Re: Private Server

**jaymind** · 07-12-2005, 12:43 PM

I strongly agree - regular, scheduled times where the server is passworded would be great. It gives people the chance to set some time aside to play and know that they will have a great time.

**Telorn** · 07-12-2005, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Muld

I rather server 2 be passworded also. I could only see a problem if 49 SM's wanted to join the server. It seems like it would help the stability of keeping good gameplay on the 64 player one by having 16 more forum members on it.

If we go with a weekly scheduled time that the server is password protected, then it should be server #1, not server #2. People will be planning on playing at those times specifically to be in this type of game play and we will easily have more than 48 people who want to do it. If the pwd is placed on the second server, I guarantee you nearly every spot will be taken by SM members and hardly any FM members will get to participate.

The server is only a couple days a week and a few hours of the day at that. No. It should be on the 64 player server so as many people as possible can enjoy it while they can.

Now, if a server is *permanently* passworded, then it should be the 48 player server.

**AMosely** · 07-12-2005, 12:59 PM

I agree that a public-password server is the way to go, at least on a trial basis to see how it plays out. I'm curious to see if we still get a full server load. What are the priorities here - a full server load or quality gameplay - quantity vs. quality? It seems to me that right now we only have two extremes - the public servers, which are full but sometimes lack in quality of play, and the private server, which guarantees you quality players, but is usually empty.

Hopefully there is a way of balancing quality with quantity. I have a couple of ideas.

I thought it would be interesting if you could password one side, sortof like TG vs. public. I think the numbers might be a little off in terms of balance sometimes, but it could be interesting - does teamwork really pay off when faced with a disorganized enemy?

Another idea I had was to post a generic squad password in the forums here. When TG folks (supporting or not) log onto a public server, they either join with or start a passworded squad using that password. This way, at least TG folks would have an easy way of telling which squads were playing by TG standards. I wonder if we should post a sticky on this and give it a shot?

**Rincewind** · 07-12-2005, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by Telorn

As I see it, our private server is going to waste. We don't have enough supporting member player base to keep the server populated enough for others to want to join. So why have this server at all?

I say either make the server available to all forum members so we can make use of this private server, or just remove it so as not to waste money on it.

Either open it to forum members (maybe) or make it SMALLER so people feel more inclined to join up and stick around. It's near impossible to get it to 48. I've said this in the past and I'll say it again: 16 player maps, 22 or 26 player limit. Try it for a week PLEASE! Then tell me I was wrong. At least try it before opening the server up to the forums in general (nothing against y'all

).

**TG_Rizzo** · 07-12-2005, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by Rincewind

Either open it to forum members (maybe) or make it SMALLER so people feel more inclined to join up and stick around. It's near impossible to get it to 48. I've said this in the past and I'll say it again: 16 player maps, 22 or 26 player limit. Try it for a week PLEASE! Then tell me I was wrong. At least try it before opening the server up to the forums in general (nothing against y'all

).

Yah, agreed. Seeing "0/48" or "1/48" on the private server is a psyhological block!

I just can't defeat it! But if it were "0/16" or "1/16", well, that I could do.

**Telorn** · 07-12-2005, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Rincewind

Either open it to forum members (maybe) or make it SMALLER so people feel more inclined to join up and stick around. It's near impossible to get it to 48. I've said this in the past and I'll say it again: 16 player maps, 22 or 26 player limit. Try it for a week PLEASE! Then tell me I was wrong. At least try it before opening the server up to the forums in general (nothing against y'all

).

That's an excellent idea! They should drop the private server down to 16 player maps. The most I've ever seen in there is 24. So 26 is a good number. 4 6 man squads and 2 commanders.

Admins,

Please drop the player amount on the private server! It's never used now, so what's the difference if we drop the amount of players allowed?

**Muld** · 07-12-2005, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Telorn

If we go with a weekly scheduled time that the server is password protected, then it should be server #1, not server #2. People will be planning on playing at those times specifically to be in this type of game play and we will easily have more than 48 people who want to do it. If the pwd is placed on the second server, I guarantee you nearly every spot will be taken by SM members and hardly any FM members will get to participate.

The server is only a couple days a week and a few hours of the day at that. No. It should be on the 64 player server so as many people as possible can enjoy it while they can.

Now, if a server is *permanently* passworded, then it should be the 48 player server.

First off Rincewind is right, but no vehicles in the 16 player map version? If so that would be boring by yourself waiting for others to join.

Yes there may be more than 48 people but according to the usual private server populations it won't get past 30 SM. It all depends on what days and times. Yes everyday at 8pm-12am EST may only be a small segment of real world time but that is when 80% of BF2 players play I would guess. Maybe even rotating which server has the password to find the best fit.

As for how many FM's play that really shouldn't be an issue. It's a first come first serve basis if you're not a SM. Maybe even get more FM converted to SM's? Possibly an evil plot indeed. Another issue is if we can easily keep it topped off. I'm not sure how many FM are usually on the servers but I would like more than 2 hours of play on a password server. If we could keep 64 people on a semi password server from like 6 pm - 2 am est i think that would suffice and not just have 64 for a brief few hours in that time period.

**=Sarc=** · 07-12-2005, 01:21 PM

It would be nice if it were like back in the GR days when the servers were passworded for all members of the community (i.e. semi-public). I really don't think the private server is going to work with two public servers and the number of supporting members at this time. Most of the time I notice it is empty and at best a quarter full.

**Telorn** · 07-12-2005, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Muld

Yes there may be more than 48 people but according to the usual private server populations it won't get past 30 SM. It all depends on what days and times. Yes everyday at 8pm-12am EST may only be a small segment of real world time but that is when 80% of BF2 players play I would guess. Maybe even rotating which server has the password to find the best fit.

You didn't read all posts to have understood what I meant. It was discussed that maybe we can lock a server on Wednesday and Saturday. I was saying, if we only lock our server these 2 days of the week, then it should be on the 64 player server because we would have 64 SM + FM that would want to do this.

**morose** · 07-12-2005, 01:45 PM

I would personally agree with bumping the private server down to 16/26. Then moving it up once it starts to get full regularly.

**DigitalAssassin** · 07-12-2005, 02:13 PM

Sitting here thinking about it, the decrease in map and max players does sound like a good idea. I think most of us just have an automatic response when given the choice of a 10 out of 48 versus 46 out of 48 or 62 out of 64 server.

16 player map size with 26 players sounds like an excellent start. I always check the private server first but it's hard to join it when it has 2 or 3 players and the other two servers are almost full.

**Telorn** · 07-12-2005, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by DigitalAssassin

Sitting here thinking about it, the decrease in map and max players does sound like a good idea. I think most of us just have an automatic response when given the choice of a 10 out of 48 versus 46 out of 48 or 62 out of 64 server.

16 player map size with 26 players sounds like an excellent start. I always check the private server first but it's hard to join it when it has 2 or 3 players and the other two servers are almost full.

But more, including me, would be willing to join 2 or 3 people on the private server WHEN it is a 16 player map!

**ABPositive** · 07-12-2005, 02:36 PM

Hi,

I am not a supporting member (yet, thinking about it :-) ), but I believe it would make sense to have a 16/26 server. With less chaos, it would be a nice playground for SM to practice squad tactics.

ABPositive

**AstroCat** · 07-12-2005, 03:53 PM

I also agree with reducing the size of the private server. I'd be a lot more apt to join if it were 4/16 instead of 4/48.

**KeithMann** · 07-12-2005, 03:56 PM

I agree with the 16/26 idea.

Thread Tools

Display