Server Shake-Up

**TheBigC** · 12-20-2008, 09:01 AM

Well it has come time once again to review and adjust what we have running on the servers. You have all spoken via your actions and the abysmal numbers on server #2 (64.34.178.169:2312). As of this weekend, we are returning to our roots of having server #2 as a dedicated CoOp server. This means we are going back to smaller missions, no Evolution or Domination and avoiding TvT. I have heard all the counter arguments and tried to accommodate them, but the fact of the matter is that they are producing horrible numbers of gamers online. This is not a debate any more. I really wish that some of those types of missions really worked out, but they simply were only catering to a minuscule number of players. The mission listing will contain missions which have approximately 7-25 slot; but there may be one or two larger ones.

I also want this server to be a bit different because there are tons of servers out there that are dedicated to Evolution and Domination. We will not have them on the mission listing anymore for server #2. They will be on Server #1 (64.34.178.169:2302), but that server is the one that has the TG MOD pack. They will be available to play there, but not in the standard rotation. This holds true for the larger missions as well, if you want to play them do it on server #1.

We all want you to understand that we have been trying everything out there, but unless the numbers justify it, we have to continue to look for new and fresh ideas.

V/r,
C

**Xmaster** · 12-20-2008, 08:12 PM

Hey C. Just a heads up. There was a lot of broken missions on the previous list. We should get rid of them. I believe BD was working on a list of broken missions at some point.

I believe they've been cleared as well.

beita · 12-21-2008, 02:43 AM

Just played a successful night ...

Need more missions with 30+ slots. There is ~4 (it seemed), we had 38 people at the highest, and 90% of the missions we simply couldn't play.

**TheBigC** · 12-21-2008, 02:54 AM

I believe we got rid of most of the crappy missions, but that is not to say we did not add a couple more. By all means post up any bad loading ones as you see them, we wil take them off daily.

As for larger missions, we will only put on ones that add value to CoOp. They have to be manageable and keep in the spirit of CoOp style of play. Like I said earlier, there are a couple on there, but not a lot.

LCpl. Soto · 12-21-2008, 06:45 AM

Yeah, more maps with 40+ would be nice. A lot of people were on tonight. Just a suggestion, but a few more maps with revives would be cool too.

vypher · 12-21-2008, 06:56 AM

I agree with having more maps. Thanks.

**Xmaster** · 12-21-2008, 10:04 PM

Larger maps yes.
Oh and Big C. I know server 1 is now axed towards CoOp. But on the previous list, we had some large missions where we had the choice to play it only as a coop mission or add a few players (usually 3) to the opfor to spice things up. Operation Tahoe just to name one of those.

As I said, your call is to make Server 1 CoOp only, and I'm totally down with that idea and its bringing us a larger playerbase.

But can I suggest bringing some of these mission back too. We had a loaded server last night, and everyone was in the mood to play Operation Taohe and it was sad to see it has been removed.

I know some of these "hybrids" missions requires more players as OpFor and I'm all for keeping these kind of missions at bay since they're more TvT than CoOp. And they usually turn into a regular TvT. Which is what we all want to avoid.

But keeping some Hybrid missions where you can choose whether or not you want 3 guys on the other side or everyone on BLUFOR could come in handy.

Plus it always add a fun factor to the CoOp side of the mission knowing you have 3 *real* guys on the other side.

Or please, atleast just bring back Tahoe, or however this mission name was spelled.

Anyways, your call.

beita · 12-22-2008, 12:18 AM

Just finished (client crash ..), but when I crashed we had 50 players on the server.

Could only play one mission at this point, a 32v32 TvT.

We could easily get 30-40 players when we want to, but we need maps to keep people interested instead of playing the same 3-4 maps ... Coop, TvT, Rally race, doesn't really matter, need SOMETHING that a large number can play.

Sam Hoy · 12-22-2008, 12:21 AM

Having played on the server for a few days now two things have become clear:

1.We need larger missions, we could easily have more than 60 players I think if we had the appropriate mission to accommodate them all. It seems that some missions were removed. Perhaps these missions were not perfect, but they were perfectly playable and will enable large scale play until new/different missions come along. Recently, it seems missions with 30+ players are hard to come by and as a result we've been playing some of the same missions over and over again.

2.A real administrator presence could improve game play ten-fold. Currently it is hard if not impossible to vote someone administrator with 20-45 players. Moreover, if we are finally able to select someone they are often inexperienced and they don't have full power to ban consistently troublesome players or lock the server.

Obviously, the resurgence of the unpassworded server is a great opportunity to attract new members to ARMA at tacticalgamer.com. But, if we are constantly recycling the same missions or have substandard player behavior the community will certainly be a less attractive option for truly tactical gamers.

**TheBigC** · 12-22-2008, 02:26 AM

There are a couple things that you guys have to understand. From past experiences more is not always better when it comes to players online. Having 50+ players in-game can be a challenge and just one bad player can ruin it as well. Granted it is fun, but it can usually turn into chaos with that many around. We here at TG always have strived for quality of players versus quantity.

The point of true CoOp (IMHO) is to have a tactical experience that all participate towards the goal or objective.

