Re: Ranked Server? Frank Discussion.

**icky** · 08-02-2006, 02:56 PM

Well given the amount BF2 admins make on the free market, I don't think TG could afford the financial burden of more admin duties. Salaries really skyrocketed last season when JMJ set an unprecedented ban record and then signed a 2-year deal for more of the same. The market frenzy which followed was unbelievable, leaving some of the smaller market servers in serious trouble.

The ranked/unranked change is more complicated than some people seem to think. EA doesn't just let anyone flick a switch and become a ranked server. Toggling back and forth isn't an option. TG could run a ranked server, if there was a major benefit, but I'm not sure there is even a minor benefit.

**JMJ** · 08-02-2006, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Sumluv59

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?

As far as I'm aware, there are 2 sets of permissions for admins: Map change only, and full blow admin priveledges.

**Mateo** · 08-02-2006, 02:57 PM

I'll point you guys back in the direction of some threads on the "to rank or not to rank" issue.

First up: asch!

http://www.tacticalgamer.com/296707-post1.html

Next: Tempus!

http://www.tacticalgamer.com/288583-post9.html

And my 2 cents:

http://www.tacticalgamer.com/296641-post23.html

Now, Apophis is not around to reply, but I will tell you that server consolidations are ongoing in light of low traffic, and a dip in supporting memberships.

If hosting a ranked server doubles our costs, something will have to go, or we will have to institute some type of tiered membership to cover the extra cost. We don't want to do either, particularly since the admins and officers do not see providing a ranked server as being good for the community.

**Calvin** · 08-02-2006, 03:03 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.

Perhaps the system the guys over DontCamp.com use might interest some of the admins here regarding this.

Read more on it at http://dontcamp.com/faqs.php?faq=84540

Q: So backing up.... WTF does the PB Power User system have to do with the crap you wrote?

A: Good question. But first I will talk about how someone is kicked to put it in context. dc_ass uses a kick point system where each player will accumulate kick points as other players try to kick them. Once a player reaches a certain number of kick points (in our case 10) they are essentially vote kicked from the server. What the PB power user system does and what dc_ass also does is allow us to keep a list of people and the number of kick points each of them can apply. Thus, we have a variable user level system as some people could be allowed to only apply 2 or 4 kick points where others may be allowed to apply 8 or 10... or more.

Q: This all sounds like an internal system for CH admins and the deputies. Why do I need to know about it?

A: Because dc_ass allows us to hand over some of the kicking power to the users in our community! In our current configuration, everyone by default can apply only 2 kick points. Users with their BF2 keyhashes registered on our website can apply 4 kick points. Deputies and CH can apply 10 kick points.

And so on.

**cantpicknameiwant** · 08-02-2006, 03:09 PM

Population helpers - LEARN TG squads and not locked squads.

I sure liked those LEARN TG squads.
I think those would help rather than hinder 'our numbers'.

I also like when squads are not locked.
Example: when I join and there are twenty-two people in three squads of six and one locked squad of three then I have to make a 'squad' ... of one.
I do not understand why some TGers lock their squads, though it seems they just want inhouse squad mates in their squads.

Sure a full squad of snipers is not best, so exceptions can have validitiy.

**Tempus** · 08-02-2006, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by calvin

Perhaps the system the guys over DontCamp.com use might interest some of the admins here regarding this.

Read more on it at http://dontcamp.com/faqs.php?faq=84540

I'd like to point out that DC does not have a ranked server running that system, and that EA would does not allow changes to their administration tools like that.

**Red** · 08-02-2006, 03:18 PM

I want to add my five cents. I dont think we can save BF2 by going ranked. I dont think we can get back the eveyday good games of old. BF2 is old now and people have other things to do, I am happy it lasted as long as it did and the scrims are still awesome. And I meet a lot of like minded people.

To get back the everyday gaming we need a new game and winter. If we hold out to 2142 I firmly believe we will be back to everyday 64 player games again.

