Dead Men Walking

So we have Rush on our 64-man Server but im not enjoying it.

• Getting base raped when attacking so i cant attack.
• everyone snipes.
• Seems to be more people swearing in chat when playing rush when compared with conquest.
• Lots of people spawn killing from island to carrier making it impossible to attack.
• When a decent game gets going the game seems to last at max 10 minutes.

Now i know we currently have some in - game admins to help combat this but i still feel the server is suffering a bit.


I am really not enjoying the rush on the server and it has made me leave the server tonight and made a few others rage quite (due to base rape)

Agree - Conquest is awesome on 64 man, Rush.. makes me want to rage quit

I was indifferent to the Rush switch when it was proposed. Hadn't played enough Rush to form an opinion on it. Having played some on our servers, and then on other servers though, one thing is apparent to me. 64 player Rush is without fail an aggravating experience. I'm in complete agreement with DD and Jewels on this one.

Rush is OK with 32, sorta fun at 16, but if you're gonna run a 64 player server Conquest should be the focus.

I''ve placed rush on a 32 man server and its enjoyable 64 man ruins it by the sheer number of people not playing by our rules or doing there own thing or sniping

64 man rush is just a nade/rocket/mortar fest. No fun at all. Especially the Metro map. (That even sucks at conquest with 64 players)

Give me conquest back =)

Quote from: gromit83;336426Give me conquest back =)

:withstupid:

:lmfao:

+1

I don't have a problem with Rush, but as the others said 64 man rush is horrible. 32 is just about acceptable to get a good game. But the best Rush games i've had has been on a 16-24 man server :L

Conquest All the way :D

I thought we would try it out. I'm hoping that the admin tools will improve so we can balance the server better. It is very early days at the moment.

Perhaps we should just have Rush Week and limit to 32?

Quote from: Ninja_Freak;336450I thought we would try it out. I'm hoping that the admin tools will improve so we can balance the server better. It is very early days at the moment.

Perhaps we should just have Rush Week and limit to 32?

Limit the players to 32 is a good start NF.

This was something that I mentioned to NF on TS the other night.

64 man just does not work. and TBO looking at the whole game here, apart from Casabian border I don't thing any other map is any good as a 64 man setup.
The complete lack of vehicles in this setup, makes half the team run around the map for half the game.

There is next to zero tactics going on as its just overwhelming, and turns into one big nade/rocket fest in the middle after the initial flag captures.

The maps feel "small" in comparison to BF2 and the flag placements are so close together its crazy. Hopefully when the expansion pack is ready for use, the old BF2 maps will remain true to the originals
and they keep the flag placements.

So IMHO, 64 man does not deliver a good gaming experience.

When the server is full its very hard to get a spot, even on a 64 man. Could be waiting a while for 32 man place.. Reserved spots for dMw members maybe? Although, this is probably for a whole different thread!

Back on topic..
I love 64man conquest on Casbian Border and The french map with the river going through the middle (Can't think of the name!!!!) However, have to agree with Naldo.. most of the maps are too small for 64 man and it just turns into a bloodbath. IMO, get rid of rush & try 32/46 man conquest

Jewelz^

Quote from: Ninja_Freak;336450Perhaps we should just have Rush Week and limit to 32?

I couldn't handle a week of rush, Rush Night sounds better :P

Quote from: Naldo;336459This was something that I mentioned to NF on TS the other night.

64 man just does not work. and TBO looking at the whole game here, apart from Casabian border I don't thing any other map is any good as a 64 man setup.
The complete lack of vehicles in this setup, makes half the team run around the map for half the game.

There is next to zero tactics going on as its just overwhelming, and turns into one big nade/rocket fest in the middle after the initial flag captures.

The maps feel "small" in comparison to BF2 and the flag placements are so close together its crazy. Hopefully when the expansion pack is ready for use, the old BF2 maps will remain true to the originals
and they keep the flag placements.

So IMHO, 64 man does not deliver a good gaming experience.

What he said (IMHO) I have started to avoid 64 player servers as I find it pure chaos

The limit for most maps seem to be just below 50 (46 would probably be a good number)

Rush in BF3 seems to be a rocket, nade and morter spam fest at choke points.
I do not like it, and players using morter in attacker spawn where I cant shoot back is anoying .