Having TvT or theme base (Evo, Domination, Warfare, Race, etc) all are not conducive to tactics and people showcasing their leadership abilities. If anything I think the missions on server #2 should be smaller, not larger. Now that is not to say that if the number of players connecting require us to have another server that caters to these larger missions. We have everything (all above mentioned missions and more) all loaded on server #1 currently. We can look at either modifying that server or even going back to having a third should the numbers continue.

In reality server # 2 will probably pair down the mission player slots even more. It will probably move towards the 20 player mark area. Yes this will mean that there will sometimes where slots are all taken and there is no room for new players. But those types of missions tend to be a lot more manageable as well as having a lot less problems or player issues. If there are player issues, by all means contact one of the admins via chat, there are only so many of us and we cannot always be in game.

As for the missions that fit into the above scheme as well as anything else that is playable and can go on server #1, I have always encourages people to post them up for us. We try to keep up on what is out and upload it to the server as fast as we can. But sometime we do not always see what you guys find. If it is out there and looks interesting by all means tell us.

Lhowon · 12-22-2008, 05:53 PM

This is just my opinion, but personally some of the best experiences I have had with ArmA are with larger player counts. When you have 30-40+ people there is a real feel of being part of a proper military force, which lends a greater sense of authenticity to the game. It also adds a new dimension to the conflict – having three or more squads of 7 or more people fundamentally changes the way you approach a mission, and opens up whole new strategies that would not be possible with less people.

It also makes the battlefield feel more dynamic: when you have 10-20 people, recieving heavy casualties more or less grinds the mission to a halt, as the combat effectiveness of the side is critically reduced. Whereas in a big mission an entire squad can be wiped out and the mission continues.

However I should say that this more or less requires an admin and absolutely requires someone willing and able to coordinate the mission. I played a fantastic game the other day with 40 odd people where beta did a great job of leading the mission. It was very impressive to see 30-40 people lined up on the tarmac at base receiving briefing.

Some points though about larger game (my opinion):

• Needs an admin (at least voted in)
• Needs someone willing and capable of being Platoon Lead (in my experience there is always at least one person who will step up, which is one fantastic part of playing on TG)
• Should have respawns or revives. I agree with ShackTac that having no respawns makes for a more intense experience, but on a public server I don't think that's feasible. Having players respawn at base and requiring choppers to shuttle them back to the front adds something to the game anyway
• Should look at some way of streamlining the organisation process – it's inevitable that the pre-mission stuff will take a long time, and indeed if you play ArmA you should know this and expect it, but getting people into squads more quickly would cut down on what can be a 30-40 minute (or longer) organisation period.

The problem with designating Server 1 as the place to go for large games is that in its current configuration, passworded and requiring a mod pack, there is simply no way it will pull the numbers Server 2 (sometimes) can. The reason there have been that many players on S2 is because it is public, simple as that. So if Server 1 is to cater for large games then it has to be public, which will make it basically unusable for mods.

EDIT: I should add that I absolutely do not advocate putting Domination-style missions on the server. I am talking about focused missions, like capture a town or similar. That way the focus is very much on co-op and isn't diffused as it tends to be on Domination.

crucial · 12-22-2008, 10:44 PM

I am new to TG servers and have been having a great time playing ARMA the fun way with good teamwork. I have noticed that a lot of times the selection of maps are limited because too many players and not enough slots. I think that it would be beneficial to put Larger maps in rotation that allow for more than 30 peoples. It would be great and the admins do not have to struggle choosing a mission. This applies to the public server, i havnt really played much on the mod server.

AdeptAbyss · 12-22-2008, 11:15 PM

You should read the post about server shake up

**TheBigC** · 12-23-2008, 02:54 AM

I know some of you want larger missions to play, that is why they are on server #1. By having a server that has a password on it, it tends to weed out some of the clowns that would join and ruin a great experience.

We are all about filling up the servers with gamers so everyone can have fun. If and when there is enough demand to break out server #1 and add a large mission server, we will host a 3rd one. However, we will not sacrifice any quality of play simply to chase numbers. We have the best interest of the community at mind when we want much better quality, versus simply quantity.

Trust me, there would be nothing more that would make me happy to see 3 packed servers daily here at TG. It has been done in the past, not but consistently. If we can get to that point it would also be great for the ArmA community as a whole. We have the ability and resources to run all of this, but we simply need the interest to justify it.

Now a couple people mentioned they would like to see a admin presence more. I will definitely address that issue and see what we can do to help. The team is somewhat small and we are having to split our time over several servers as well as juggle our personal lives. Hopefully after Christmas you will see some more admins as well as some of our current ones be more active. In the interim, do not hesitate to grab one of us on chat, all of our profiles have the info as well as use the contact Admin forum. They are great tools when "dealing" with the unfortunate retards that we cannot avoid..

Sam Hoy · 12-23-2008, 03:39 AM

While I agree with the traditional maxim quality over quantity, if we could have both quality and quantity I don't see how that wouldn't be generally ideal. And from playing on the server for the past week or so I see little evidence to contradict the fact that we can have both a sustained and immense player count with tactical game play. Certainly, there are some problems, but they are isolated and I don't see how only playing maps with 20 players is going to reduce them. If anything it might only serve to lock out more experienced players from joining in and resolving issues or just generally taking leadership roles.