lets count to 128...1...2...3...4

so...

So, 128 players on a pr server is nothing special?

jevski it looks good thansk for the post .

Recon you better change your attitude to members.

not enough squads for players me thinks

Yeah bully, they are changing that right now to 8 players per sqd.
Its an ongoing test.
Read more about it here
http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr-bf2-general-discussion/93978-pr-128-player-server-test-official.html

OK lets dream a little

lets say they find a way round the lag etc

lets say they find away round the squad and vehicle situation,

hmmm......what will PR DEVs do ?????

should be obvious ?

8km maps

the awesomeness of its epicness of its wonderment would be.......soz i'm just speechless

And what would a nightmare be? Fallujah with 128 players

:O


*ORGASM*

didnt really looked @ the vid lol just saw players in spawn thats why i posted so... what i ment with it was what can i see on it:P

didnt mean to insult any1 guys

No problem Recon, I didnt take it as such.

Edit:


But, But, There were 12 players in a squad!!

It gownn be EPIC.

speedhound1-WYD- wrote:OK lets dream a little

lets say they find a way round the lag etc

lets say they find away round the squad and vehicle situation,

hmmm......what will PR DEVs do ?????

should be obvious ?

8km maps

the awesomeness of its epicness of its wonderment would be.......soz i'm just speechless

Dunno about 8km maps. That's just doubling the emptiness.

The 4km ones would feel a hell of a lot busier, possibly encouraging more people to go inf on those maps where half the team seems to be standing around at the base waiting for an armoured vehicle to respawn.

2km... I'm not so sure

@ 1 pigeon

yeah probably got a little over excited yesterday.....

gave this some thought last night and actually realised that even if player numbers were kept at modest levels above 64 it would render most maps unusable and insurgency could become unplayable.

picture the scene, even on a map like Kashan, even 1 more inf sq could see the use of over bound used to devastating effect, think, a spare US squad waiting patiently at south village for south bunkers to fall, for the MEC? game over.
this leads to the question, do we play to win or do we play to play? even if (as in this scenario) the player base was raised (modestly) to 76 from 64 capping the enemy out could become the norm thus rendering the ticket system currently used in AAS obsolete. i realise counter arguments exist but think in real terms of one side always being slightly/very superior to the other and you perhaps can see where i'm coming from.

it can be argued that the rises in player base will remain relative to both sides and therefore Status Quo, but can anyone really imagine Bluefor ever actually winning an ins round ever again when the ins might have 1 or more squads extra to defend caches? in the current system of 2 caches at anyone time i cant see how it could work.

this is not to say that in the future these issues won't be solved but i'll not hold my breath just yet, this will take ages to implement i think, with bigger maps (and yes pigeon i realised 8k maps would be on the stupid side of silly, 4km maps = 16 square Km so 5km ? = 25 square Km might be more in order) and different game mode layouts the future looks very interesting.

PR 0.970 anyone ?

also now wondering of course what other source code Tema 567 can see ? bullet drop with tracers ? hmmmm anyone seen mosqills mill dot bullet drop calculator ?

U've got a point with that . I've been playing on the NEW's 128 test server for 2 days . And we have had two insurgency so far . Both of 'em ended up with taliban victorious . And in Lashkar , one unkown cache was taken out , in Ramiel no caches at all . The Blufor just kept losing tickets as the squads were trying to get closer the cache . Anyway but from 4 km maps like Yamalia , the experience i had was pretty amazing . Much funner than it currently is with 64 . And from what i heard from the devs , they will put this as an option to servers . So its not gonna be necessity .

Bownty wrote:I thought it was 12 person squads, not 8?

12x9 = 108
128-108=20
-2 (CO) = 18
18 Unsquadded people on a server
=9 Generic Soldiers on your side that need a ride (And wont get one)

Your maths is atrocious!
We start with 128 players, we divide into 2 teams, 64 players a side

Now at present 6 players in a squad * 9 squads + 1 commander = 55, leaving 64-55 = 9 unassigned.
with 8 player squads in a squad * 9 squads + 1 commander = 73, 73-64, he look there's 7 slots left over, per side. so 8 player squads would allow it, its my understanding the 9 squad limit is hard coded, specially when it comes to squad names. The developers have a lot to overcome, but if they are successful it will be interesting, perhaps the biggest dilemma is the 4km*4km map limit of the bf2 engine, correct if I am wrong but that is the playable area limit?

I believe one issue with having big maps was the combat area. Not sure where that started to kick in, but you could run without combat area, it works fine.
I read somewhere that bf2 engine supports larger maps than 4km, they just wont load in the editor, but maybe you can four 4km maps and stitch them together. who knows.

If they will go with 8 player squads it's going to be impossible to lock the squads without having an issue with free squad member slots.

That looks beautiful. So now it's a race to see if PR:Arma2 or new PR 128 servers comes first.

Yeah. 4km maps are empty enough as it is. Don't think we need anything bigger. Personally I'm much more interested in getting more than 6 in a squad. A small increase in player limit would be ok.

The problem with 8-12 in a squad is the chaos . Not everyone listen to you , everyone talkin at the same time blah blah blah , but ofc it might just my luck with playing on a server with ppl coming from all around the world to just see it , not for play and have a good game .

I hope they dont change a thing PR is perfect the way it is.!!

128 is too much, but 80/90 or so would be great i reckon. keep the heavy assets the same, but more infantry squads would do a world of good. especially on the big maps

cap

Another thing, when servers go from 64 to 128 players, a bunch of servers will be empty becuse ppl joins the best servers avalible, and its a risk for many servers losing alot of players, and some Servers might need to updte whouldent they?, like more ram, and more hardware, and probebly if they dont have that Great broadband, they will have to update to a faster one... This might Go Realy great for the most, but... yeah, it gives you a Brain-capzise xD there is alot to do... and maps : O OMG ! and... :S AAH!? lets all download Map making and make som AWSOME maps!! too help

hmm...asad khal skirmish whit 128 players....

It will be hard to get 62 peoples organized. You need all SL`s communicating whit each others and the commander.
But if you get it work right PR will change. Tanks and other armored vehicles will have full crew and many other changes can be made.

BXV got a point. There's gonna be alot of chaos. Maybe mumble will be the solution?

Comunication chaos could be solved by implementing something similar to ACRE plugin for TS3 used in ARMA 2 - only one person can talk in a channel at any given time - wich is radio procedure in real life
And yes, 128 players seems a bit too much...128 is the upper limit...i suppose that player number will be set in such way to solve the squadless issue.
And to be honest, i rather doubt that we'll see 128 full servers - after a while people will not join full/almost full servers because its too much headache for both commanders and squad leaders...hell,being commander/SL is stressfulll in 64 ppl/6 men sq..its gonna be worse in doubling the ammount.
Second - heavy assets. It may seem strange, but on AAs mode it would be a mistake to increase the number of heavy assets like tanks,atack chopper,jets, but increasing the number of transport assests will do.
Increasing the number of limited kits (HAT,AA, CE) could back fire if they do not increase the HP of said heavy assets.So,as speed said, its a hell of a lot of testing to be done, this time for gameplay. It will be a while till we'll see a 90,100 or 128 official servers online. Also, BLOFOR is pretty much FUBAR on insurgency...lets be honest: they have enough hard time getting a cache now...try to get 2 known caches if you double the number of insurgents...nightmare(atack helicopter on INS map? ).
Anyway...if they solve all the gameplay issues, I think it would be very very interesting.