Re: Improving the kick for TG player script.

**WhiskeySix** · 03-06-2007, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I do believe that shortly after vanilla BF2 came out this very issue came up and, as a solution, a script was implemented to prevent CO's and SL's from being kicked even if they weren't supporting members.

Hmm.. I don't think so - maybe your thinking about the auto-balance change, where SL's and CO's wouldn't be team-switched mid-round to balance the teams?

Anyway - I agree that only SM's should be "immune" from the kick-script... i.e. a SM should never have to wait to play.

That being said [and I haven't really thought it out fully or know if it's even possible, so take this as brainstorming] perhaps we might prioritize kicks using factors to modify one's "LengthOfPlay" variable... a "StickAroundBonus" if you will. For instance, if you're SL'ing with 3+ members, you hold a 0.75 bonus.... that is, your length_of_play get's reduced by 3/4 (LengthOfPlay *= 0.75).

Or maybe, as SL, you get a 10% bonus for each squad-member... If you're a good squad leader, people will stay with your squad. Here, a full squad would get you a 50% reduction (LengthOfPlay *= 0.5). It's a compromise: You'll still be kicked in time, but because you're enhancing (potentially anyway) the team-play on the server, you're rewarded. Contrarily, if you're a lone wolf trying to dodge the script, people won't stick with you and you won't get any prioritization. (In fact - squad's of 1 could get a bonus that increases their LengthOfPlay

)

Anyway - just a thought... I suppose the concept could be extended to give a StickAroundBonus to squad members with certain statistics if we really wanted to make it complicated.

**Tempus** · 03-06-2007, 12:21 PM

Tarpan is correct that it used to be that way.. But it was only that way at the beginning -- we turned off the SL protection on all the BF2 games over a year ago.

**SmokingTarpan** · 03-06-2007, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by WhiskeySix

Hmm.. I don't think so - maybe your thinking about the auto-balance change, where SL's and CO's wouldn't be team-switched mid-round to balance the teams?

Come to think about it, I believe you are correct. I thought there was also talk about the kick script, though. Either I was always extremely lucky, or something was put in place; I remember playing for hours upon end as an SL and not ever getting kicked.

I've always been against reserved slots, even when I was a server admin, but I understand their purpose. I get the feeling that there's no real way to modify the script to decrease the chance of a CO/SL getting kicked. In light of that, what's the chance that the PR dev team could come up with a way for a squad to promote someone to SL? This would be for the times where people do the SL-shuffle-dance.

**SmokingTarpan** · 03-06-2007, 12:34 PM

Heh, sorry for the double post.

Originally Posted by Tempus

Tarpan is correct that it used to be that way.. But it was only that way at the beginning -- we turned off the SL protection on all the BF2 games over a year ago.

So there was SL protection? I thought Whiskey was correct that it was for the autobalance.

So, here's the question then: Why did you turn it off? Not that I'm going to push vehemently for it to be turned on again, but it just seems odd that it was okay then but not now. My only argument for SL/CO protection is because with PR, losing a good SL/CO due to autokick can hose things up nicely.

**KevlarBR** · 03-06-2007, 12:37 PM

No, protected COs and SLs asch! They wouldn't be moved from their team by the autobalance feature.

However, there is an easy way out: SUBSCRIBE people! For Pete's Sake, it's 9 bucks a month that goes toward the server, forums, etc, in other words, 9 bucks a month for you fun! It's worth it =)

**icky** · 03-06-2007, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

Come to think about it, I believe you are correct. I thought there was also talk about the kick script, though. Either I was always extremely lucky, or something was put in place; I remember playing for hours upon end as an SL and not ever getting kicked.

IIRC, it started out as a random player chosen for removal. Then, it became the player on who was online for the SHORTEST time removed first.

And of course, in the period where the script wasn't running, players were chosen manually for removal.

**johnflenaly** · 03-06-2007, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by KevlarBR

No, protected COs and SLs asch! They wouldn't be moved from their team by the autobalance feature.

However, there is an easy way out: SUBSCRIBE people! For Pete's Sake, it's 9 bucks a month that goes toward the server, forums, etc, in other words, 9 bucks a month for you fun! It's worth it =)

Ahmen brother there realy is only two solutions to sl/co kicks.

A subscribe

B Dont sl/co

The choice is yours.

**Tempus** · 03-06-2007, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

So, here's the question then: Why did you turn it off? Not that I'm going to push vehemently for it to be turned on again, but it just seems odd that it was okay then but not now. My only argument for SL/CO protection is because with PR, losing a good SL/CO due to autokick can hose things up nicely.

For the same reasons we've made any number of adjustments over the years.. Because after experimentation, we decided on a better course of action. Specifically here, because of the many reasons listed above -- people camping the SL position, too many players with protection reducing the opportunity for non-SLs to stay on the server, dilution of SM status as a whole, etc etc etc.

Let me reiterate what's been said before.. Our server is paid for by Supporting Members. It is solely due to their support that TG even exists in the first place. TG is not a profit enterprise -- all monies get recycled back into the operation. We rent expensive, dedicated, high-speed servers for the games, and are always ready with another server when a new game arrives. I am sorry for those who get kicked, but those are the facts. Someone has to pay the bills, and those who do get priority.

**GenTrae** · 03-06-2007, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Tempus

For the same reasons we've made any number of adjustments over the years.. Because after experimentation, we decided on a better course of action. Specifically here, because of the many reasons listed above -- people camping the SL position, too many players with protection reducing the opportunity for non-SLs to stay on the server, dilution of SM status as a whole, etc etc etc.

