VG Project Reality COOP - Public Poll - Proposed Map Changes

[=VG= Kavelenko]

Sorry guys, sometimes I cant resist it when people try to tell me what to vote for or what to think. Truce.

[=VG= Blazer]

3 hours ago, =VG= Martin said:

I'm not trying to chance anyone's vote Blazer. I respect other people opinions and I don't care if they voted in a different way than me. 

I'm just saying that everybody knows that changes are needed. I think we all agree with that. We can discuss how many changes but they are needed. For instance delete the bots air assets to avoid confusion or unnecessary death of noob players (which is better for the team). So it can't be a "No period" situation.

BTW this is a VG poll not your country messy elections, chill out my friend.

 

I wasn't trying to come across as hostile in anyway.

I will write it again, I voted NO and that was my final choice - If this isn't a messy election, could we stop calling out people who voted differently?

This system really needs to be anonymous so that people vote on how they feel and not by who voted what.

 

This poll was made to make changes on the server. I support that and its good however, this shouldn't cause a friction within the community.

[=VG= Martin]

Oh boy... I'm done with this.

No more comments about this topic from my side.

This DRAMA stops here.

Spanish weirdo out!!!

 

[=VG= m823us]

So a good point was brought up, should we keep the poll running? We have more players that use our server, but I don't think they use the website. What was our target saturation number we were trying to acquire?

[Double_13]

The poll should stay up as not everybody who plays on the server checks it on a 3 day base.

 

[=VG= m823us]

25 minutes ago, =VG= Double_13 said:

The poll should stay up as not everybody who plays on the server checks it on a 3 day base.

 

You are correct,  I was asking if we need longer than a week. Some prople check in only 1x per month, if that. Plus it is summer time in the States, usually an increase of players due to school being not in session.

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

It's up to you to promote the vote to your player base.  As I understand it, we can create MOTD's in PR -- this should be done to each of the different setups we have.  We need longer than a week it seems.

 

Also, I thought it would be most wise to have transparency in voting here -- now I am regretting that.  The reasoning was to show that there are not "random idiots that don't play PR" voting.  But I can very well manage that from the back end, it doesn't need to be public.  I'm gonna change that now if I can.

 

 

7 hours ago, =VG= Kavelenko said:

...poll that doesn't allow you to change your vote selections!!!

Um, yes it does.  There is a clear option to allow vote changing or not.  I set it to YES.  If you can still see the questions and not just the results, you'll see you can check the boxes again and click the Vote button at the bottom.

@Kav -- I see that error with double votes by you, and of course it's not you doing that -- it's the system.  I'm no IPS pro, but I assume there was some kind of hiccup.  Either way, because I can see who voted, I can count and disregard any double votes easily.  It's not even an issue.

 

I mean, seeing the mistaken double votes may pose a problem for anyone under the age of 12, but for the rest of us, we'll just remain confident that we can just subtract any doubles from the final count.  Eazy Peazy.

[ranger_12]

1- i don't know why ppls vote to remove 1 man assets ??? 

2- don't know why u wanna translate this game to INF game anyway by removing assets.

 

3- sorry for my honest words

4- CHEERS, this game is nothing without assets.

5- removing 1man assets increase team work ?? yes true. but what if ppls don't want team work ?? well lot of ppls realy don't have mics and they don't like to speak or folow orders ? i mean assets commander's orders. so why you vote then ?

[ranger_12]

i don't know if what im going to say is logic  im not drunk by the way

what if there is a way for players to signe up for assets ?! for example we have cas players (fixed) and tanks players .. trans pilots?! i mean everyone can decide what hes good at and signe up ? if there is a way of course it will be perfect. hope u understand my point.

[SoldierOfMisfortune]

1 hour ago, ranger_12 said:

what if there is a way for players to signe up for assets ?! for example we have cas players (fixed) and tanks players .. trans pilots?! i mean everyone can decide what hes good at and signe up ? if there is a way of course it will be perfect. hope u understand my point.

Perhaps we can have a 1-2 minute briefing interval before map start like the deployment servers? Along with the no squads before x time rule?  I cant say im speaking for anyone this is just a idle suggestion on my part.

[=VG= Kavelenko]

10 hours ago, =VG= SemlerPDX said:

Um, yes it does.  There is a clear option to allow vote changing or not.  I set it to YES.  If you can still see the questions and not just the results, you'll see you can check the boxes again and click the Vote button at the bottom.

Thanks Semler, that's exactly what I did, apologies for dishing your poll design. I still voted to get rid of Bot assets to stop confusion but other than that my intention was to keep the spawn times and asset removal as is.

A good example of why I changed my vote was yesterday when the server was populated by 7 players and we could not capture the Beirut dock because there was a battle tank in the docks and we could not deal with it in time before the ticket bleed ran out. We had only Spandrels to combat it and could not get AT kits because some players were in APCs. Our CAS chopper got shot down because it was piloted by a newb. Two maps previously ran out due to rapid ticket bleed on the first flag (Pavlosk Bay, Karbala).