Rockets, Nades and unfortunatly mortars are apart of the game guys. I dont like the fact that theres not a whole lot of teamwork going on when playing 64 man rush, where as i feel that its easy to work as a team in conquest "ill go there cap that flag back me up etc" i must prefer conquest for the ethos of our gaming community of teamwork etc.


I Like rush and would be a shame for us not to have it on rotation but I Agree with blunt about a rush night (possibly on friday dMw. Rush vs the world! ) Now that sounds like fun (and we could all work together ).

I find RUSH a relief from constantly running to and fro from three flags. Variation is the key.

Quote from: Ragnarh;336514Rush in BF3 seems to be a rocket, nade and morter spam fest at choke points.
I do not like it, and players using morter in attacker spawn where I cant shoot back is anoying .

I think if someone sets up a mortar in a protected area, you are well within your rights to slot them.

Rush is ok, it's not quite as dynamic as Conquest but it's nice to have as part of a rotation.

I enjoy the mix of conquest and rush but 64 player rush is to chaotic and only takes a choke point like the entrance to Metro and the map is over in minutes.

Quote from: Tutonic;336555I think if someone sets up a mortar in a protected area, you are well within your rights to slot them.

Rush is ok, it's not quite as dynamic as Conquest but it's nice to have as part of a rotation.

Ninja can we modify the rules a bit to make this ok?

I was indifferent to Rush when it was first brought up. Now I no longer use the term "Rage quit" I modified it to "Rush quit".

Granted Rush is great fun with FEW players, and if we have a team an play tactically.

I suggest we stick with conquest as our normal rotation, and have special weekends or something where we change it up a bit. But for *insert imaginary friends name* sake, please limit the player slots when it's rush.

We certainly had as a rule on BFBC2 that if someone shoots from within their spawn they are fair game and I think the same will apply here.

As i understood and applied the rules in BC2, if an attacker was active ie attacking in whatever way be it snipping, tanking or even using the UAV he is fair game.  If an attacker is in the spawn area but not actively attacking he should be left unmolested.
 
On Rush, if the attackers over run the mcons and the next set begin, it is up to the attackers to clear the defenders old base/spawn area.  If the attackers fail to do this and they leave a defender hiding in a bush somewhere who then starts to picks off the attackers then tough.  However, if a defender spawns at the new set of mcons then moves back to their old base which is now the attackers spawn, this would be considered spawn rape and breaking the rules.

Guys.

I've doubled the tickets on our server. I'll need to restart it tomorrow for the changes to take effect.

One of the thing we were discussing tonight is that it rush will be better with more tickets.

Quote from: Ninja_Freak;336758Guys.

I've doubled the tickets on our server. I'll need to restart it tomorrow for the changes to take effect.

One of the thing we were discussing tonight is that it rush will be better with more tickets.

Looking forward to seeing how that goes. Could we also have more then 1 conquest for every 2 rounds of rush?

I've come to the conclusion that Rush mode with 64 players is very, very bad indeed.

If we're going to stick with a 64 player limit, we should remove the Rush maps from rotation.

Quote from: Tutonic;336828I've come to the conclusion that Rush mode with 64 players is very, very bad indeed.

If we're going to stick with a 64 player limit, we should remove the Rush maps from rotation.

+1 rush is fine on a 40 man server

Quote from: .DickDastardly.;336833+1 rush is fine on a 40 man server

I actually think it fits best as 8 player aka squad rush ;)

Rage quit tonight sick of getting base raped no admins on to enforce the rules map was canals it seems to attract people who are defending to rape the carrier unless as a rush map

Right, I'm having a moan and I'm naming names.

I have just been on our server where one team had a two man numberical advantage, were winning by a massive margin and had several DMW members. I've just spent the last 10 minutes asking one of you to swap teams to make it more competitive, and none of you could be arsed - clearly you were too busy frag hunting to care.

The server has now started to empty, because it's so un-enjoyable and you are to blame for this.

Naldo & varg, you should both be ashamed.

I have to agree that our team got completely P0wned time after time, completely pushed back in spawn with no way out, it was very dire, lots of frustration, almost rage quit.

It was bad but I don't want to name names as it was all people Pubs were really taking advantage.

The thing that makes me sad is that if I was a pub coming to our server for the first time I wouldn't come back if I was on the receiving end. That concerns me more than anything else as I want the community to grow and attract new members.