Concerning membership fee. The reason why I am paying my membership is not BF2 its the fact that I can keep this community alive for future games which will bring back the gaming of old. Its like a everyday life cost like my sunday newspaper.

I still think ranked should be considered for 2142, but if it does not fit TG play then go unranked.
I still have faith that 2142 will enforce better teamplay than BF2 out of the box.

**RocketPunch** · 08-02-2006, 03:50 PM

I still remember when I first got this game, I play on any ranked servers just like everybody else. It only took me 1 game at TG for me to realize how much I've been missing playing at random ranked servers. I can see both the points that NorCal and Tempus made regarding ranking and unranking our servers.

My personal idea regarding the matter is the admin team can consider running a ranked and unranked server side by side. We will keep one of the server (may it be #1 or #2) as it is now but we will call it the "TG Pro" server and have a small 32 person ranked server called "TG Play".

The idea of the "TG Play" 32 ranked server, IMO, can fill in some of the gaps and function as:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A) Off peak hour play area, where TG'ers can play when there are less people around with pubbers. As the group grows, simply tell everyone on TS to jump to the "TG Pro" server for larger maps and invite other pubbies that are looking for a higher level of teamplay to join as well.

B) Serves as a doorway/recruitment ground to showcase the TG style gameplay to other pubbers.

C) Keeping it small is easier to admin and cheaper than a full blown 64 slot server.

D) Keeping the pubbing/unlocks crowd happy and stay within TG server.

At this point, this may be more of and idea for future games like BF2142 or what not. This "holding tank" idea may be one way of reaching a middle ground to bring "balance to the force". This is by no means a favor to or against anyone's opinion, and is nothing more than "just a thought".

**Exploding_Silver** · 08-02-2006, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Kilrogg

Not worth ranking when BF2 has only a few months left to live before 2142 is released (October 10th)

This about sums it up for me.

========================

I would like to add though that in my opinion;

The admins policy of setting up BF2 play the way it should be played (most evident in unranked sever with custom scripts),
worked amazingly well for 6 months, these were the hay days for ser 1. Thanks admins !

In the short term, I dont really have any confidence that recruitment methods are going to restore ser 1 populations in any real significant way.

In the time before BF2142, I reckon we can make the most of things by
1) Fortnightly event scrims, so that we can all enjoy a full server of TG goodness again.
2) Keep the current regular players in ser 1 by having Fri & Sat nights as vanilla nights

BF2142 will bring out the numbers again and it will be just like the good old days, then the days we are in now of low population will be forgotten.

**UnDeaD** · 08-02-2006, 04:00 PM

To bad this couldn't be an option for us when 1.4 comes out.

**icky** · 08-02-2006, 04:09 PM

We don't desire a ranking system, EA sponsored or otherwise. It would do nothing for us. The ONLY advantage of being "ranked" would be the increase in the potential TG player pool.

**WhiskeySix** · 08-02-2006, 04:15 PM

I'd actually like that, personally - not the ranks, badges, ribbons, etc - just the ability to see how my statistics (K/D, wins/losses, weapon accuracy, best squad score, etc.) change over time. Measurable improvement is an incentive to play.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 08-02-2006, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by icky

We don't desire a ranking system, EA sponsored or otherwise. It would do nothing for us. The ONLY advantage of being "ranked" would be the increase in the potential TG player pool.

But we have a ranking system. Those perty ribbons in people sigs is the TG ranking system.

**Acid** · 08-02-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by icky

The ONLY advantage of being "ranked" would be the increase in the potential TG player pool.

That's the only one I can see either. Ranking would bring in more players, but there are many, many disadvantages to going ranked.

**JMJ** · 08-02-2006, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

But we have a ranking system. Those perty ribbons in people sigs is the TG ranking system.

That's not a rank, that's recognition from your peers for outstanding play in game.

Thread Tools

Display