BF2 Combat Tour of Duty - Page 2

**Shiner** · 07-22-2005, 01:51 PM

There are a number of risk style campaign tourney operators already out there including the MFOTS kind, but this new one looks pretty interesting as well:
http://www.fightforthefuture.us/

TG_Rizzo · 07-22-2005, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigitalAssassin

I read some more on this and I would agree with Asch, this is something we can do on our own servers. It is definitely subscription, looks like maybe $35/year. I like the fact that TG is tactical, but still relaxed. This thing may be a little too rigid for my tastes. I would have to dedicate more time than I'm willing to to make it worth. I'll be happy to stay here in 'TG Land' forever.

Well, it would be optional of course...

Anyway, here's some food for thought

- for SM only
- you register and pick an army to join (or get assigned to one)
- you choose a general assignment (air, infantry, armor, etc) and maybe a class
- scheduled "battle" nights between factions (are there any MEC vs PLA maps???)
- each battle is for a specific area on a bigger "theater of war" map
- results from the battles are webified for all to see: stats (maybe), recordings, etc and the map is to show the winner taking control of the area
- perhaps medals/badges/ribbons can be awarded for certain things, ie exceptional teamwork, exceptional pilot, exceptional CO/SL, medal of honor, etc.. We could get into real game stats like Most Kills, MOst Revives, etc but I'd hate to see that lead to irrational behavior over logical teamwork...
- these battles rage on for several weeks, armies taking/losing territories until the "war" ends and then some sort of results are tallied to declare a winner...or something...
- and the whole things gets a big RESET and starts over again!

We don't necessarily need to get quite as complex as Planet Combat but we could definitely pick and choose a few of the basics for a more casual approach...

**asch** · 07-22-2005, 02:12 PM

When brainstorming, also try to think of how we might accomplish something like this w/o creating a mod.

**Iceberg** · 07-22-2005, 02:41 PM

pfffft... guys... gals... etc etc...

TACTICALCONFLICT.COM is a TG sister site and is FREE. Although in it's infancy I forsee you guys taking it up a notch.

www.tacticalconflict.com

**asch** · 07-22-2005, 02:55 PM

Yep, tacticalconflict.com could be used for something like this.

**Apophis** · 07-22-2005, 02:55 PM

If a team of folks want to create something like this to be run at Tactical Gamer, let me know. I would wholeheartedly support building something like this but lack the time to administer it.

Please PM me if you are SERIOUS about it. I would suggest having a public discussion of those interested and assembling a team of people to serve as its administration.

**Apophis** · 07-22-2005, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradb007

There are a number of risk style campaign tourney operators already out there including the MFOTS kind, but this new one looks pretty interesting as well:
http://www.fightforthefuture.us/

Is this the same Viper that was involved with the MFOTS International Conflict tournament?

Ski-Racer · 07-22-2005, 03:11 PM

Ok so here's the deal with this...

All of this really came from the MFOTS tournaments which predate BF42's release. Every so often, a bunch of players from the tournament get ticked-off. They go and try to start their own tournament. They usually last 1 to 2 campaigns before folding.

By "changing every 3 months" they mean a map get assigned to a country (Zatar Wetlands = Iraq, for example). The winning general from the previous week can only attack countries that touch the country they just won. That determines the map they will play.

This is a total rip-off of MFOTS (now MyInternetServices). I am a bit disappointed that EA is doing this after MFOTS/MyIS opened their battles, TeamSpeak, and forums for EA to observe how we do things. We even helped with testing. Sheesh.

**asch** · 07-22-2005, 03:26 PM

Ski-Racer... were / are you a part of MFOTS?

**Apophis** · 07-22-2005, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ski-Racer

Ok so here's the deal with this...

All of this really came from the MFOTS tournaments which predate BF42's release. Every so often, a bunch of players from the tournament get ticked-off. They go and try to start their own tournament. They usually last 1 to 2 campaigns before folding.

By "changing every 3 months" they mean a map get assigned to a country (Zatar Wetlands = Iraq, for example). The winning general from the previous week can only attack countries that touch the country they just won. That determines the map they will play.

This is a total rip-off of MFOTS (now MyInternetServices). I am a bit disappointed that EA is doing this after MFOTS/MyIS opened their battles, TeamSpeak, and forums for EA to observe how we do things. We even helped with testing. Sheesh.

Is the EA sponsored one a rip-off of MFOTS or is the FightForTheFuture one the ripoff?

In any case, the MFOTS tournaments are not unique to MFOTS. There have been other groups doing similar things throughout the ages. I was involved personally with MFOTS organized tournaments and really left feeling they had a lot to be improved upon. If someone can do a better job, by all means, they should try and do it.

There's nothing wrong with innovation. I enjoy building better mousetraps.

Ski-Racer · 07-22-2005, 03:46 PM

Yes, I was with MFOTS who sold to MyIS. I am playing now with MyIS. I have played in the BF42, BF42/DC, BFV, and JOTR tournaments.

The thing is, it's all exactly the same as what started with MFOTS. I see the "disaffected" people over there as TAs (tournament admins). It's not "a better mousetrap." It's just the same mousetrap.

