Re: Ranked Server? Frank Discussion.

**experiment626** · 08-02-2006, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by undead77

Oh well, I don't understand EA, do they not want to promote teamwork? Their ROE is silly, and a joke at the same time. "Let's make a teamwork game, but you dare enforce teamwork, you shall be in trouble for it."

Agree, seems contradictory to me...but I didn't design it so I have to take what I can get.

**Nikolas** · 08-02-2006, 12:47 PM

Is EA's included reserve system really insufficient for our needs? Would it really ruin the gaming experience of our admins if they were called upon to kick un-squadded and bunny-hopping folks far more often?

If that's really what it comes down to, I'm confident that we can make it work. We could add several "partial admins" who are tasked specifically with watching squadless folks or one type or another of smacktardery. I don't believe that it's unworkable in the least.

Another option would be to have a "Ranked Night" every Friday. If it doesn't work out, can it. If it does work out, take it from there.

**JMJ** · 08-02-2006, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Is EA's included reserve system really insufficient for our needs? Would it really ruin the gaming experience of our admins if they were called upon to kick un-squadded and bunny-hopping folks far more often?

If that's really what it comes down to, I'm confident that we can make it work. We could add several "partial admins" who are tasked specifically with watching squadless folks or one type or another of smacktardery. I don't believe that it's unworkable in the least.

Another option would be to have a "Ranked Night" every Friday. If it doesn't work out, can it. If it does work out, take it from there.

At the rate people join and leave ranked servers, it would be a full time job just watching the admin tool to see who isn't in a squad.

We lose any lengthy games, all games would be set to 100%, which at 64 players is 300 tickets per side. That will be over in no time.

A once a week ranked server would not be financially beneficial as I think you rent servers on a monthly basis, not daily. You'd pay monthly for 4 days of use.

**Snail88** · 08-02-2006, 01:28 PM

Very feasible idea Tybalt. Is that possible to do just one night of ranked? Dont you need a new server for that? I really dont know. Either way, I wouldnt care "admining" a few rounds just watching for people not in squads and warning/kicking when necessary if its to support our community.

Edit...JMJ is a ninja...too fast for me

**icky** · 08-02-2006, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Is EA's included reserve system really insufficient for our needs? Would it really ruin the gaming experience of our admins if they were called upon to kick un-squadded and bunny-hopping folks far more often?

All of those things are minor compared to dealing with a huge influx of complete idiots who have no interest in what TG is about. If TG is going to have "just another ranked BF2 server", then we might as well save TG's money for other games and tear down our BF2 servers. There are plenty of ranked servers out there.

**JMJ** · 08-02-2006, 01:41 PM

I would like to add that I'm not against a ranked server (Don't want you to think I'm the unranked nazi). The biggest fault I see is the lower ticket count games. I have gone on pub raids with many of you and had a good time, but the rounds are just over too damn fast. 20 minutes tops, less than 15 if it's a blowout. I have a good time on maybe 50% of the pub rounds I play, and sometimes entertain myself by just sniping....ensuring I have fun.

The squadless thing would be another issue, probably ranking right there with the ticket count. That's probably the only real problems...we could always remove non-SM's for SM's.

**JMJ** · 08-02-2006, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by icky

All of those things are minor compared to dealing with a huge influx of complete idiots who have no interest in what TG is about. If TG is going to have "just another ranked BF2 server", then we might as well save TG's money for other games and tear down our BF2 servers. There are plenty of ranked servers out there.

Very true....even unranked, we still get the occassional "complete idiot".

Would be lots of idiots ranked.

**Acid** · 08-02-2006, 01:58 PM

Pubbing is fun, but it's nothing compared to 10 people on the TG server. I won't list all the points against a ranked server, but there are many. Making the server ranked would just bring in more players, but the quality of play would plummet. Players would also be at a disadvantage to those with lots of weapon unlocks.

