Shiner

This thread is a continuation of many different posts I've read and written regarding ideas to get Server #2 played more often. Please consider this thread a "brainstorming" session. Some ideas may not be technically feasible, undesirable or unadministratable; but I don't think it hurts to have everyones thoughts put in one thread for discussion purposes.
I also know that Tempus, Apo and the rest of the team are already considering some changes so this shouldn't be considered a "we decide and it happens" thing. Its ultimately up to them, but again no harm in discussions.


My ideas:
1. IHMO the only way we are going to get Server #2 used in the current configuration is to host an event on it. I actually enjoy 48 on 32 and would join that server over server #1 if there was ever a decent number of people on it. Perhaps Tuesday or Thursday could be Server #2 night where SM's try to join that server. The downside is that each event we add detracts from the existing events and people get diluted between them. I do think this problem is mitigated somewhat by our growing community, but it is a concern nonetheless.

2. Another possible solution is to use a dynamic map size script that starts in 16p map mode, which will make the game more fun for the seeders and then ramps up to the 32p mode as the population builds. I've heard this script is buggy and far from perfect, so I'll reserve judgement on its technical viability until I've heard from poker.

3. An option could be to make the server dedicated to a couple of the "favorite" maps. I know I would be more inclined to play server #2 with less people, on maps I like, then 64p on the maps I don't. I could see myself deciding to get on "infantry maps server #2" more frequently even with just a handful of people because I do prefer to play those maps. I've also noticed that the population on Server #1 seems to be dramatically affected by the map selection.

__________________

Beatnik

Maybe make it an all Urban Maps server for a bit? If I ever go to a pubbie to relieve the BF2 jones, it's almost always an Urban Maps server.

__________________

Malum

Is server #2 not being populated a problem? Server 1 is not always populated either

food for thought.

Faultline

I don't see it necessarily as a problem but more of an opportunity.

During peak hours, I think there's enough demand to get both servers filled. The more traffic they both get, the more new player will come along and find a home here. The more players that find a home here, the better the chances that you can come along during most times of day and find a good BF2 game. I think this would bode well for any other TG games out there as well, since most gamers have probably played and enjoyed other games that perhaps TG hosts.

__________________

Tempus

Server 2 is going to have some form of mod put on it very soon. We can tweak it after that.

__________________
Battlefield 2/2142 Game Officer
Contact me with server/player/admin issues.




-- Suits are what you wear when doing things you shouldn’t want to do anyway.

FROM THE TACTICAL GAMER PRIMER.
3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine.

NCman

I think the two problems are somewhat related. Pub player hears of TG somewhere, tries to log onto the only server with players on it, can't get on because it's prime-time and it's full (although it looks like 2 slots are open to them). They drift on elsewhere. TG #2 never even shows up as an option because there's nobody there.

When I first found TG, it was before the 1st patch and one of the issues back then was that 64-player ranked servers seemed to always have lag issues. I just avoided 64-player maps whenever possible out of habit, and had learned the 32-player versions well. I read about TG somewhere, having played on some other teamplay-oriented servers, and really liked the 48 players on the 32-player maps that TG ran on server 2. I'd only go on server 1 when server 2 was full - which was actually quite common back then. Server 2 would be 48/48, and server 1 would still have at least a few slots many nights.

I ended up playing on server 1 more as I joined the community and started playing on password nights, but would still move over to #2 if #1 was full. Seemingly overnight #2 went from having a decent number of players to being almost totally dead ALL the time, so I'd just wait til I could get on #1 - which I can now do all the time as an SM.

If we had the current dynamic of a full #1 and dead #2, I might not have stuck around here. Considering I tend to be close to the lead in deaths every round, you guys would really miss not having me as a target . Seriously though, back then we'd have over 100 people playing - now we always have 62 or less (not counting the private server, which isn't really a factor to pubbies anyways).

Why is this a problem? Server #1 is often not full at times it used to be, which can diminish the gameplay a bit. If we had a regular nightly player base of 110 or so instead of 62, the odds of at least one of the servers being full are that much higher. With 2 populated servers, that's that many more SL's and CO's that are getting on-the-job training, too.

