanda Shan are too few and you cant solve this problem...

I would suggest to go back to the old 0.98 rallys and increase the spawntimes of assets (like in 0.98 and stay with the 100p Servers in order to reduce this massive attacking waves... With this you will see an advantage when you kill a squad or destroy assets and have less players on one point of the map.

Shut your mouth tank. Blasphemer. 100p is awesome.

There are certain maps where 100p is too big imo.


But I think 100p is good enough.

I don't want more then 100p. Since that would be too insane.


And reasoning for vehicles and 8 players...

They have Trans Trucks for a reason.

matty1053 wrote: And reasoning for vehicles and 8 players...
They have Trans Trucks for a reason.

Those trucks are only available for a short amount of time. Either a full squad takes it and abandons it or loses it in the field or a 1-4 man squad takes it.

Kingy wrote: 1. Lock your squad at 7 players, I frequently find myself doing that

2. Nope, it's more of a drain on your CPU for sure, but it does not cause the server crashes. They've been there for much longer than the introduction of 100 players.

3. I think that's more to do with the playerbase and some of the new changes to do the mod in the latest version.


Unless my memories fuzzy I can't recall any difference in the asset~infantry ratio, assets were increased across the board to accomodate 100 players. The ratio between infantry and assets is pretty much the same.

1. Locking at under 8 wastes squad space. Between asset squads and squad locked under 8 there ends up being lots of people without a squad. (2-20 players mostly on the lower end but sometimes up on the higher end).

2. For some servers others seem to get horribly messed up between freezes and crashes. (ever try CIA for 1-2 hours)

3. Probably but it doesn't help extra players help to increase the mob mentality that gets going

4. It was adjusted. But as you said player base changed. People forget the PC part of APC is PERSONNEL CARRIER.

tankninja1 wrote:Those trucks are only available for a short amount of time. Either a full squad takes it and abandons it or loses it in the field or a 1-4 man squad takes it.


\.

So, if a full squad takes it.... then good. Just pray they do good with it.

And if the Trans Truck is one manned...

IIRC, MOST admins actually do stuff about it. (AT least on HOG they do). They usually warn the player to return it. Since one-manning a valuable asset is kind of illegal in PR.

What i wish they will do is set the squad count to 6 again and increase the Squads from nine to 10 or 16 squads cause Nine is not enough with the fact you have 2 or 3 squads locking for JETS, TANKS, APCs etc then the rest of INF and we cant get enough INF squads so therefor you have many not in squads and lone wolfing. 6 man squads are great and manageable. with 100p just IMO

increase the Squads from nine to 10 or 16

Well that's hardcoded into the game, it's not as if you're the first one to come up with this idea.

1. Locking at under 8 wastes squad space. Between asset squads and squad locked under 8 there ends up being lots of people without a squad. (2-20 players mostly on the lower end but sometimes up on the higher end).

Your right, this is why I like the MerK server which caps at 82 players. Much better in terms of filling up squads and getting everyone involved.

I think APC's aren't used as transports so much anymore because of 8 man squads, you just can't fit enough of your squad in them anymore.

I would kind of like to see squad caps increased to 12 players per squad again. Some squad leader's couldn't manage it sure, but you have the option of locking at the number of your preference. A squad of 12 could be split across 2 vehichles easily and with the extra assets of 100p there are enough to go around. It might also help to reduce the number of squadless players.

I agree that in 1km and some 2km like Muttrah it feels too crowded sometimes but it only really hurts gameplay in the 1km ones.
But 100p works really great for 4km as now we can have proper combined arms with multiple Infantry squads on the field, even when all assets are manned.
64p for 4km maps used to be almost pure asset battles with just a few unlucky inf players spread out around the map. It was funny hwo frequently I saw just 1 inf sq with 4-5 guys and a trans sq with 2 helos operating.
So no, lets not break the 4km maps, which are the best IMO, and let admins deal with the overcrowded small ones.

The lack is teamwork isn't due to server size, it is solely to do with who is Sling/commanding in said match. Considering a lot of the people that play PR now are morons and idiots, your likely mistaken.

_Fizzco_ wrote:The lack is teamwork isn't due to server size, it is solely to do with who is Sling/commanding in said match. Considering a lot of the people that play PR now are morons and idiots, your likely mistaken.

I can agree with that.


But really, what the Devs should do on certain maps.....

Increase the number of Trans Trucks and Jeeps, and pot. boats.


(pot= potentially)



But one game can be ruined by one player. Especially if they are trans.

I can't believe you just shortened a word just to use twice as many letters to explain what it means...

saXoni wrote:I can't believe you just shortened a word just to use twice as many letters to explain what it means...

You bloody beat me to it


On topic, I agree. There are very few rounds I've enjoyed on 100p. 64 is too few with the increase number of assets. 80 is a good compromise and also reduces the probability of problems from locked squads. I also like Shifty's suggestion of bringing back 12-man squads. Only problem with that is the cluster-f comms would become, but it's the most elegant solution.

I've posted about this in another thread, but I agree with what's been said about the spawn rate of assets.

I think increasing squad size to 12 is great. It gives you the flexibility to command more and assign troops to transportation roles (have two drivers assigned to transport two groups of 5 infantry) while having the option to use lock to cut squad size to one you are comfortable with.

Leave it for players who have a lot of experience leading, thus also giving more players options to join that first teamwork squad, because the second or third is usually the quiet ones, and let squad leaders become more like platoon leaders increasing combined arms cooperation.

People would have to learn to use squad lock more and local voice. And local chat should be default anyway with squad radio being left only for important stuff. Ultimately it is up to the squad leader to enforce radio discipline to local chat so squad radio doesn't fuck with comms. SL comms is already a mess.

Yeah, unless you're playing on a large map, 100 players tend to make things into a war of attrition with strategy playing less of a role (especially for insurgency where people just stream in from both sides). I also prefer fewer players but I would be hesitant to suggest cutting the maximum player limit down. I wish there was one popular server that would set the limit to around 60-80 and rotate only smaller maps like Fallujah (which turns into a cluster **** with 100 people but is much more balanced with around 60).

Also, I'm up for seeing 12 man squads again.

Realistcally though there aren't enough active servers as it is, soon as you put all 5 (pretty much active) servers down to 80 players you've lost 100 slots

_Fizzco_ wrote:Realistcally though there aren't enough active servers as it is, soon as you put all 5 (pretty much active) servers down to 80 players you've lost 100 slots

There are a huge variety of servers rarely ever used. You could argue it's their own fault for not seeding in force but the playerbase can only go so far. It gives new servers a chance to become one of the active main servers.

I think switching back to 64 players would kill PR off anyway, a lot of the people used to the server size of 64 stopped playing a while ago and the new generation of PR players would probably lose interest if the maximum player count was dropped that low.

Is it possible to have a graph to see the player/full server population since 1.0?


But, the bad thing of 50 players...

Believe it or not, 1 player can ruin the entire game for a team.

Recently though, I noticed less Derp in PR.