Seriously... Bridge at Rem.

**Walkerxes** · 07-08-08, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Phyrelight

I guess we could simply log with all the other people when the map comes up and stop trying to re-prime it? I hate going through all the work of getting it going only to have it bottom out a few maps later. If the server sits at empty after Bridge long enough maybe they will reconsider removing it? Maybe remove it on Conquest and leave it on Titan...then compare the overall numbers. If Conquest has consistently more people then the folks running Bridge there may be a clue. I love how everyone on here votes to keep it but when the map comes up there isn't the same number of people playing the map as there are voting to keep it. Maybe we aren't reaching the right people with this vote. We went from full to 4-5 on each side yet the vote here seems completely for keeping it. Doesn't seem logical.

I play whatever map comes up.. empty or full, priming or rocking. And you'll never convince me not to prime if I'm so inclined.

In my experience, whether it be in BF2 with Tampa, or 2142 with NS maps.. the population drops of initially, then picks back up as the rounds get played... if its in prime time. Off times of the day, it may be different.

**Phyrelight** · 07-08-08, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by laggyNgroovy

Frau observation here -

If you are not already a Brig General, what would removing NS maps do to you? Hmmmmm? Class? Class? Anyone?

remove the ability to get NS unlocks and awards...I didn't say get rid of all NS. Just Bridge from Conquest as a trial.

**Alundil** · 07-08-08, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by Angellmajick

Originally Posted by Glitch

That would be interesting. Play the 32 or 16 person maps instead.

I would be up for lowering the bridge count...since the maps are loaded individually we could just change out what map loads...

Now that idea I like - "fly in the ointment question" though.....with the number of reserve slots that we carry on both servers (24 I believe) what does that do to people trying to join? I understand that if the map will take 32 then there is no problem, but if we try, say 16, we've got the potential of not allowing any no-reservists to connect to the map for at least two rounds. Is that good?

**nikolai0505** · 07-08-08, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by Phyrelight

I guess we could simply log with all the other people when the map comes up and stop trying to re-prime it? I hate going through all the work of getting it going only to have it bottom out a few maps later. If the server sits at empty after Bridge long enough maybe they will reconsider removing it? Maybe remove it on Conquest and leave it on Titan...then compare the overall numbers. If Conquest has consistently more people then the folks running Bridge there may be a clue. I love how everyone on here votes to keep it but when the map comes up there isn't the same number of people playing the map as there are voting to keep it. Maybe we aren't reaching the right people with this vote. We went from full to 4-5 on each side yet the vote here seems completely for keeping it. Doesn't seem logical.

the problem with that i think is that the conquest server is more popular any it is primed sooner then the titan. oh yeah i got my NS back woot i will be on NS or not

**Glitch** · 07-08-08, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Alundil

Originally Posted by Angellmajick

Originally Posted by Glitch

That would be interesting. Play the 32 or 16 person maps instead.

I would be up for lowering the bridge count...since the maps are loaded individually we could just change out what map loads...

Now that idea I like - "fly in the ointment question" though.....with the number of reserve slots that we carry on both servers (24 I believe) what does that do to people trying to join? I understand that if the map will take 32 then there is no problem, but if we try, say 16, we've got the potential of not allowing any no-reservists to connect to the map for at least two rounds. Is that good?

My understanding is you can play 64 people on a 16 person map. It isn't a real limit, just a recomendantion... and you do NOT want to play 64 people on a 16 person map but the server would let you if you tried.

As I understand it, Berlin or Cerebe... or is it Tunis?, anyway one of them is really a 32 person map we just play it with more.

**Angellmajick** · 07-08-08, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Glitch

As I understand it, Berlin or Cerebe... or is it Tunis?, anyway one of them is really a 32 person map we just play it with more.

Yup...Camp G, Berlin, Belgrade, Tunis and Cebre are all 32 person maps...we just play them with more.

**HBPyro** · 07-09-08, 12:11 AM

Personally I like the NS maps, but the reality is that at times they do kill the population from like a full server to barely enough to keep gameplay. This should be a serious topic for the admins to discuss.

Regards,

Pyro

**DJ Ms. White** · 07-09-08, 12:13 AM

I say keep it.

**Forquetsson** · 07-09-08, 10:09 AM

Someone mentioned earlier that if you made Bridge a 32 person map, it would go quicker. It would. Eu starts off having one point, East or West Bridge. Ever tried trying to break out of that one? Nightmare.

If more people would shell out the 10$ maybe the NS problem would solve itself. I like the maps. With a full server.

**WorstPE** · 07-09-08, 12:28 PM

I hate the map. For every reason stated above. It's the only NS map I don't like as well. The other ones are close combat maps. But Bridge is like a titan map without all the vehicles.