project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > PR:BF2 Mod Forums > PR:BF2 General Discussion
18 Dec 2017, 00:00:00 (PRT)
Register Forum RulesDeveloper Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
PR:BF2 General Discussion General discussion of the Project Reality: BF2 modification.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-11-2012, 01:38 PM   #31
TeRR0R
Supporting Member
Default Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Regarding hardware demands... Even if the 128p code is public no server is forced to offer 128 or more slots. I guess you can set the limit to around 80p and still can run it on average server hardware.
TeRR0R is offline Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 01:46 PM   #32
Arnoldio
Banned
Default Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by *NwA*Orford View Post
@Arnoldio,

Your thinking has one serious overwhelming unmissable flaw. Lamborghini "SELL" there car`s PR server providers dont charge you to play and the DEV`s dont charge to download and play there game.
I dont believe they make money from those cars really. Thats why they are under ownership of Audi and VW. They just fiddle with the money they are provided with and make some rich people happy or dead.
Arnoldio is offline Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 02:34 PM   #33
manligheten
Default Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudd View Post
I'm really psyched for 128 players, but this transition does represent a bit curve for the PR community,

what I would do if I were a server operator right now is identify another server they'd be willing to work with, to pool their resources and playerbase; because eventually 128 will surely be public and when that day comes you're gonna need to have the hardware and player following to take advantage of it.

Though I do want to see 128 code on other servers asap, simply to see if it actually ports well to other server hardware/software.

But even if every server has the 128 code....I think the community will have to change to meet the challenge. You'll have to work together, there won't be much point for small clan servers outside of PRSP imo; the 128 server will become the standard with a few 80 player servers etc thrown in for those who want a less busy game or don't have the hardware for the full number.
Even 90 players would be a great leap forward. It feels like every player beyond 64 make so huge difference as all of them go into infantry units. 64+ really is great at every level.

What is the hardware requirement difference exactly? BF2 is a old game now. I used a old discarded desktop non-gaming computer for 64-server without problem. The python script for PR seems very linear but I don't know about the internal functions in BF2. Maybe n*log(n) or something for the load, theoretically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-CON]Wicca View Post
More PR players altogheter perhaps?
I certainly believe so. I for example only play when 64+ is available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWater View Post
Im fairly confident the problem is not only with the resources, but also with the network connection. I can imagine you need atleast a 1Gb connection on the box to be able to run the 128.

Then again Im not familiar with your guys server.
Shouldn't be a problem. When I measured I think it was like 11kB/s per client outbound for a ordinary server. That gives around 11 Mbit/s for 128 clients. Even given twice that rate because of more objects gives 22 Mbit/s.

I feel there is overall a problem with people using pro dedicated servers at huge costs. In the good old days, gaming servers were at home at low costs. Quake, CS, BF2, FTP, whatever...
manligheten is offline Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 05:20 PM   #34
AquaticPenguin
Default Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by manligheten View Post
Even 90 players would be a great leap forward. It feels like every player beyond 64 make so huge difference as all of them go into infantry units. 64+ really is great at every level.
Agreed, 96 players /w 8 man squads would be good. An extra squad and a bit per team, with no net increase in assets would make some of the combined arms maps less stale and more about the infantry. And 2 infantry squads makes for generally good gameplay. 8 men per squad is enough for one squad leader to handle and enough to be divided into reasonably effective fireteams.

Personally I think it can get a bit silly with too many players. Teams become less co-ordinated and less effective because there's too many people and the squads are too large for squad leaders to handle. Communication also starts to break down, and assets can become too preoccupied with blatting enemies instead of supporting their own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by manligheten View Post
What is the hardware requirement difference exactly? BF2 is a old game now. I used a old discarded desktop non-gaming computer for 64-server without problem. The python script for PR seems very linear but I don't know about the internal functions in BF2. Maybe n*log(n) or something for the load, theoretically.
I seem to recall someone had statistics for the bandwidth posted on the forums a while back, which seemed to be a quite dramatic increase as player numbers increased. Don't know anything about the server load though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by manligheten View Post
Shouldn't be a problem. When I measured I think it was like 11kB/s per client outbound for a ordinary server. That gives around 11 Mbit/s for 128 clients. Even given twice that rate because of more objects gives 22 Mbit/s.
That implies it scales linearly, but all players may need to know about what the other players are doing. The outbound for each player will increase as the number of players increases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by manligheten View Post
I feel there is overall a problem with people using pro dedicated servers at huge costs. In the good old days, gaming servers were at home at low costs. Quake, CS, BF2, FTP, whatever...
Home connection speeds generally aren't up to it.
AquaticPenguin is offline Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 06:50 PM   #35
PLODDITHANLEY
Supporting Member
Default Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

For me 128 is all about the squads until either more squads can be permitted or restricted to less than 100 it'll all be a bit of a mess.

Totally agree with aquatic:
Quote:
Agreed, 96 players /w 8 man squads would be good. An extra squad and a bit per team, with no net increase in assets would make some of the combined arms maps less stale and more about the infantry. And 2 infantry squads makes for generally good gameplay. 8 men per squad is enough for one squad leader to handle and enough to be divided into reasonably effective fireteams.

Personally I think it can get a bit silly with too many players. Teams become less co-ordinated and less effective because there's too many people and the squads are too large for squad leaders to handle. Communication also starts to break down, and assets can become too preoccupied with blatting enemies instead of supporting their own.
PLODDITHANLEY is offline Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 09:09 PM   #36
Kain888
Supporting Member

Kain888's Avatar
Default Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaticPenguin View Post
Agreed, 96 players /w 8 man squads would be good. An extra squad and a bit per team, with no net increase in assets would make some of the combined arms maps less stale and more about the infantry. And 2 infantry squads makes for generally good gameplay. 8 men per squad is enough for one squad leader to handle and enough to be divided into reasonably effective fireteams.