Let me reiterate what's been said before.. Our server is paid for by Supporting Members. It is solely due to their support that TG even exists in the first place. TG is not a profit enterprise -- all monies get recycled back into the operation. We rent expensive, dedicated, high-speed servers for the games, and are always ready with another server when a new game arrives. I am sorry for those who get kicked, but those are the facts. Someone has to pay the bills, and those who do get priority.

Thats basically the truth.

**Braidedheadman** · 03-06-2007, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Apophis

It's not necessarily a technical hurdle that we're having problems trying to overcome. The system was set up like this intentionally. The best way to stop yourself getting kicked as an SL is to become a supporting member and help keep the servers and community alive.

I would be personally opposed to any system that allows ANY such type of immunity.

Originally Posted by Tempus

Let me reiterate what's been said before.. Our server is paid for by Supporting Members. It is solely due to their support that TG even exists in the first place. TG is not a profit enterprise -- all monies get recycled back into the operation. We rent expensive, dedicated, high-speed servers for the games, and are always ready with another server when a new game arrives. I am sorry for those who get kicked, but those are the facts. Someone has to pay the bills, and those who do get priority.

QFT!

I really don’t see what the issue is here. In fact, I'm somewhat annoyed that this is even being entertained at all. Someone paid to play. Someone didn’t. Who by rights should get booted? Immunity for those who did not pay? No, sir!

There’s an additional scenario that I would like to add to those listed earlier by Coridon:

Suppose that there are by chance or circumstance 53 SM’s playing one night and 9 pubbies. Of those pubbies, what if one of them is the CO and the other 8 are leading squads? Now suppose that a 54th SM comes along and wants to play. He can’t because everyone on the server has immunity, whether they paid for it or not. Is that even remotely fair? But what if the script is set up to boot SLs and COs under circumstances like this? Do we then see complaint threads like this all over again? Where shall the line finally be drawn?

Personally, the thought never entered into my mind that I should be protected from the SM script while I was hitching a free ride. Heck, I was grateful I could play at all on some nights.

Having recently shelled out my dollars, and pardon me for saying so, I find it hard to feel any sympathy for those who, for whatever reason, aren't willing to do the same in order to support the community. I doled out my 9 bucks because I thought the TG house was the best BF2 gaming environment I had ever encountered; maturity, emphasis on teamwork rather than point farming, great tactical game play all-round, and more. All the other servers out there are pants as far as I am concerned.

If you like playing TG so much that you don't want to be kicked, pay up. Otherwise, enjoy the free ride and don’t complain when SM’s come to play.

**asch** · 03-06-2007, 01:55 PM

Folks.... the admin team will always listen to your feedback and make their best determination based on what we feel is best for Tactical Gamer. We'll try to provide the best fair gaming experience possible.

**Red** · 03-06-2007, 02:53 PM

Just one comment then I will quietly go away.

Nothing in life is free. You want to save money, then you have to live with the fact that you might get kicked in any position. Its still great that you still can play for free on a server that cost money to maintain.

And TG could look at it the other way. Maybe we should only let supporting members play SL and CO, maybe that would improve gameplay. I personally think the server would empty quickly if we did that.

But the point is that we have supporting members for a reason. The reason is to support the TG community and that way improve gameplay for us all in all the games we play.

That also means TG "implicitly" assumes supporting members to be better teamplayers and should have the absolute highest priority. There is nothing that can tell the kick script if a none supporting member is a good teamplayer or not, so all non supporting players have to be treated equal.

The ONLY way to know if the SL or other player is "suppose to be a" good teamplayer is the supporting member status.

Which brings us back to the main goal of TG, which is to promote good teamplay.

**BigGaayAl** · 03-06-2007, 02:55 PM

Another totally different solution: more (then the currently 0) ,pw-nights. These are a good way to reward non-tg regulars.
We get to play in even higher quality games, and get to play longer without being kicked.

It can also boost forum attendance. Maybe you can add a message in server that the password is available to forum members. That in turn can also boost TG membership numbers.

**SmokingTarpan** · 03-06-2007, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by BigGaayAl

Another totally different solution: more (then the currently 0) ,pw-nights. These are a good way to reward non-tg regulars.
We get to play in even higher quality games, and get to play longer without being kicked.

I wholeheartedly support bringing back password nights, they were always a blast.

Folks, perhaps a little "settling down" may be in order, as I'm feeling a bit of hostility and lecturing coming on that I believe is unnecessary.

I (and I believe others) are not looking for a loophole around SM status. I think we're looking for some type of remedy to the overall problem where the command structure (thus game quality) deteriorates due to a CO or SL being removed via autokick to make room for an SM.

I've had good SL's get vaporized due to the autokick, and for the rest of the game my squad gets nothing accomplished as no one desires to step up (or can't, because you can't choose an SL) and instead we do the SL Shuffle(tm) for the next half hour. This is not fun, and I've left the game several times already because of it. To forestall the "you're a good SL, why don't you step up, Tarpan?" question: I'm still burned out from being an SL for a year straight.

So, instead of worrying that people want status without paying for it, let's address the actual problem instead. Password nights is one possible solution. Another is whether the PR devs can modify the game so that you can select/promote a particular person into the SL seat. Any other thoughts?

I think also in the above thread is a request that the in-server message be modified somehow to better inform the kickee that something is about to happen to them, seeing as how the out-of-game message can't be modified.

**WhiskeySix** · 03-06-2007, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

I think also in the above thread is a request that the in-server message be modified somehow to better inform the kickee that something is about to happen to them, seeing as how the out-of-game message can't be modified.

Can a message be sent to an individual player in-game? I suspect not, which is too bad, because if it could, the script could periodically figure out who's "next", and send them a message letting them know they're on deck to be kicked. Perhaps the "on-deck" player could be notified via global chat? Then they'd at least be able to deal better.

Thread Tools

Display