If TPG had a Bad Company 2 server and a public TS instance

**evilblackjack** · 09-28-10, 11:32 AM

It is simple for me. I play to have fun. I like this game over all others. I am afraid that it is the future and the closes to teamplay there is out there that looks so good. I have always said threw time things always get better. We must adapt to change. If you do not things die. I voted yes because tpg is were my friends and clans men are. For the people who know what I have done, my only focus was to keep everybody together and not to go away. This is all that I will say. evilblackjack

**WileECyte** · 09-28-10, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Gonzo0100

I would play, I recently played a few rounds and remembered how good the game is.
I would HIGHLY prefer mumble, as it is such a small, simple and quick response time client.

Teamspeak and vent are garbage when compared to mumble.

I would play and help where I could IF the server is of better quality. Even in the later stages of the TPG server I had rubber-banding. My ping was always good, but the actual server had some issues (as reported be countless people). I will say it started getting better towards the later stages, but not GREAT.

IF and that's a big IF TPG hosts a public VOIP server, it will be TS. We currently use TS for game administration in the other Battlefield series. Requiring our admins to have multiple VOIP clients installed is NOT an option.

**Coyote Warlady** · 09-28-10, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by moving-target

i reckon people want the bc2 server(s) back and they are reconsidering it

Again why? I don't get it because It's no news that the TPG BC2 players have had numerous posts about having a public TS. It is very clear that the player would play with a public TS. Read them all! For months people suggested it and it was a no go. So if the admins and highs are really reconsidering this, well this is great! But if they aren't I don't see the point of this poll at all but just another debate and arguments about TS and TPG.

**Tenrou** · 09-28-10, 11:52 AM

I mean the real question maybe isn't will it make playing the game more feasible. Obviously being able to communicate with a 3rd party source will make that happen. My question I pose to all you yes people is this. If TPG uses TS/Vent will it really keep the server full? Before the close of the server it was 95% of the time a ghost town hence why they pulled it. I don't see it changing anything the people who liked this game were playing before the shut down, and obviously there wasn't enough of you to keep a server active.

Lets not be silly here either voip wasn't the only problem. The lag was horrible, and the hit detection was garbage. Admin could barely enforce TPG ideals because the games mechanic on objectives is loose at best. Anyone can throw up an order since no SL exists. Since theres no commander it was hard to coordinate with other squads so you weren't over lapping objectives. Was blowing shit up fun.. YES, were the maps cool... YES.. I don't think this is a game that pushes team play even though the score system does offer points towards team play.

**QuickLightning** · 09-28-10, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by WileECyte

IF and that's a big IF TPG hosts a public VOIP server, it will be TS. We currently use TS for game administration in the other Battlefield series. Requiring our admins to have multiple VOIP clients installed is NOT an option.

How would admins even be in a VoIP channel for the game and a VoIP channel for admining if they didn't have multiple clients installed? I don't think you can load two instances of teamspeak and have separate bind keys for them.

If it were to happen, I would likely just continue to use the Ventrillo channels that I already used for playing BC2.

**QuickLightning** · 09-28-10, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Tenrou

I mean the real question maybe isn't will it make playing the game more feasible. Obviously being able to communicate with a 3rd party source will make that happen. My question I pose to all you yes people is this. If TPG uses TS/Vent will it really keep the server full? Before the close of the server it was 95% of the time a ghost town hence why they pulled it. I don't see it changing anything the people who liked this game were playing before the shut down, and obviously there wasn't enough of you to keep a server active.

Lets not be silly here either voip wasn't the only problem. The lag was horrible, and the hit detection was garbage. Admin could barely enforce TPG ideals because the games mechanic on objectives is loose at best. Anyone can throw up an order since no SL exists. Since theres no commander it was hard to coordinate with other squads so you weren't over lapping objectives. Was blowing shit up fun.. YES, were the maps cool... YES.. I don't think this is a game that pushes team play even though the score system does offer points towards team play.

TF2 has pretty similarly loose objectives and anyone can call out anything they want. It also has no commander, no hierarchy or anything. Yet we still host that and it does quite well.

**WileECyte** · 09-28-10, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by QuickLightning

How would admins even be in a VoIP channel for the game and a VoIP channel for admining if they didn't have multiple clients installed? I don't think you can load two instances of teamspeak and have separate bind keys for them.

If it were to happen, I would likely just continue to use the Ventrillo channels that I already used for playing BC2.

TS3 supports connecting to multiple servers at the same time. I've been in as many as 4 TS3 servers at one time and had keybinds to jump between servers. Pretty simple stuff really. I'm guessing you've never used TS3 or not looked into its capabilities.

**QuickLightning** · 09-28-10, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by WileECyte

TS3 supports connecting to multiple servers at the same time. I've been in as many as 4 TS3 servers at one time and had keybinds to jump between servers. Pretty simple stuff really. I'm guessing you've never used TS3 or not looked into its capabilities.

I haven't really used teamspeak in years.

**BigHub** · 09-28-10, 12:02 PM

The only problem I'm seeing, is how the hell are random connections going to know to join our TS channel? Most are going to connect, and then be told to download/install/open TS and join our channel, then will probably just disconnect. The good thing though, it's an easy way to weed out the non-teamplayers who don't want to communicate with their team.

I just see that as being a major problem. Maybe it isn't, I don't know, I'm just like Quick as in I haven't used TS or have played games requiring you to use TS.

**Tenrou** · 09-28-10, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by QuickLightning

TF2 has pretty similarly loose objectives and anyone can call out anything they want. It also has no commander, no hierarchy or anything. Yet we still host that and it does quite well.

I'll take your word for that Quick I only play BF games, and L4d. I guess I'm used to the idea of a hiearchy, and all the great things it brings to working toegether. You make great point though TF2 does well, but BC:2 since it's been hosted here has been a major problem after the honeymoon phase left peoples minds. Now here we are talking about brining it back, and I don't see why?