Project Reality Forums

I was watching some videos of the most fun time in PR, when we were fighting proper sized battles. And it hit me... it was in 2011. FIVE YEARS AGO. Wow, time flies.

Maybe we can commemorate the fifth annual with a proper fight? Should be somewhere in March/April, if I remember correctly. Maybe a round of Karez Offensive (Operation Phoenix) with 200 players?

KingKong.CCCP wrote:I was watching some videos of the most fun time in PR, when we were fighting proper sized battles. And it hit me... it was in 2011. FIVE YEARS AGO. Wow, time flies.

Maybe we can commemorate the fifth annual with a proper fight? Should be somewhere in March/April, if I remember correctly. Maybe a round of Karez Offensive (Operation Phoenix) with 200 players?

Give that man a medal!

what hapened whith
server

I admit it. it will definitely be great to see more players on maps. Imagine fellujah west with at least 150 players. there will not be any infiltration point for both sides and if you want to go to behind enemy lines you must pay its price.

fps would drop on maps like faludscha and server would become even more unstable.

i am noob to this stuff, but maybe better servers? or our servers are top notch?
Or is it to the MS?

The mod was so young

I remember absolute chaos and squad bugs. In between there it could be pretty fun, as long as the server didn't crash. And some maps could just not stay stable.

OMG, I Remember PRTA (IIRC) their 128 player server on silent eagle.

I loooved the 128. For some reason it felt perfect on bigger maps! 100 players still seem small on 4km maps lol

wow five years ago, time sure flies, Im one of those guys as well that would like to see bigger servers, Id like to 150 player servers as standard

I remember the 300 person test on Wicca's map. It was pretty epic, and pretty laggy in the main bases with 150 people on your screen lol.

Back in my day we had 32 people on a side

People still didn't understand how defence worked back then and that's a game mechanic that remains popular today

PricelineNegotiator wrote:I remember the 300 person test on Wicca's map. It was pretty epic, and pretty laggy in the main bases with 150 people on your screen lol.

We should do that again

64 players on round with nametags and without rallys.best PR gaming ever.

0.98

Back when Korengal Valley was popular

PricelineNegotiator wrote:I remember the 300 person test on Wicca's map. It was pretty epic, and pretty laggy in the main bases with 150 people on your screen lol.

Memory.

maarit wrote:64 players on round with nametags and without rallys.best PR gaming ever.

Once I had an arguement with two FH players who claimed best multiplay rounds in FH were 2:2. All together, 4 people. And they played maps with tanks, infantry, planes, using all vehicles.
So there are people who like those things.

32 players per team was only rarely great, and only on some servers.
Let's break down what 62/64 (2 reserved slots) was like:
1p joining the game
1p afk
2 armor sq = 4p
1 gunship = 2p
1p trans heli
1 CO
1 useless "recon" squad = 4p
1 mortar sq = 3p
5p dead, waiting for a spawn point/revive
1p waiting in main
1p driving loggy (or sitting on AA placement patiently)
1p clueles new guy, testing weapons in main.

Seems about right, I think. An average round of "64" players.
So let's see... How many do we have left to shoot... Six infantry men. SIX. To defend and attack.
I remember, after playing on 160 server, what was it like playing on 64p "clusterfuked" Muttrah map. I was shocked how my squaddies casually walked to the flag, while I was running from cover to cover. There were simply no enemies. My squadies were laughing at me for acting silly. Usually you could just walk to objective, or get there with a jeep.
That's how great 64 servers on average were. To enjoy a fairly nice game, you had to play daily, and only once or twice a week for an hour or so you got a great fight, IF you were in a great clan, playing on the best server (TG, at the time).

I loved the 200 player events on Normandy in .98. Would love to have em again with the new version but I don't think it'd work out well since it's already performance heavy for a lot of players

KingKong.CCCP wrote:Once I had an arguement with two FH players who claimed best multiplay rounds in FH were 2:2. All together, 4 people. And they played maps with tanks, infantry, planes, using all vehicles.
So there are people who like those things.

32 players per team was only rarely great, and only on some servers.
Let's break down what 62/64 (2 reserved slots) was like:
1p joining the game
1p afk
2 armor sq = 4p
1 gunship = 2p
1p trans heli
1 CO
1 useless "recon" squad = 4p
1 mortar sq = 3p
5p dead, waiting for a spawn point/revive
1p waiting in main
1p driving loggy (or sitting on AA placement patiently)
1p clueles new guy, testing weapons in main.

Seems about right, I think. An average round of "64" players.
So let's see... How many do we have left to shoot... Six infantry men. SIX. To defend and attack.
I remember, after playing on 160 server, what was it like playing on 64p "clusterfuked" Muttrah map. I was shocked how my squaddies casually walked to the flag, while I was running from cover to cover. There were simply no enemies. My squadies were laughing at me for acting silly. Usually you could just walk to objective, or get there with a jeep.
That's how great 64 servers on average were. To enjoy a fairly nice game, you had to play daily, and only once or twice a week for an hour or so you got a great fight, IF you were in a great clan, playing on the best server (TG, at the time).

64 players on 2 km maps was best but in 4 km maps 64 players was too low.
and with fobs there where enemies just enough.
but i like more slowpace gameplay,where sometimes nothing really happens but you have to be ready all the time.

maybe with 200 players without any spawnpoint (only main) would suit for me.

yeah, i like that without spawnpoint (only main)... Come on guys, we should that... Is it about server? Can we get better one or there is no way to do that without problems?