I am not trying to start a flame war or attack anyone, just my two cents.

DZ

My game time hasnt increased lately due to rush, don't like it, wont play it, as others have said, nade/mortar/rocket fest, spawn rape, frag hunting. Conquest is the only way, at least we can use some teamwork then also.

Think it was just a bad night tonight, it's usually pretty good tbh

The aircraft carrier map was frustrating, It's not the well designed in that aspect and is a shame an admin wasn't on to warn / kick etc at the time, although having said that we should of contacted an admin via steam / Origin, provided them with names of the culprits so they can deal with them accordingly as it is sometimes difficult to identify them, especially with 64 players on. (They were subsequently kicked I might add)

This is a bit disappointing guys. Three of our members either left or were about to leave and there were dMw members on the side that was doing all of the pwning.

It would seem that either some of the maps are inbalanced which is something that we need to look into or that it's the game that is unbalanced. I apologise to those that had a poor experience tonight. I will be bringing this up in the admin channel and also investigating with the individuals that were on the server at the time.

At this point I don't get the sense that any of our members were "officially" breaking the rules but I get the feeling that the game play was a little one-sided and that dMw members were either unable or unwilling to sort it out. <- that is the most disturbing part of this.

What i experinced tonight on canals - the map does not work as rush and its bias towards the defenders and encourages people to rule break (although im happy to say that no dMw. Members were base raping the carrier and arithon did his best to try and contain it but when  he left it was a bit of a free for all of base rape).

What i dissapprove of is after getting base raped and refusing to play the map (i sat on the carrier and watched what was going on) the next round began same map. and i was looking forward to defending I was not expecting people who wear the dMw tags to then get in a heli and land it on a roof which has glass panels to base rape and spawn kill the defending team. (thats not on) i tried to kill them you cant nade them the roof platform is to high to nade so i went underneath it and tried to snipe them and couldnt because the game doesnt register any hits you do on a player yet i can shoot the glass panels of the roof structure.

so it was people with the dMw tags on doing this and people who are battlefield 3 , bc2 members and forum regulars doing it.


I can name names but i dont really see the point. After a member on ts pointed out what they were doing was wrong there excuse was "there shooting at me" - the defenders response "no i didnt...i just spawned"


If people who represent the clan rule break whats the point?

Quote from: Tutonic;336949Naldo & varg, you should both be ashamed.

Absolute ********.

During your hissy fit on TS.... At NO time did I advance past the flags. I was defending the flag for the hole time. Flag A is NOWHERE near the spawn
I distinctly remember saying to you on TS that we COULD NOT switch teams as

a, There was no admin on the server to do it
b, The teams we equal with 10 v 10 players

As SOON as a space became available I switched sides

I also distinctly remember saying on TS that there is 4 ways out of the spawn point.
I proved this as Gortex joined my squad and we took 3 points straight away. Turning the game around.

Your post is way out of line.

Here's my understanding of what went down:

I was on the side getting thoroughly violated, and it was quite frustrating. However, those who were on comms could hear Varg encouraging dMw members to pull back and let the guys from the carrier land on shore, even giving carrier-stranded guys instructions on how to make safe landfall. That, combined with admin action, allowed that game to go forward. It happened way to late for it to really make a difference, but at least we made shore and got some actual gameplay.
Reverse of that map was a bit one-sided, with some continued annoyances from some of the players.

Next map was truly awful. Seine Crossing usually turns into a mass meatgrinder across the bridges, but this time US lost both points on their side. RU team had quite a lot of players move along the border of the US uncap, spawnraping quite badly. Heard most of that through comms, since me and Bazer_Punk were busy trying to break out one of the side streets, battling against Naldo and Varg on objective A. Far as I can tell, both of them played that one straight, though with their skill levels with various weapons, it was sort of Mission Impossible.

After a while, both Naldo and Varg switched to US. That, and a slightly lowered player count led to that map being quite balanced until the end. By that time though, many had already gotten enough and quit.

A couple of unfortunate situations involving dMw players happened of course, but most of it was grayzone stuff like returning fire on a sniper in spawn. I know DrunkenZombiee fell victim to a sniper war between Varg and Gromit for instance. As for the glass roof thing, I suspect they were just implementing the same solution our own team used right before to get a foothold on that side (By the way, that roof is perfectly wipeable with our favourite moan-subject, the mortar). Snipers need line-of-sight as well, which goes both ways, so it shouldn't be problematic for a ground-based sniper to cull the herd.