I bet the urban maps would be a big hit, considering the contempt many of my fellow groundpounders have for the aircraft at times. I know I'd play that somewhat often at least. I think we need to try something, as I think if we can get #2 seeded with 25 or so players regularly it'll draw some fresh me....er, new blood to the community as a whole. Nobody is going to log on if there are only 5 people on there - even the dedicated TG'ers will probably just keep refreshing to see when a slot is open on #1. I think it'd be much better if both servers had enough people for meaningful games.

__________________
BF2 POE2: NC_Tarheel
Team Fortress 2: |TG| Tarheel

kornkobcom

Personally I really like the idea of #2 if it works as one would expect. Even if it were to make the map a 32 person map till there were 16 players and then bump it up to a 64.

Also, if server 1 took players bumped from there to make room for the SMs and pushed them over to server 2 that would certainly help some as well.

__________________
Kornkob

I want to move to Theory. Everything works in Theory.

burble

i think we should switch password nights to server two. inform everyone on the forums, and all who wish to play (at least 48 people during primetime, i'd expect) can join server 2.

i think this would accomplish two things- one would be to help get people onto server 2, and perhaps give it a bit of a jumpstart. the other would be to allow more players onto the main server, without constant SM kicks, so we can continue to grow.

__________________

Phelan Ward

I like the idea of the AAS mod that is apparently being applied to server #2. With that mod it doesn't matter how many play, you WILL have some hard fights with everyone focused on only two flags at a time.

__________________

krusty-o

I found it same as NCman -- I avoided the 64 due to lag and played server 2 until my fingers bled and my tendons got stiff... Then after the first patch it seemed server 2 population flatlined and I started up with server 1 on a password night by chance when Wushul and TimBuktu invited me...

With the new auto-kick for the Longest connected non-SM on server 1 to make room for TGs, I imagine many of us kicked non-SMs will migrate to the alternate, server 2. At least I will.

What sort of mod is planned over there Tempus? I read about some of the testing =TG=42nd was doing ... sounded like fewer vehs and more focus on infantry - which IMHO is exactly what I'd like on server 2.

I agree with burble (and Bommando in another thread) on the use of server 2 for pw nites, even if my non_SM opinion means squat.

Lets not forget the Missouri problem-solvers saying in our time of brainstorm:
"You can ask me to eat sawdust, but you can't expect me to sh1t a 2x4."

__________________
[hive]krusty-o

freekyE

#1 phelans right.. with the aas mod we had some pretty good daytime games with only around 10 people on the server, even on 32 player maps

#2 whats the matter with server 2 being empty? isnt SOMEONE paying for that server? for its bandwidth? that money is being wasted right now.

#3 i sat in server 2 for about 20 minutes during prime time goofing around with a friend who is new to bf2 tonight and four people joined the serveronly to ask how to get on sever 1...(i told them of course where to find the password along with our sop's....but i mean if we had a mod or 10 people who would just stay for 20 minutes wed have a game going

#4 from the way it sounds the coding on punting a player from sever 1 to 2 is a tough cookie...so why not make it sop? if you get nudged out for a SM just jump on server 2
and if you cant get on at all? jump on server 2.....

my 2 cents

Thierry

How about using unlocks? I love my DAO-12

__________________




BF2 Name: Thez(NL)
BF2142 Names:
Thierry(NL) (Sniper)
Dikkiedik(NL) (Assault)
Kittekat(NL) (Engineer)
Dimi(NL) (Support)

nex

When I first found TG I played on server 2 pretty frequently. My solution is simple. Whenever server #1 is full, I am just going to jump on server #2 regardless of how many people are there. If I'm alone, I will entertain myself by finding difficult to reach sniping positions. Maybe others will join me...

- nex911

TychoCelchuuu

Yeah, how about some unlocks on Server 2? I want my freaking PKM. Sure, teamplay is great, but what's the fun if I can't nail someone with a heavy machinegun that does about as much damage as a sniper rifle?

perry

The Private Server has all weapons unlocked.. If you were to become a supporting member you'd have access to that server.. and you wouldn't get booted from #1.. and you'd get priority to play in the scrims.. and...