Maps for low player count

[Ragnarok1775]

I'm not sure if this is possible:

Is there any way that, by use of a script, the server can use a different maplist, or skip certain maps when there is low player count late at night (Eastern US time)?

We are ending up with maps like Karbala with five people on. No matter what, regardless of the needs of the other squads, two people will always be helicopter pilots, then two will make an Infantry squad, and the one leftover guy will make a solo squad and not do anything...there's just certain maps that don't work during late hours when there's not many people on.

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

Get me a list of maps.

I already created such a system, it's just not used.  It would require a PR Admin to restart the server when they change it to and from that setup.  So, last admin at night and maybe first admin in the morning, or whatever.  Not sure how it would work, but we've never exactly tested it.  It's not automatic or anything, but it's a simple button press called LowPop Setup.  Like I said, talk to the people and list the maps that would work, and indicate a seed map (something that will draw people in) for the default starting map in the list.

[=VG= Inch]

You can check it around here, i did see someone did upload it some of the maplists ( i forgot who.. ), but there's only about 5 out of 6 Setups that currently used in-game ( among them are the Low Pop Setup, which is not implemented just yet )

Map rotations are changed everyday mostly ( had signs of losing connection, game crash in-game at VG COOP Server, means that the server changing the map rotations ), it always starting from 0600/0700-ish ( GMT+0 ) from my point of view. And also the server had small changes at Friday, instead of using custom map rotations, an OPFOR map rotation goes in ( OPFOR Fridays ) every weeks, giving somewhat new and fresh gameplay with different faction and tactics / strategies to win the game ( since the BLUFOR is really are general for some people in COOP, this is also made for someone who's looking for a challenge )

I'm pretty sure OPFOR Fridays still alive till now.. 

 

- Inch

[=VG= Kavelenko]

An easy fix is to re-enable the mapvote function during low server population or absence of admins.

The players themselves know which maps they prefer to play when their numbers are down.

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

I believe he is referring to times when there are no admins and the maps are not suited for the low number of players on at the time.  Meaning: this needs to be set up before the last admin leaves for the evening.  Map Vote is not the most reliable and AFAIK can cause a crash if certain map(s) are selected.  It may be more wise to get a proper list of what would be good Low Pop maps and actually implement this system at least on an as-needed basis, to get some testing in.  We don't know how it will play out until we give it a go.

10 hours ago, InchPincherToo said:

i did see someone did upload it some of the maplists ( i forgot who.. ),

   ...hmmm  - I forgot who as well... 

[=VG= Kavelenko]

I don't think map rotation is the issue. The problem is if the players cannot cope with a map, there's no mechanism available for them to change the current map.

Plenty of times I've observed low population servers (this happens a lot in my time zone) and problem is the above. For instance Jabal Al Burj Alt is probably the easiest map to defend with only 2 players, I've done it on my own before but its near impossible if you need to dig a fob. Anyway the end result will always be East beach is overrun, and you might see someone on the hills sniping with a Heli and crate.

[Double_13]

Rules might need to be adjusted as same on deployment for low population. I can 100% agree that the asset claiming on coop is insane. Back in the  good old times where muttrah was the only starting map I saw plenty of times 3 people in trans 3 in cas and nobody in inf. Most of the times when the server was below 15 people I noted that I didn't care about claiming and people should be in one squad so we can all work together. However certain admins do not share this vision and warn squads for not claiming it properly. 

You sadly do need 2 people to dig a fob (takes really long) as the decay coop has can't be removed. (Decay damages fob so by I think 1.8 shovels ) so 2 people digging only add 0.2.

i do find that it is for the admin who is online to ensure the map keeps playable. This means that before the last admin leaves the next map in line is not something like tadsea. An admin can also just run next if he finds that the team can no longer survive that could result in people leaving. 

 

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

2 hours ago, =VG= Kavelenko said:

...but its near impossible if you need to dig a fob.

1 hour ago, =VG= Double_13 said:

You sadly do need 2 people to dig a fob (takes really long) as the decay coop has can't be removed. (Decay damages fob so by I think 1.8 shovels ) so 2 people digging only add 0.2.

This is no longer the case.  FOB digging has been disabled and we will likely be leaving it that way.   This will certainly change the dynamics of a low population mission.

Keep that in mind while choosing which maps would be best for a low population time period.

2 hours ago, =VG= Kavelenko said:

The problem is if the players cannot cope with a map, there's no mechanism available for them to change the current map.

Because of this, and because we will likely not be able to accommodate such a mechanism, it might be best to proceed with testing a Low Pop setup system at least for a few days or a week.

[Xenalite]

What do you mean there's no way to change current map?