Now, as for how this could have been prevented, the only real problem was how far it went before solutions were implemented. At the carrier rush, the problem seemed at first to be mostly related to spawnrape hindering the US team from landing onshore. This is both a balance and behaviour problem. All maps where the US starts on carriers are like that in my opinion. That's not really a problem when everyone plays fair, but as soon as someone takes advantage, those maps are unplayable.
The lopsided skill levels weren't really apparent before we hit Seine conquest. Sure, Varg and Naldo could have switched teams earlier, but most of the traffic on TS at least was random moaning and bitching from our team. There were a couple of requests for balancing the teams, but those drowned in the mass. Additionally, when numbers are even on both teams, it's not possible to change. I see a two player advantage was mentioned, but unless someone is constantly monitoring player numbers it's difficult to know the opportunity is there to change sides. Try to change team with even numbers, or one in advantage, and all the game responds with is "server would become too unbalanced". The algorithm doesn't seem to take into account player scores. I think that has to be done serverside with scripted plugins like in CS back in the day when I still played that.


One thing is for certain though. Those two maps were no fun. Up until that point, the higher tickets and lower player count seemed to help on the rush map, but tonight was a complete breakdown. It's quite regrettable that it spun this far out of control.
Let's be more observant of these problems tomorrow.

Quote from: Naldo;336962Absolute ********.

During your hissy fit on TS.... At NO time did I advance past the flags. I was defending the flag for the hole time. Flag A is NOWHERE near the spawn
I distinctly remember saying to you on TS that we COULD NOT switch teams as

a, There was no admin on the server to do it
b, The teams we equal with 10 v 10 players

As SOON as a space became available I switched sides

I also distinctly remember saying on TS that there is 4 ways out of the spawn point.
I proved this as Gortex joined my squad and we took 3 points straight away. Turning the game around.

Your post is way out of line.

Before i rage quit i vaugely remember naldo saying he couldnt switch when it was asked for someone to swap to even things.

Quote from: Naldo;336962During your hissy fit on TS....

I wasn't on TS. I was asking in the text chat on the server, very politely, for someone to swap sides.

Quote from: Naldo;336962At NO time did I advance past the flags.

That's not my complaint. You were ignoring the fact that one team was getting totally pumped.

Quote from: Naldo;336962b, The teams we equal with 10 v 10 players

That's simply not correct - your team had two extra players. All it needed was one person to swap. I wouldn't have been complaining if the player numbers were equal.

Quote from: Naldo;336962As SOON as a space became available I switched sides

[/U]
After ignoring repeated requests from myself to do so, and after the damage had been done.

Quote from: Naldo;336962Your post is way out of line.

So's your attitude. I had a miserable time on our server tonight, as a direct result of your inaction. I'd be apologising if I were in your shoes, but your post sums up your selfish attitude.

You're supposed to be an admin, and lead by example. I would have reconnected to the server if it meant sorting the teams out.

I'm not usually one to single people out, but I feel very strongly that some of our players are letting the community down and I won't sit by and let it happen.

Quote from: .DickDastardly.;336960What i dissapprove of is after getting base raped and refusing to play the map (i sat on the carrier and watched what was going on) the next round began same map. and i was looking forward to defending I was not expecting people who wear the dMw tags to then get in a heli and land it on a roof which has glass panels to base rape and spawn kill the defending team.

Thing is, these rush maps are so poorly designed, the line between what's spawn and what's objective get blurred real fast. As for their "excuse" of them getting shot at, it's quite true. I, for instance, was shooting at the guys on the roof from the platform behind the objectives. Despite being less than 100 meters from the m-com, that is technically our spawn. Knowing which little dot on the ground is doing the shooting is difficult.

This is a roof that's directly on-shore on a map that's difficult to get a bridgehead on. It's on the first set of m-coms. Far as I see it, as long as they're not spawnraping from that roof, it is a legitimate strategic advantage. They do have helicopters, and the helicopters can land there. What is bogus though is the roof being impenetrable. That's a design issue I hope they fix, so someone with an MG and an extended mag can go under the roof and make a colander of the entire thing.