The downer is that MyIS allows EA people to lurk in our forums, teamspeak, and during our matches. All the b!tching about EA that happens on every forum? Doesn't happen in our forums so we don't displease the EA lurkers. Those neat sigs with "fix BF2 first?" Deleted from our forums. so we don't hurt the feelings of the EA lurkers.

Then EA stabs us in the back by going to a copy-cat instead of us. Those copy-cat people are going to moderate official EA servers and (if you allow it) your server. Read the "server admin program" in the same annoucement.

**Apophis** · 07-22-2005, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ski-Racer

Yes, I was with MFOTS who sold to MyIS. I am playing now with MyIS. I have played in the BF42, BF42/DC, BFV, and JOTR tournaments.

The thing is, it's all exactly the same as what started with MFOTS. I see the "disaffected" people over there as TAs (tournament admins). It's not "a better mousetrap." It's just the same mousetrap.

The downer is that MyIS allows EA people to lurk in our forums, teamspeak, and during our matches. All the b!tching about EA that happens on every forum? Doesn't happen in our forums so we don't displease the EA lurkers. Those neat sigs with "fix BF2 first?" Deleted from our forums. so we don't hurt the feelings of the EA lurkers.

Then EA stabs us in the back by going to a copy-cat instead of us. Those copy-cat people are going to moderate official EA servers and (if you allow it) your server. Read the "server admin program" in the same annoucement.

I skipped the server admin program announcement, and I agree that this might very well just be the same mousetrap with a new logo on it, but I just wanted to get my $.02 in there that I feel innovation is good and should be supported.

My personal experience with MFOTS leaves me with the desire to do something similar, but with a very different focus. I felt the games were very haphazard, the servers would rarely actually support the full sized teams, rules were constantly being changed to appease people who were whining because they didn't win, and solid companies that had trained and worked VERY well together were penalized because other companies on both sides didn't have the same type of cohesion.

*I* want to build a better mousetrap.

Ski-Racer · 07-22-2005, 04:56 PM

I remember the days of Opposition dominance in 21CW and the pervasive Coalition whining that accompanied it (if that is what you are referring to). I have posted some pictures/diagrams with what we did for cohesion (there is 100MB in total).

Don't know if you want to start a new thread on this but here are my ideas for "a better mousetrap."

1. Separate the Euro battles from the U.S. battles. That is the #1 problem with the server performance.

2. Fewer aircraft and vehicles...especially aircraft. The server must send packets for aircraft to everyone in the game so lots of planes = lots of lag. That is the #2 problem with server performance. It's actually #1...my clan lagged-to-death a 64-player server running DC_DesertShield during a 10 v 10 match. Put every plane, helo, and tank in the same sector and you will lag.

3. Smaller battles ("skirmishes") that allow sides to gain initiative, pick the map, whatever. This is a good use for the 16 player maps.

4. Use more map types. Mostly, we use "double assault" where both sides start at their main and race to neutral flags. Assault is where one side must clear the other from the map (like Karkland) and Head-on is where there is only one neutral flag at the start.

5. Balance is key. You already see the threads here about the black hawk. The volume and pointedness of the complaints will increase x^10 when there is competition. Make the USMC = PLA = MEC weapons...no aberrations.

6. Realize that the bunny-hop will always be used. Sorry, but "tactically pure" goes right out the window when there is competition. So unenforceable rules like "no cloudspots" or "no UCB camping" need to be tabled.

TG_Rizzo · 07-22-2005, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asch

When brainstorming, also try to think of how we might accomplish something like this w/o creating a mod.

I think we can do something like this completely "offline", without the use of mods, although the server would need some sort of stat gathering/administration type tools.

**asch** · 07-22-2005, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TG_Rizzo

I think we can do something like this completely "offline", without the use of mods, although the server would need some sort of stat gathering/administration type tools.

Yep, we'll either have to find some stat gathering tool. A possible alternative might be to have someone write down and report the map score at the end. I believe all you're looking for is the winning / losing team scores.

07-22-2005, 01:51 PM	#16 (permalink)
Shiner Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Dallas, TX Age: 30 Posts: 2,259	Re: BF2 Combat Tour of Duty There are a number of risk style campaign tourney operators already out there including the MFOTS kind, but this new one looks pretty interesting as well: http://www.fightforthefuture.us/ __________________

07-22-2005, 02:12 PM	#18 (permalink)
asch Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Fort Mill, SC Age: 33 Posts: 10,096	Re: BF2 Combat Tour of Duty When brainstorming, also try to think of how we might accomplish something like this w/o creating a mod. __________________ \| My Maps Fear the Frog! \| Kill the Frog! \| An Inconvenient Truth

07-22-2005, 02:41 PM	#19 (permalink)
Iceberg Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Illinois Age: 25 Posts: 1,940	Re: BF2 Combat Tour of Duty pfffft... guys... gals... etc etc... TACTICALCONFLICT.COM is a TG sister site and is FREE. Although in it's infancy I forsee you guys taking it up a notch. www.tacticalconflict.com __________________ It only takes 2 bites [insert parasite] to get to the center of a meatpop. TGNS Admin \| NS Forum Moderator Digz \| NS Play Tester Natural Selection \| TGNS Primer \| Communication Awareness! Army Info: Deployment or Bust - June 2009