Personally I think it can get a bit silly with too many players. Teams become less co-ordinated and less effective because there's too many people and the squads are too large for squad leaders to handle. Communication also starts to break down, and assets can become too preoccupied with blatting enemies instead of supporting their own.
Best post in this topic. It would really allow for the best gameplay and compromise between use of resources and BF2 squad limit.

Also answering OP - there is still nametag bug present afaik (although I would prefer PR without tags at all ).

Kain888 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 09:22 PM   #37
MertSahin

MertSahin's Avatar
Default Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

+1 for 96 spots
MertSahin is offline Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 11:00 PM   #38
manligheten
Default Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaticPenguin View Post
Agreed, 96 players /w 8 man squads would be good. An extra squad and a bit per team, with no net increase in assets would make some of the combined arms maps less stale and more about the infantry. And 2 infantry squads makes for generally good gameplay. 8 men per squad is enough for one squad leader to handle and enough to be divided into reasonably effective fireteams.
Could use more trans trucks and helis. 10-12 man sq works really well also. You can make 8 men sq out of 12, so...

Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaticPenguin View Post
Personally I think it can get a bit silly with too many players. Teams become less co-ordinated and less effective because there's too many people and the squads are too large for squad leaders to handle. Communication also starts to break down, and assets can become too preoccupied with blatting enemies instead of supporting their own.
Yea, but it much better with new mumble. Although, more than 128 players doesn't really add anything. Some maps are furthermore not very playable, like Qui Riwer, Muttrah, Ghost Train, Fools Road, Kozelsk and Kashan. It gets to crowded and leave no space for manouvers. Muttrah would work with some minor adjustments though. Only remove the wall by the west-east going street. Maps like Tad See works well so it's more about map design than size.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaticPenguin View Post
That implies it scales linearly, but all players may need to know about what the other players are doing. The outbound for each player will increase as the number of players increases.

Home connection speeds generally aren't up to it.
Twice as many clients and twice as many objects would imply 4 time as much data usage, but some what lower, due to headers etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kain888 View Post
Also answering OP - there is still nametag bug present afaik (although I would prefer PR without tags at all ).
Yes I agree, but no. To easy for grievers to destroy the game and you can't really recognize squad mates names.
manligheten is offline Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2012, 11:28 PM   #39
AquaticPenguin
Default Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by manligheten View Post
Could use more trans trucks and helis. 10-12 man sq works really well also. You can make 8 men sq out of 12, so...
True, though the usefulness of squads and the communication between members seems to break down at around the 10 player mark. If the squad is spread out then mumble squad chat is often drowned out, but equally having 10-12 people close together is bad for the team. When you have so many people in a squad it's hard to tell who's who, hard for the squad leader to control, and all too easy for the chat to become overwhelmed, incoherent and frustrating.

The name-tag problem is exacerbated when you have so many people in a squad, I've been deeply frustrated when there have been two disparate groups, even if just one or two people can't maintain mumble squad silence then you can't tell who's talking, can't tell who's next to you and who's in the other 'fire-team' and as soon as you get in contact, all elements of coherency in mumble break down as contact bearings are called out and you don't know where the bearings are relative to.

It can be pulled off, certainly, but if you want to have an effective team it's better to divide and conquer.

edited to add: I think there should be the same number of helis, with trucks to take up the slack. Just having more helis unnecessarily takes people off the battlefield. Two Helicopters should be enough for most situations, and losing them should make things more difficult (then your pilots could perhaps use the trucks to resupply.

The majority of problems I've seen with helicopters has been that they've been shot down, not that there's too few of them to cover the team. More helis would just mean more would get blown up, it wouldn't mean your team would be supplied any better. Also it would mean there would be 3 or 4 helis milling about in base doing bugger all rather than just the normal 2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by manligheten View Post
Yea, but it much better with new mumble.
The new mumble is a massive improvement, and makes the large scale possible. However I've noticed garbled voices on local chat with large numbers of players, and it generally cannot alleviate the general communication clusterf**k it can turn into with large squads.


Quote:
Originally Posted by manligheten View Post
Twice as many clients and twice as many objects would imply 4 time as much data usage, but some what lower, due to headers etc.
Yeah that's what I was imagining as a worst case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by manligheten View Post
Yes I agree, but no. To easy for grievers to destroy the game and you can't really recognize squad mates names.
Well there's one way to find griefers, either they'll team kill one of your guys and you can report them from that, or if they're being sufficiently annoying you can team kill them to find out their name. It's far from ideal but a solution if name-tag problems can't be solved.

I was thinking that mumble has an overlay, and it also has player positions for doing local chat (are close players positions held client side?), and it also has some information about yourself. It would be quite a hack and a hell of a mumble plugin, but could it be possible to show name-tags in position via the mumble overlay?
AquaticPenguin is offline
Last edited by AquaticPenguin; 03-11-2012 at 11:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 07:01 AM   #40
Wicca
Supporting Member
PR Server License Moderator

Wicca's Avatar
Default Re: 128 Players? Still Testing?

I have grown accustume to large squads, and I do not have a problem leading them. JUst spend some time with it, it grows on you, more easily than you think.


Xact Wicca is The Joker. That is all.
Wicca is offline Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
128, players, testing
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:28 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. ©vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
All Content Copyright ©2004 - 2015, Project Reality.