Are you able to add your own python scripts to PR or is it not allowed? Otherwise this is trivial.

If you can't, you can still write an exe or batch or PowerShell script that will call commands in RCON like admin.runnext. If you don't have RCON enabled for at least localhost, then I don't know why you would not.

[Double_13]

It is sad that once again we have to have an amazing feature disabled because low population. We ran it without problem for more than half a year. But whatever no need to discuss the decision as it is pointless anyway. Could we please remove roadblocks again. This because it was disabled for years as it is a cheat tactic as bots are to dumb to walk around them. It can also be said it breaks the rules as it is oftenly used to block off access to sections of the map. 

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

11 hours ago, Xenalite said:

What do you mean there's no way to change current map?

When no admins are online, when it's late and the population is low, if the voting system is not enabled, there is no way to change the current map.

11 hours ago, =VG= Double_13 said:

once again we have to have an amazing feature disabled because low population

What amazing feature do we have disabled because low population?  Also "once again"?  What OTHER amazing feature do we have disabled?  You guys aren't referring to systems that are unused due to exploits or performance issues, are you?

[Ragnarok1775]

Because of frequent crashes, we're lucky to get halfway through the map rotation. There's probably also some maps that aren't on the list. If we bring back mapvotes, then why not have every map available (aside from the ones that crash)? The server sends an automated message for certain actions like picking up an enemy kit, so why not send a global message when tickets get to a certain point for either side, something like "Next map is Muttrah Alt, vote now or forever hold your peace"?

For off-peak hours I think the best maps are the alt maps, inf maps, and 1km low asset maps. Asset-heavy maps like Muttrah, Kashan, Khamisiyah, etc just don't work with five or six people. If everyone was a team player, with a mic, and spoke some English, then we could probably handle it, but that's not gonna happen.

[FatAlbert]

Yes, maps are crashing often.  It's frustrating and we lose alot of players during the crash, mapswitch, crash  episodes.

 

Also, the coop server will never please everyone.

It's been a nightmare recently.  No English or Don't know what they're doing or wanna play their style, or the kits  they want to play.

Maybe we can reduce =VG= workload by setting the map rotation as normal and leave them that way all night (unless an admin is on).  If people want to play, they can play.  At least the expectations will be consistent.  Just an idea.

 

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

On 9/1/2017 at 8:45 PM, Ragnarok1775 said:

The server sends an automated message for certain actions like picking up an enemy kit, so why not send a global message when tickets get to a certain point for either side, something like "Next map is Muttrah Alt, vote now or forever hold your peace"?

That would be a suggestion for developers of the base game we're playing... We don't have that sort of free reign over the core code.  We get MOTD's, that's it.  The server itself turns off the PR COOP and changes out some files and restarts it; my rotation system is not part of PR, just a bunch of batch scripts I threw together, really.

 

12 hours ago, FatAlbert said:

Maybe we can reduce =VG= workload by setting the map rotation as normal and leave them that way all night (unless an admin is on).  If people want to play, they can play.  At least the expectations will be consistent.  Just an idea.

What does this mean?  Set the map rotation as normal?  Please clarify if I am missing something because this suggestion gave me a mild form of brain cancer...  (j/k)

The map rotation is a text file called maplist.con and it has the names of the maps we wish to run.  At VG, we have 5 variants currently, so the maplist is different most every day of the week, and they automatically change each day at about 0700 GMT.  On Fridays, it's an OPFOR Only rotation.  Changing the rotation involves a server stop/restart (again, forcefully occurring each morning).  There is no "normal" one unless you are referring to one that starts with Muttrah City and that is just arbitrary.

What I'm proposing here as a possible solution to the OP is to set the map rotation to LOW POPULATION Setup (a button available to certain PR Admins) and leave it that way all night.  The next morning, the forced rotation change will occur and automatically switch the server back to "normal" or whatever that day's rotation is set to.

[FatAlbert]

Hi Semler, 

okay.  I was thinking there was a "set rotation" of maps or a "normal" rotation of maps.  I see that I was wrong.  I didn't realize there were so many variants of the map rotation.  Thanks for clearing that up.

 

 

 

[=VG= Kavelenko]

On 8/31/2017 at 7:24 AM, =VG= Double_13 said:

Rules might need to be adjusted as same on deployment for low population. I can 100% agree that the asset claiming on coop is insane. Back in the  good old times where muttrah was the only starting map I saw plenty of times 3 people in trans 3 in cas and nobody in inf. Most of the times when the server was below 15 people I noted that I didn't care about claiming and people should be in one squad so we can all work together. However certain admins do not share this vision and warn squads for not claiming it properly.

I have to agree with Double's comment on this.