07-22-2005, 02:55 PM	#20 (permalink)
asch Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Fort Mill, SC Age: 33 Posts: 10,096	Re: BF2 Combat Tour of Duty Yep, tacticalconflict.com could be used for something like this. __________________ \| My Maps Fear the Frog! \| Kill the Frog! \| An Inconvenient Truth

07-22-2005, 02:55 PM	#21 (permalink)
Apophis Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Rhode Island, USA Age: 36 Posts: 9,030	Re: BF2 Combat Tour of Duty If a team of folks want to create something like this to be run at Tactical Gamer, let me know. I would wholeheartedly support building something like this but lack the time to administer it. Please PM me if you are SERIOUS about it. I would suggest having a public discussion of those interested and assembling a team of people to serve as its administration. __________________ Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

07-22-2005, 03:11 PM	#23 (permalink)
Ski-Racer Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 93	Re: BF2 Combat Tour of Duty Ok so here's the deal with this... All of this really came from the MFOTS tournaments which predate BF42's release. Every so often, a bunch of players from the tournament get ticked-off. They go and try to start their own tournament. They usually last 1 to 2 campaigns before folding. By "changing every 3 months" they mean a map get assigned to a country (Zatar Wetlands = Iraq, for example). The winning general from the previous week can only attack countries that touch the country they just won. That determines the map they will play. This is a total rip-off of MFOTS (now MyInternetServices). I am a bit disappointed that EA is doing this after MFOTS/MyIS opened their battles, TeamSpeak, and forums for EA to observe how we do things. We even helped with testing. Sheesh.

07-22-2005, 03:26 PM	#24 (permalink)
asch Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Fort Mill, SC Age: 33 Posts: 10,096	Re: BF2 Combat Tour of Duty Ski-Racer... were / are you a part of MFOTS? __________________ \| My Maps Fear the Frog! \| Kill the Frog! \| An Inconvenient Truth

07-22-2005, 03:46 PM	#26 (permalink)
Ski-Racer Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 93	Re: BF2 Combat Tour of Duty Yes, I was with MFOTS who sold to MyIS. I am playing now with MyIS. I have played in the BF42, BF42/DC, BFV, and JOTR tournaments. The thing is, it's all exactly the same as what started with MFOTS. I see the "disaffected" people over there as TAs (tournament admins). It's not "a better mousetrap." It's just the same mousetrap. The downer is that MyIS allows EA people to lurk in our forums, teamspeak, and during our matches. All the b!tching about EA that happens on every forum? Doesn't happen in our forums so we don't displease the EA lurkers. Those neat sigs with "fix BF2 first?" Deleted from our forums. so we don't hurt the feelings of the EA lurkers. Then EA stabs us in the back by going to a copy-cat instead of us. Those copy-cat people are going to moderate official EA servers and (if you allow it) your server. Read the "server admin program" in the same annoucement.

07-22-2005, 04:56 PM	#28 (permalink)
Ski-Racer Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 93	Re: BF2 Combat Tour of Duty I remember the days of Opposition dominance in 21CW and the pervasive Coalition whining that accompanied it (if that is what you are referring to). I have posted some pictures/diagrams with what we did for cohesion (there is 100MB in total). Don't know if you want to start a new thread on this but here are my ideas for "a better mousetrap." 1. Separate the Euro battles from the U.S. battles. That is the #1 problem with the server performance. 2. Fewer aircraft and vehicles...especially aircraft. The server must send packets for aircraft to everyone in the game so lots of planes = lots of lag. That is the #2 problem with server performance. It's actually #1...my clan lagged-to-death a 64-player server running DC_DesertShield during a 10 v 10 match. Put every plane, helo, and tank in the same sector and you will lag. 3. Smaller battles ("skirmishes") that allow sides to gain initiative, pick the map, whatever. This is a good use for the 16 player maps. 4. Use more map types. Mostly, we use "double assault" where both sides start at their main and race to neutral flags. Assault is where one side must clear the other from the map (like Karkland) and Head-on is where there is only one neutral flag at the start. 5. Balance is key. You already see the threads here about the black hawk. The volume and pointedness of the complaints will increase x^10 when there is competition. Make the USMC = PLA = MEC weapons...no aberrations. 6. Realize that the bunny-hop will always be used. Sorry, but "tactically pure" goes right out the window when there is competition. So unenforceable rules like "no cloudspots" or "no UCB camping" need to be tabled.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
F.E.A.R. Combat announced (free)	Magnum50	First Person Shooters (FPS)	16	08-27-2006 10:14 AM
FAQ: Combat	Wulfyn	Darkfall Online	0	08-18-2006 10:34 PM
I made a boo-boo...	Fannon	Call of Duty 2 - General Discussion	6	05-15-2006 01:09 AM
Call of Duty 2 MOD Tools RELEASED	Strag	Call of Duty - Maps and Modifications	3	04-21-2006 11:45 AM
Combat.	Zek	Natural Selection - General Discussion	30	03-25-2004 08:31 PM

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links