Regular or Harcore

**WileECyte** · 03-08-11, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by SpiritOfF1re

You know what they say, if you don't stir the pot, the stew will burn...

Yes, but if you're baking a souffle you can stir too much.

**CivilWars** · 03-08-11, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by WileECyte

You enjoy stirring the pot. It's all a game to you. It's very obvious that you care about your agenda and don't care what happens to anyone else as a result. That was made very clear early on in my time as a high.

Exactly. That is why I have gone to bat for so many "outsiders" around here. What the fuck ever.

Sent from Uranus using Tapatalk

**WileECyte** · 03-08-11, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Exactly. That is why I have gone to bat for so many "outsiders" around here. What the fuck ever.

If they're part of your agenda, sure.

**CivilWars** · 03-08-11, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by WileECyte

If they're part of your agenda, sure.

Yeah, we all know how much hawg, trigger, fove, canadianpersian, Jason, kraker, et al support my agendas. If you want to make this about me I am sure there are more appropriate topics.

As for the topic at hand other than the fact that TPG has the potential to grow what agenda am I pushing exactly?

Sent from Uranus using Tapatalk

**triggerhappy2005** · 03-08-11, 03:43 PM

This needs to get back on topic. How about we test a server for a month and see what happens. I'll even pay for the first month myself.

**moving-target** · 03-08-11, 03:43 PM

**WileECyte** · 03-08-11, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

As for the topic at hand other than the fact that TPG has the potential to grow what agenda am I pushing exactly?

You're pushing for growth at the expense of others, which isn't acceptable. Sure, you appease those wanting vanilla, but in the end... they get what they want, at the expense of a server that plenty of others want to keep.

**CivilWars** · 03-08-11, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by WileECyte

You're pushing for growth at the expense of others, which isn't acceptable. Sure, you appease those wanting vanilla, but in the end... they get what they want, at the expense of a server that plenty of others want to keep.

I never once said that. If plenty of people prefer HC then it will have enough players to not be cut. My only agenda, if you want to call it that, is if the new server is always full, but the old is not, then why kill the newer and more popular one? If everything that has been said is true about the popularity of HC then one of two things will happen, we will keep both or the HC only. However, if the statistics show otherwise if and when we have another server I am just not a fan of blindly keeping the HC even if it is the weaker of the two.

Sent from Uranus using Tapatalk

**CivilWars** · 03-08-11, 03:53 PM

And for the record, if someone started a topic to change the current server to vanilla and have no HC I wouldn't support that. That is not fair to those who have worked hard to populate the server.

Sent from Uranus using Tapatalk

**Alundil** · 03-08-11, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

This needs to get back on topic. How about we test a server for a month and see what happens. I'll even pay for the first month myself.

Having been part of the 2142 multi/server scenario that WileE alluded to I can say that it is difficult to maintain more than one of a particular gametype. With that said, there are many, many reasons why those additional servers failed. Some were hardware, some were 3rd party, some were new games, etc.

I think that trig is correct though that "back on topic" is the way to go.

Personally, I like HC about as much as I like Vanilla. It matters not to me on the game mode. I play TPG because I rarely play anywhere other than TPG. If a second server were to go up I'd do my share to help prime/admin both servers as would the rest of the regular population here. I don't think that is at issue. What breaks BC2 completely is the lack of voice. TS3 resolves that.....to a degree (not pefect but better than nothing).

I believe that WileE, and the rest of the decision makers at TPG (note: I am not one of those people, I just work here

), is saying that if population of BC2 in total is negatively impacted when looking at server ranks of existing/new server then there is an issue that would require "remediation"

Server rank and popularity matter. Player count and uptime drive that rank. So if the server rank(s) suffered (meaning that one or both sat less than full then it would not be an optimal solution as we've got one that is almost always full currently during prime hours)

I am all for seeing additional servers/games as long as the community can support those servers. See BD's reference in the Issues/Ideas/Improvements thread for reasoning as to why picking up additional server reserve slots is key. TPG needs the revenue. Civil, I know that you understand the decision making process behind setting up additional games/servers. You were a High long enough to know the ins and outs of that decision.

Let's not let this degrade into some personal vendetta related thread. There are enough of those already without this one becoming one as well. Rico and Imis ramped up the "vitriol" (shout out to the Drama forum peeps) but they've since calmed down and reconciled (how sweet).

Let's get back to business