Simple yet critical problems with simple solutions

[[R-DEV]Minimalaco]

I agree with you, really hard to defend.

any idea or photo, for the new structures?

[galzohar]

To be honest even bigger variants of the existing ones would do just fine.

[Andersson]

Raising the RGG server to 200 players will likely attract a lot more new players. Just my two cents.

[Ratszo]

Originally Posted by Andersson

Raising the RGG server to 200 players will likely attract a lot more new players. Just my two cents.

Oh boy!..., if only we could.

Bis is working on it. DayZ is driving the betas towards better mp code, reducing the overhead in packets.

With a rock solid server and latest beta, maybe 120 slots is possible?

[galzohar]

100 is already causing problems. Besides, I don't think that's anywhere near the most significant issue with PR. It's not like the server goes above 80 players too often, and when it does it gets pretty laggy anyway.

Trying to make the game work for any player count is much more important than just setting a number higher. Even if technically you can raise the player count, in reality you will rarely reach those numbers until the game is made to be better also for lower player counts. In addition, I believe that improvements for small player counts will also improve the experience with large player counts.

[[md]MadMak[rus]]

Remove rally points, guys. This will motivate people to set up FOs. For now a lot of squads are relying on the rally points and they don't care about FOs. If you will increase number of spawns on RPs, there will be no need in FOs at all.

[galzohar]

I think RPs are not reliable at all, especially not in their current form, and not in their suggested upgraded form either (note though I didn't suggest straight-up increasing number of tickets, as that's probably a bad thing indeed). FOs are very much needed, and the only reason people don't set them up is that it's a cumbersome, annoying and not fun process that takes too much time that they could use on more enjoyable combat. Losing an FO is more frustrating because you have to go back to main base and go through the process of getting a group to set up a new one, rather than because you might lose an objective now that your FO is down. Changing FOs to a "1-man only" thing would help a lot so you don't have to go through gathering a team just so they can sit in your truck and do nothing while you set up the FO, and removing the cooldown so you can set up 2 FOs in a row would help too. Basically there is too much discouraging people from setting up FOs that has little to do with actual strategy or tactics.

good job i agree with you and this is a lot of good advices to help making the game PvP more and more

[Jack Bauer]

I know it has been a while since I played BF2:PR, but I am assuming that is what your making the comparison to when you talk about numbers of people you need to do things.

Granted, you only need one player in PR to do FOBs and stuff, but doesn?t it take a shit load of time to shovel something by yourself, and then you risk the chance of the thing blowing up on you??

I?m pretty sure (i haven?t set up a lot of them) there are different forms of FOBs you can set up in PR. For example, you don?t need a ton of stuff for a FOB spawn point....all you need is the FOB hidden well. I think the number of people you need depend on the number of players that are on the server.

I know there were lots of time squads took a logi truck out of main, set up a FOB and then proceeded to the objectives....You can't do that in Arma2:PR??? I?m saying that people in Arma2:PR are lazy and expect things done for them. This is a lot bigger game than BF2 and I still do not thing people understand that. They expect to use the same gamey tactics they used in BF2 when those will not work. "im a one man army that can kill 20 people and change the tide of the game".....Sorry, in this game, the amount of lead you throw down range makes a different.

You need to use tactics to move across the Arma Islands, not just spawn and run in, get shot from lone wolf sniper doing same thing your doing, get pissed, rinse and repeat. I think if you change the way people think about this game, you will change the way objects and assets perform.....Just my two cents

[galzohar]

Not comparing to BF2:PR at all. I actually don't even have BF2 and from what I've seen of PR:BF2 it seemed like the BF2 engine is way too limited to give a realistic experience. Too many workarounds were needed to try get any sense of realism into that engine and it just wouldn't work for me.

What I do use for reference is the reasons people stop playing this and the way some of those who do play it insist to play it. Currently, playing to win can get so boring that people have to balance themselves off between trying to win and actually having fun. People consider building FOs and some other similar tasks that require a lot of out-of-combat activities such as driving or walking as a chore, and when everyone on the server are too fed up with doing chores rather than playing the game they just quit, and then you have even less people capable of doing those chores.

Just about every squad I run, especially if it's people I know, would always complain when we have to set up FOs. If I'm lucky, they'll agree to set up 1-2 FOs but no more, and while I don't know what happens in PR:BF2, but in PR:Arma 2 FOs is never enough. Even 4 FOs is often not enough as they can simply get destroyed and then you're left with none. Sure you can say we should have defended them, but again this does not work in practice because if you defend them too much you lose objectives, and the game forces you to gamble with where you send your forces or else you will simply be too slow or under-manned for the tasks you're trying to accomplish.

When you need to set up FOs during the round you pretty much have to tell people to stop whatever fun they're having, suicide, spawn at main base and sit in your truck for yet another 5-10 minutes. This again makes them think twice before they log in to a PR server again, especially if nobody else is willing to share the load of those chores.

I really enjoyed attacking/defending objectives in this game. However I rarely get a chance to actually do it as almost always there's something more important I need to do because nobody else is doing it or because there are more other important things to do than people willing to do them. Recently there has been a great increase to the number of players who realize that to enjoy this mod they must do the chores because nobody else will, which is great, but it's only a matter of time before they get tired of it. Let's face it, spending 1/2 the round (or even "just" 15 minutes of it, though if the round is longer than 1 hour it's rarely "just" 15 and usually a lot more as you need to advance with more FOs and/or replace destroyed ones) sitting in a truck is just not enjoyable.

Arma has enough teamwork in it from the pure realism. You need your team to cover each other's backs so you don't die and actually reach an objective without dying on the way and clear it from enemies, or prevent enemies from doing the same to you. We don't really need artificial teamwork requirements like multiple people to set up FOs or requiring the SL and up to your entire squad in order to set up an RP (4 ppl for RP is fine when your squad is big but too much for the more common squads with 4-7 member). Sure it's not always the case but when it is it gets extremely annoying.

We need the game to feel more like you're playing it rather than working for it. Rather than looking for ways to split the chores so less people find themselves doing them over and over, just reduce how many people you need to do chores at any given time. Less people getting frustrated will result in more people actually enjoying the mod and coming back the next day for some more rounds. Not to mention less people doing chores means more people actually fighting and thus larger scale battles will take place.