Next was Banyam and we finally had enough players (17) to compete, and stop the ticket bleed.

For me low server population is quite challenging and fun but new players tend to give up and play somewhere else which is exactly what some were threatening to do.

[=VG= chickenjason123]

The problem of the whole removal of one-man assets and delayed spawn is that they are only suitable for the times where there are at least 20 players on the server including good players. If it is Euro/US Midnight/Morning then there are only 15-ish or even less ppl on the server + take the playerbase skill into consideration which varies a lot more compared to a few years ago (Patch <1.2) then it might drive people away from the server when they gets frustrated.

 

Is it possible to extend the Low-pop/High-pop Config in the control panel to Map files also? So admins can change the maps according to player count and skill level. If not I would suggest keeping a small amount to map as before to act as low pop map/seeding maps. Also I think we can replace the tanks in asset-oriented maps to a 2:4 ratio (One Man:Two man) e.g. leave 1 or 2 one man tanks in kashan/khami while all the other APC/Tanks are two man so even in low pop times admin can just set those map to keep the game enjoyable for the players.

[=VG= m823us]

This is the reason why I voted and people have brought-up really good points. 

First snd foremost, I encourage everybody to go out and vote! Yes, everybody's vote matters and we try to reach this to as many players as possible because we want to hear their input. We have a such a great community because of you folks, not just the people that have clan tags on , But because of the support we have from players like you. 

One of the things that VG has recognized is that we have times in our PR server when we have lower populations. We have addressed this and are implementing a system that will work better in this enviroment.  Something that has come out if this was the poll created, it will have multiple maps in rotation for high population and low population server. This part is done. 

Now, what we are trying to do is make the map assets match the player base.we should have a map asset match the player base for what the population is. This is a bit of a learning curve since we have an fluctuating amount of people that are experienced with new players. This is one of the reasons why we have admins, not to just enforce the rules, but to assist in gameplay and make it so it can be enjoyed. Admins have the ability to change maps to match what the players can handle. 

From my vote, I woukd like some things changed and some stuff to remain the same. We have the ability to have fun with some of the maps, and some of the maps people are able to do within 15 minutes of gameplay. Sometimes the assets are needed when we have a high bot to human ratio, sometimes the boots on the ground are the true winners. 

In my opinion, If we have a std and an alt set, with different map assets, the players will have the ability to choose which version of the map they want to play and enjoy themselves. If they want a heavy asset map, then choose it. If they want a low asset map then go for it. Choice of map is the key point here. We want it to work for the players that are in game. We need maps that can work for low population maps and low skill base. Lets face it, if we have 40 players on with only one squad doing work, it makes things difficult overall. We also have an INF layer which is great for small amounts of players that people forget about a lot.

Maybe it's not the assets that need to change, maybe it is a kit restriction that are a bottle neck for us?

[Jersans]

I didn't vote. I think that the game is about having fun and that we have enough rules and MVP's to play a good game no matter what. Are there bad rounds? Sure. Do we get heckled by idiots? Absolutely. But at the end of the day it's about making a team and completing a map in the best possible way. There are easy and very hard maps. We are supposed to work together to capture the flags and defeat the 'bots' this is about it. If tanks roll up two flags ahead in Kashan they're doing it wrong. Last time I played I split my tank horde to defend a flag, stop the armour from raping our infantry and capture a flag that no-one seemed to care about. I think that as a general rule of thumb all those who play heavy assets just need to keep in mind that they're simply there to support the boots on the ground. Whether they're hunting frogfoots in A2A or whether they're tanks clearing the road for infantry or whether they are APC operators or Huey moving a squad from A to B. 

The whole point is work with what you have and work together. 

Now the only problem I may have is that nobody should use 1-man assets or go solo. Ever. If you're tanking up get a driver, gunner and preferably a top-gunner. If you're going APC please transport / cover troops. If you're CAS just support the troops. Just do your job. My two cents. 

[ranger_12]

i voted NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>NO

[=VG= Kavelenko]

17 hours ago, =VG= m823us said:

One of the things that VG has recognized is that we have times in our PR server when we have lower populations. We have addressed this and are implementing a system that will work better in this enviroment.  Something that has come out if this was the poll created, it will have multiple maps in rotation for high population and low population server. This part is done. 

Now, what we are trying to do is make the map assets match the player base.we should have a map asset match the player base for what the population is. This is a bit of a learning curve since we have an fluctuating amount of people that are experienced with new players. This is one of the reasons why we have admins, not to just enforce the rules, but to assist in gameplay and make it so it can be enjoyed. Admins have the ability to change maps to match what the players can handle.

Now you're talking! This is great if its doable, create a map rotation that responds to server population. WIN/WIN.