Thread: So if not SF, then what? Infantry only? City maps?

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

I am wholly opposed to any sort of "infantry only" server. That would be like a "No AWP" server in CSS, or "no ramming, knifes only" or "24/7 pistols".......are we playing a war game, or not? Are there tanks and planes and jeeps and boats and APC's in war, or not? Are there not classes specifically designed to mitigate the threats of armored vehicles (engineers, anti-tank classes, etc).....then DUMBING down the game so people who are lazy, or who aren't interested in using their brain when they see a tank coming down the road, or who aren't adept enough to figure out that their sniper rifle isn't going to do much against an APC, or who are too SELFISH to realize they need to put down that M16, and pick up that LAW, and start dealing with the threat at hand INSTEAD of making up rules about what threats WILL BE at hand (A Tactical Gamer way of playing)....... it's just not teamplayer.

We can run a "city maps" server, perhaps....but they will play with a FULL compliment of vehicles. If you want YOUR game to be inf only, then stay off the main roads, stay off the ground, stay away from vehicle-accessible areas of the map. That's your perogative. But turning Gulf of Oman or Dalian Plant or ______ into a "walk around and shoot eachother" mindless 1995-era game......

who plays like that?

Look at quakewars....where they assume that everyone is going to use their own personal TS channels, so "who needs ingame VOIP, right?". And they assume that no one wants to spawn in the rear, or that people are too stupid to look at a map, where there forces are, where the known enemies are, and then CHOOSE A SPAWN POINT THAT SUITS THEIR NEEDS, so instead removes all spawn points that aren't on the "front lines"....like FFOW in some respects.......completely stupid, and killed both of those games. It's the free form, GTA style gameplay that people enjoy. "Let me (and my team) do what I/we want, when I/we want, and let's see what you and yours can do about it" type of game. That's why it's fun.

Battlefield is what it is BECAUSE it's a total package. Not because of it's "infantry combat" engine, which is horribly lacking compared to any source game, or even the CoD4+ engine. It's a step above ARMA and OFP, perhaps.....but that's about it.

Infantry only is the same kind of reasoning used to say "no ramming", or "no jihading", or "no spawn raping". Rules made up to protect the weak, the lazy, or the non-creative gamers. People like TG, who instead of figuring out how to protect their own spawn, or how to reduce the threat on their spawn, or how to defend themselves against being rammed or jihaded (moving in groups, staying off the main roads, setting up mine defenses, etc).....they just make rules.

I despise any rule that tells me how I can and can't kill you. It's completely antithetical to the reason we play these games. For the challenge. For the intellectual stimulation. For the excitement in doing something new, seeing something new, learning something new. Anything that increases the monotony of the game should be despised by any gamer.

My two cents.

or do we even need a 2nd server at all? Remember we ran with a top5 for a long while...watching it slowly kill both server's ranks, causing issues in terms of forcing admins and regulars to endure priming ghost towns, and complaints from the general public.

Empty servers are empty servers. A city maps server COULD work......but only if that means people also play on the full rotation server, which supercedes all secondary servers in terms of survival (meaning if everyone jumps on the city server, and they don't both get decent playtime....we kill the city server).

From the high admin perspective....it's is extremely unlikely that we will set an "infantry only" server. But...just like we did for 2142, making conquest and titan servers (essentially a full scale war server and city map server)....perhaps we give that a shot for BF2.

But you guys have to realize...the more slots we have open, the less "full" the game is, the more time YOU spend trying to make it full, and the LESS time you spend playing BF2. Priming is NOT playing.

I agree with your tuppence. I hate absurd rules like that. I also do not want to divide the player base, because people would surely gravitate to one or the other (if we have enough players to keep them both full, which I'm not sure we do).

I personally am not convinced that our current BF2 player base can support 2 vanilla servers and a PR server.

Originally Posted by nihilanth311

I agree with your tuppence. I hate absurd rules like that. I also do not want to divide the player base, because people would surely gravitate to one or the other (if we have enough players to keep them both full, which I'm not sure we do).

I think we do. Averaging nearly 50% capacity, BF2 is nearly our highest ranked, even by % rank (BF2 primary is in the 97th%, and PR is 93%. Only CSS primary beats that at 98%, and that's mostly due to BF2 primary's rebuilding from the IP changes. It will reach 98-99%), of all our games. Sure, there's less competition in the BF2 global server population.....but the game isn't dead, and there is never a night that the BF2 primary, and even the PR server, isn't 100% full.

Lets leave it at Vanilla and PR. For now. Lets get them running at max capacity for a while then introduce a top 5. But I want to hold on that for a while. At least 3 months.

I think a City map server would be a great idea. There are times when we all get tired of the jets and choppers. Having somewhere to go that still lets us squad with the best players out there and take a break from that would be GREAT. I cut back on BF2 for a couple different reasons some personal and some out of frustration but I love the ground game. I think that it is what makes TTP popular. The communication and the strategy that goes into it is what I came here for. I could fly if I so desired but I feel that the ground is where the camaraderie is.

Originally Posted by Kelderos

I agree, lets get our BF2 server back up to its old ability work out all the kinks then we can think about adding a second addition again.

I would rather have a full server rotation, Top5 was basically City Maps. I personally, can't stand playing the same 5 maps, I love city maps but I'd rather look forward to them than play them 24/7. I believe the best bet is another full rotation when the time comes started by our Beloved Gulf of Omen. The best Priming map in the game, IMO.

I second this.

If we are going to have a second server lets do another full rotation. A top 5 will end up being city maps...and I think full rotation is one of the things that helps set TTP apart.

Although, like Nih, I am concerned about having enough players to warrant a second instance at all. Sure there is a peak point of the day when the primary is full, but there is a large part of the day it is not...the second server would only get partially full when the primary was completely full. But players will probably switch to the one or the other based on what map is playing.