DLBlue

A seperate point entirely, to G--Mans point of server regulating. I did notice that on the smaller server, infractions were a bigger issue. Take walker stealing, on a large server 1 or 2 people coming in engineer to deal with the asshattery wasnt that big of a deal. On the small server, its a serious pain in the ass. You can easily throw a 1/5 (3 people) of your TEAM away to get an engineer to take down the stupid **** when on maps like Carebear for PAC, you shouldnt need one engineer.

__________________
---Bellicosity---

Lorax74

Actaully, the server is full at 32 right now. The other two slots allow the kick script to function properly.

__________________
TG-9th Lorax74

SuperDudeBT

Completely agree. Also, what's up with the VOIP on it??

D0ubl3Hel1x

It's fixed.

__________________

Telorn

I can say this because I've been around since the beginning of BF2, but don't you guys remember trying this before? It may have been in BF2 and not 2142, but we tried this same thing - lowering the population to 32 but keeping 32-player size maps - and it was dismal. Hardly anyone enjoyed it. It promoted greater flag hopping and little fighting. And vehicles became way over powered because you didn't have a sufficient amount of ground troops to deal with them.

32 player is perfectly fine if you have 32 TG players dedicated to it. The problem is, there isn't. You're always going to have pubbies on the server and we found that at 32 players they held too much sway over the outcome of the server. In addition, we push away our non-supporting members because they can only join for 1-2 rounds before being booted. So they get frustrated and find another server. Yes, they're not supporting but they're still important! Without them, the server turns into what it is now - a horrible pubbie server.

Supporting TG players are not on enough of the time to promote a well balanced fun game at 32 players. Instead, 80% of the time the server is going to suck and for that 2-3 hour window that the majority of TG players can play, it can be fun...so screw the rest of us that can't play during the prime hours that others do? With the 50 player server I could join any time of day and have a good time.

Someone else mentioned this, but the obvious right course of action to take is to create a specific night for people who want a smaller more tactical game and let them play on the titan server.

__________________
Telorn

DaddyOfThree

I enjoyed playing on the 32 player TG Conquest server.

I would agree with those that have pointed out that without a large number of TG members the game play suffers greatly. However, I think it's also a great opportunity to bring a lot of other folks into the fold (LEARN TG) and provide a better overall experience - it just might take some time.

I know it's been mentioned before about the possibility of a "password" night. It would almost be like a pickup game (scrim) for TG members.

__________________

moxmax

I hate to do this science, but there were less than 20 people that supported a 32 man in that thread. I don't know how that became the majority of the people. I would like to see a poll on these type of things to help admins and the community make good general decisions for better game play.

I am not saying that I don't enjoy a 32 pl map, but I have noticed when there are less people playing, the chaos is pretty much uncontrolable.

I also want to say that I have been playing on the 32 man map, and I have definately noticed that our TG members (majority included) were only playing 2-3 maps instead of 5-6 maps. I have 113 people on my buddy list, and they are most TG members, very few have been on the TG server the last couple of days.

Would it be nice to have a 32 unranked, Sounds good to me. But I am looking forward to going back to 50.

On a side note, some of us late players have noticed some admins being on later, we do appreciate it.

moxmax

I disagree with the Learn TG, it is much more difficult because of the small amount of players to teach people. You want them to learn tactics or our style of play, but when you have less players it doesn't seem easy to school somebody, since 6 people is about 40% of your team.

Zoraster

There was enough support in that thread to justify testing it. As I've said before, we have before and will continue to test new things to see if they work out. Sc1ence isn't claiming that the people who supported the idea in that thread mean we'll use it permanently; he's saying it was enough that it seemed like a good idea to try.

The majority of players in that thread supported the idea, and that's what we could go on. We don't have divine abilities to read the minds of all our members, and we're not going to run an extensive poll on something like this before people really have the ability to know what they're talking about (i.e. playing it).

So lay off. If you don't like the 32p on the main server, that's fine (I certainly don't), but I'd limit your criticism to whether you like or dislike it rather than swinging your fists wildly in response.

__________________
|TG| Zoraster | Tactical Soccer Managing

jonathanshifty

ok i think for maps like camp G, tunis harbor, cerbere landing 32 player maps are mucch much better because it aint crowded and we can use much more interesting tactics. but maps like verdun,sidi, suez is better with 50 players. maybe we can make another 32 player server? or would that be too much?

moxmax

First I will say that I am sorry. Sorry that I am not the best writer, and as usual I didn't come across the right way. It is not anyone's fault but my own. I am a better talker than a writer.

I understand when Science said about the majority in that post, but the word "majority" seems to be taken many different ways in our community. Remeber the average normal person may only see what he/she wants to see, and stop reading.

I understand the hole testing thing, and I am all for it, that is why I have been playing on it so I could see it for myself, and to provide feedback to the admins.

My main point is I don't think that it is that difficult to run a poll. We have our second server, set it up for a 32 player map in the middle of the week when it is hardly populated and tryit out there, and then have a poll after doing it 2 times. I think changing the main server on as many occassions as we have, can cause people to go elsewhere and them not come back as much.

I just think that getting the community more involved, just makes us all feel like it is a part of our own.

I like our community so much, in the local forum some of us are starting in our local community, and I am looking forward to sending "Gamers" to the TG site!

Hidus

What about going back to 48 player cap? Slightly less crowded but still enough bodies to make it interesting.

__________________
2 Legit 2 Quit

Lyramion

I supported the idea of testing 32 man but it didnt work out too well in my opinion.


If we really want strategical low man action we need an unranked server for the TG players and maybe an event day per week to focus on.

__________________

INSUNABULA

I think what it all boils down to is this:

What does TG stand for?

For me it's about taking pubies and reforming them in a mature and well organized enviroment to play as a team as well as maintaining the home for established and new supporting members.

I believed the trial was a success for this reason: Everyone here experienced the change and formed an opinion and then expressed that opinion - and in my mind that is the result we wanted.

The one thing I noticed myself is that with a lower player-count the game changes completely - some would argue to the point that it can be considered a whole new game. We have been playing at a 50ish player cap for so long we have become conditioned to that style of play and that is why there is the resistance that exists against this trial.

I can understand the points being made from both sides of the fence and both are actually valid if you think about it:

The main server should be kept at a 50 cap limit to induct potential new members into the fold, a proving ground for pubies to gain vital "first contact" experience of the "TG way" without it the community would slowly fold in on itself.

The addition of a brand-new server has opened up the opportunity to add the element of diversity to the TG community where the option exists to add flavour and spice to the solid conquest juggernaught by giving players an outlet to experience nuances such as Titan, Northern Strike and 32 player Cap.

I think the question isn't "Should we have the conquest server at a 32 PC?" but rather "Should we add this option to the new server?"

For example (and ONLY an example):

Monday 32PC
Tuesday Titan
Wednesday NS
Thursday 32PC
Friday Titan
Saturday NS
Sunday 32PC

I can honestly say that to play the 32PC game you have to adjust your mindset and not go in thinking it will be a 50PC game. A 32PC game can be fun, it really can !!! but you have to want it. To force it on people would be a mistake but every once in a while would be great to "switch it up a little" and the new server is a PERFECT outlet for that.

I think the 32PC game should be here to stay - it just needs to find its proper place.

__________________

rage4order

Very well said INSUN, nice post.

__________________
|TG-8th|RAGE