Quote from: Tutonic;336949Right, I'm having a moan and I'm naming names.

I have just been on our server where one team had a two man numberical advantage, were winning by a massive margin and had several DMW members. I've just spent the last 10 minutes asking one of you to swap teams to make it more competitive, and none of you could be arsed - clearly you were too busy frag hunting to care.

The server has now started to empty, because it's so un-enjoyable and you are to blame for this.

Naldo & varg, you should both be ashamed.

Just to get one thing clear right off. I did not catch any request to switch teams. For that I am sorry. I am using some crappy speakers atm, and a webcam mic as I broke my headset. I'm sorry I didn't hear you, Tutonic. It also doesn't help that I am horrible at multitasking and tend to get cought up in the game and not the chat.

I'm not sure at which point this was either, but I assume it was either the metro map from the beta, or the carrier map. On both those games I actually took steps to help the attacking team out, but having no way to actually punish the guys base/spawn raping, I had to get creative.

On the first one, we got all 5 dMw members on our side to pull back and not do anything. This let the attackers push out, as it only left the pubies with sniper rifles and mortars.

On the second one, we had some players using AA vehicle to shoot aircraft on the carrier, and generally the attackers were unable to get off their spawn. I sorted this by spamming RPG shells at our AA gun to make him move and telling people politely in chat to lay off the spawn killing.

On both maps I also took the time to stop playing and give the attackers advice over TS. Granted I am no expert on FPS games, but I think I did manage to tip the balance a bit that way.

Also I'd like to apologize to DZ for shooting at him at the defender spawn. He was unlucky enough to be misstaken for Grommit, which in itself is insult enough ;) I was returning fire on Grommit sniping out of or close to the spawn area. He ran behind a container, and DZ spawns on the other side of it.

On the other hand, I would like to defend Naldo. We were several people discussing on TS this evening, and we were all in agreement that none of us though Naldo did anything wrong. Naldo has put in probably the most time out of any of us on this game, and he is quite annoyingly good at it. Same goes for Kreg/Duckie. Shouldn't our community be home to skilled players as well? Shouldn't they be allowed to play with the same freedoms you have?

I know when I join a game, I take a look on the list of who is playing. If the people I enjoy teaming/squading with are playing I will join on them to get on the same team. IE I will often join on Grommit or Duvel if I want to go up in a chopper as they are both exceptional pilots. Also Grommit, Kakehund, Faust and more with them are people I know from University and from my hometown.

I don't want to offend anyone here, or point any fingers. And there are a LOT of other players I could mention for their skills. What I will ask though; is that if I in some way have played or behaved in a manner unfitting of the dMw ethos. Please call me out on it. I've worked several years in retail and I'm now in IT, so I think I should be used to some critizism. Granted constructive would be prefered, as I don't get much of that elsewhere ;)

Lastly; as I said, we did have a small chat on TS with Ninja and a few of the players that were on today. Mostly about the situation on the rush maps during peak hours today, but also a bit about maps and game modes. I can honestly say that I was NOT A FAN, of rush when we were at 64 players with 400 tickets. I was about to give up on the whole game mode actually. Today I got to play a bit with fewer players and twice the ammount of tickets, and it got a lot better. And before I step on anybodies toes, I know some of you had a pretty bad experience today. What I think we should do though; is run with this setup a few days at least, so that we can spot any trends or imbalances. That way we can remove maps that cause problems, and we should probably have more spesific rules/guide lines for rush maps. It is after all about the attackers taking the other teams spawn by planting explosives, not the other way around.

Now, if you got all the way through all that. Thank you for your time. I know my English is probably horrible tonight, as it is both late and I do feel a bit like someone painted a big target on my face. Again, if I did someone wrong, I truely do apologize.

Have a good night all

To be clear, I began asking for someone to balance the teams while we were playing Seine Crossing.

The thing that really bugs me is, I shouldn't have to ask for someone to swap teams. If your team has capped every point, and you've got buckets of kills and a two man advantage - do you not think it might be sensible to even things up a bit?

A shocking lack of common sense was displayed tonight.

Quote from: Tutonic;336972To be clear, I began asking for someone to balance the teams while we were playing Seine Crossing.

The thing that really bugs me is, I shouldn't have to ask for someone to swap teams. If your team has capped every point, and you've got buckets of kills and a two man advantage - do you not think it might be sensible to even things up a bit?