**Nikolas** · 08-02-2006, 02:06 PM

It's worth a try. If it's as bad as some are saying, then it will be an extremely uncontroversial decision to return to our unranked status.

Not financially beneficial? Server #2 is empty 99% of the time, the Private Server is empty 99% of the time.

**Sumluv59** · 08-02-2006, 02:06 PM

Why can’t we have the best of both worlds? I would like to make a few suggestions. I know I’m no expert but maybe my dumb suggestions will lead to some good solutions.

Server 1: Ranked Vanilla.
WARNING: play at your own risk. There will be plenty of pubby smacktards playing on this server but hopefully more TG members. I suggest giving admin privileges to more TG SMs. Just the smacktard kicking privileges if that’s possible. Assign one member from every in-house squad or anyone who’s been a member for a long time. This way reliable TG members can police the server themselves as well as give the “true” admins a break. Server 1 would be great for members who want all the perks of a ranked server but it can also be great for recruitment for serious BF2 TG style players who may want to play on server 2.

Server 2: Unranked Vanilla, Euro Force and Armored Fury…Thursday and Sunday Tacmod nights for those who are interested.

Can this be done?

**sordavie** · 08-02-2006, 02:08 PM

We have barely enough to fill half a server on any given night. You're suggesting two servers?

**experiment626** · 08-02-2006, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by sordavie

We have barely enough to fill half a server on any given night. You're suggesting two servers?

I think what he's saying is we are already paying for 3 right? I also must plead ignorance as to the finacial/server/admin relationships, so while I like Sumluv's ideas...I don't know if they're feasible. Like many I take what the admins, and finacial wizards at TG do for granted (Bad experiment bad!) and have no idea of the inner workings of said group. I just know I play, and TG works

**NorCalRoach** · 08-02-2006, 02:45 PM

First off- thanks to the admins for your patience and everyone else for your thoughtful and valid points raised in your responses. Some of my frustration came from the fact that I didn’t understand why our server in fact couldn’t be ranked and why the admins weren’t willing to try to see if it could work at least on a trial basis- it never has been done before so I logically thought how could you know for sure that it would or wouldn’t work if your fears about losing the TG style play are never put to the test. I now have a better understanding of the admins concerns and a better sense of how the community feels about this issue. Ranking the server to increase population comes at a price which all of us have acknowledged hesitancy to consider.

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

...If that's really what it comes down to, I'm confident that we can make it work. We could add several "partial admins" who are tasked specifically with watching squadless folks or one type or another of smacktardery. I don't believe that it's unworkable in the least.....

If this could be worked out and TG admins/community ever decides that this is do-able at least on a trail basis, I would respectfully volunteer to assist as a partial admin in an effort to police squadless folks.

By the way, I really thought Mateo hit it on the nose with this statement:
The solution to the problem starts and ends with us.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 08-02-2006, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Tempus

Great points Drizzid.

If I may post some comments..

Everyone keeps saying they won't join the server until they see 30 or more players. This is part of the problem. If everyone who said that actually would join the server when there were fewer players, the population would grow!

I would gladly do this but there is the whole "Must be in a squad" thing. I would gladly log into a server with only 2 or so people on it and check back every five to ten minutes. When it gets to a certain population I would start playing.

But to prevent being kicked I would have to join a squad. If I join a pre-existing squad and everybody leaves (or create a new one) then you have an AFK SL. Not good.

What do you suggest?

**JMJ** · 08-02-2006, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

It's worth a try. If it's as bad as some are saying, then it will be an extremely uncontroversial decision to return to our unranked status.

Not financially beneficial? Server #2 is empty 99% of the time, the Private Server is empty 99% of the time.

Those would have to be dumped. You don't just turn your server ranked, you have to rent servers from EA. I would think our unranked servers are cheaper, and maybe even pay on amount of bandwidth used. If we aren't using the bandwidth, maybe we aren't paying all that much.

Thread Tools

Display