Today I logged in to the Coop server when there was only three other players on, it had only just switched to Jabal Al Burj Alt so I recorded the session to see what happened with such a low number. Sorry about the low sound of my voice, I had the mic turned down too low.

As you will see in the video I started out in my own TRANS squad with two other guys in their own squads.  It becomes clear that we are not getting anywhere and East beach is overtaken by the bots fairly quickly. Pretty much if you don't cap the flag before the bulk of the bots from the bridge arrive, you can forget it. So thankfully we could set up a fob a distance from the flag not until I had run in four crates from the carrier.

Anyway after several attempts, and a couple CAS runs, along with an AAV in support we were able to cap East beach. It took us 55 minutes, one other guy Varigor was a good player the other two were noobs or just not very good. This scenario is typical for what happens when the server has less than 12 players on. I think the most we had by the cap was 6 players. If you pay attention to the video you'll see that until we had 6 players neither of us were able to access the HAT kit due to limitations, so its a double whammy we are dealing with. Low numbers to take on the bots and limited access to kits as well.

It made total sense to just play together in the one squad, using what ever assets we were able to use without creating separate heavy asset squads. So even though the VG server rules  say we MUST create a properly named squad to claim an asset(s) I'm proposing that this is overlooked or should I say not enforced when the server population is 10-12 players or less.

 

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

7 hours ago, =VG= Kavelenko said:

It made total sense to just play together in the one squad, using what ever assets we were able to use without creating separate heavy asset squads. So even though the VG server rules  say we MUST create a properly named squad to claim an asset(s) I'm proposing that this is overlooked or should I say not enforced when the server population is 10-12 players or less.

Since the beginning of VG and the early days of VG PR COOP, we have enforced the Squad-Asset rule by specifically named Squads.  Back in those days, I played during the "off hours" mostly along with RobotFungus and LittleTortiaBoy, etc.
We found it necessary still to ensure assets that were claimed were not taken by someone else.  BUT - seeing as how someone who loses their asset will then wait for it to respawn, therefore taking care of their own claimed asset, I could see how mixed squads could exists during low player count times.

If this were to move forward in discussions, I'd like to hear how other servers operate during low population times.  If we ever approved mixed asset squads against the Squad-Asset Naming rule, there would need to be some designation that tells people that the Squad Leader knows they are operating mixed assets such as an "LP" designation in the Squad Name (or something equivalent).  Also, if approved, we would need to adjust the master VG PR Rules and possibly add notes in the MOTD's on the server(s) - and some public announcement here on the site as well as you Admins spreading the word to the peoples.

Until this IS approved by the majority of the VG Administration, let's stick with the rules and discuss the matter here.

 

Still wondering if anyone here is going to create a list of maps that would be more preferable during low population times.  It's literally all I need to make this system complete and to give it some testing...

[=VG= Kavelenko]

3 hours ago, =VG= SemlerPDX said:

Since the beginning of VG and the early days of VG PR COOP, we have enforced the Squad-Asset rule by specifically named Squads.  Back in those days, I played during the "off hours" mostly along with RobotFungus and LittleTortiaBoy, etc.
We found it necessary still to ensure assets that were claimed were not taken by someone else.  BUT - seeing as how someone who loses their asset will then wait for it to respawn, therefore taking care of their own claimed asset, I could see how mixed squads could exists during low player count times.

If this were to move forward in discussions, I'd like to hear how other servers operate during low population times.  If we ever approved mixed asset squads against the Squad-Asset Naming rule, there would need to be some designation that tells people that the Squad Leader knows they are operating mixed assets such as an "LP" designation in the Squad Name (or something equivalent).  Also, if approved, we would need to adjust the master VG PR Rules and possibly add notes in the MOTD's on the server(s) - and some public announcement here on the site as well as you Admins spreading the word to the peoples.

Until this IS approved by the majority of the VG Administration, let's stick with the rules and discuss the matter here.

 

Still wondering if anyone here is going to create a list of maps that would be more preferable during low population times.  It's literally all I need to make this system complete and to give it some testing...

Ok still in discussion mode.

I'm not expecting the Squad-Asset rule to be changed at all, I think its a very good set of rules and does eliminate arguments over ownership but it generally does not help  a small team of players who are trying to stop the ticket bleed.

We could, of course, all join the TRANS squad or a CAS squad to get around it but that seems like its the same idea as I'm proposing but with different Squad Titles.

We need a tank to support us so we create and join a tank squad, the tank gets blown up so we all leave the tank squad and join the APC squad, we need CAS so we abandon the APC and join the CAS squad, the pilot gets shot down so we all leave CAS and create and join a TRANS squad back on the carrier....lol.