A shocking lack of common sense was displayed tonight.

I was playing on Seine Crossing and was on the losing side and thoughly enjoyed the teamwork i had with varg fraust and bazer even though we lost, the server is set to swap players over on auto balance is the teams are stacked +2 on one side unless im mistaken?

Quote from: .DickDastardly.;336960What i experinced tonight on canals - the map does not work as rush and its bias towards the defenders and encourages people to rule break (although im happy to say that no dMw. Members were base raping the carrier and arithon did his best to try and contain it but when  he left it was a bit of a free for all of base rape).

What i dissapprove of is after getting base raped and refusing to play the map (i sat on the carrier and watched what was going on) the next round began same map. and i was looking forward to defending I was not expecting people who wear the dMw tags to then get in a heli and land it on a roof which has glass panels to base rape and spawn kill the defending team. (thats not on) i tried to kill them you cant nade them the roof platform is to high to nade so i went underneath it and tried to snipe them and couldnt because the game doesnt register any hits you do on a player yet i can shoot the glass panels of the roof structure.

so it was people with the dMw tags on doing this and people who are battlefield 3 , bc2 members and forum regulars doing it.


I can name names but i dont really see the point. After a member on ts pointed out what they were doing was wrong there excuse was "there shooting at me" - the defenders response "no i didnt...i just spawned"


If people who represent the clan rule break whats the point?

I was the player on the roof. I dropped out of the helicopter as it passed over the dry dock to land a spawn beacon on the roof. I then went to the edge of the roof to spot and I also took a few shots at the guys next to the objectives. I then heard Grommit on TS comment on me being on the roof, and we kinda went into a 1on1 sniper war. As I explained earlier DrunkenZombie got caught in the crossfire, and for that I am sorry.

I will refrain from returning fire into the spawn are from now on. As the "shooting from spawn = fair game" rule has obvious drawbacks when identifying targets.

Quote from: Vargen;336974I was the player on the roof. I dropped out of the helicopter as it passed over the dry dock to land a spawn beacon on the roof. I then went to the edge of the roof to spot and I also took a few shots at the guys next to the objectives. I then heard Grommit on TS comment on me being on the roof, and we kinda went into a 1on1 sniper war. As I explained earlier DrunkenZombie got caught in the crossfire, and for that I am sorry.

I will refrain from returning fire into the spawn are from now on. As the "shooting from spawn = fair game" rule has obvious drawbacks when identifying targets.

 As the "shooting from spawn = fair game" rule has obvious drawbacks when identifying targets yes because 9 times out of 10 its to hard to shoot the person shooting you in the spawn but then again i didnt really like being shot/killed in the spawn from the team-mates/squad members/forum regulars who were on the roof with you that is not how to play rush.

Quote from: .DickDastardly.;336973I was playing on Seine Crossing and was on the losing side and thoughly enjoyed the teamwork i had with varg fraust and bazer even though we lost, the server is set to swap players over on auto balance is the teams are stacked +2 on one side unless im mistaken?

This is correct. The server does auto balance. As I said earlier, I did not catch any desperate cries for balance. I did however hear someone requiesting Naldo to change team. That was the last game I played tonight though. I don't know if that was the game you ment. We ended up being ALL the dMw members on the same team in the end, and we had a blast playing tactics and moving as a squad. We still lost, as some of our regular pubies are really good, but it was fun none the less.

Yes...How selfish I am....

Switching to a team that was getting raped, creating a new squad, getting dMw members to join me and helping them out.

Guiding them around the map and spotting for them, issuing orders etc

The round before that (the one with the carrier rape) I spent 95% of that game in a transport chopper ferrying dMw members and publics back and too between the ship and the land.
To try and turn the game. Faust was even laughing at me because I was getting shot down all the time :D

I am sooooooo selfish.

ps. I am not an admin ;)

all players apart from one (from my understanding where on the same side THE LOSING SIDE) Te_Owner was on the other side and on teamspeak and seemed to throughly enjoy kicking our butts as he didnt have any grevience about team balance/skill balance

Quote from: Tutonic;336967I wasn't on TS. I was asking in the text chat on the server, very politely, for someone to swap sides.
 
That's not my complaint. You were ignoring the fact that one team was getting totally pumped.

It was me having a hissy fit on TS not Tut. Tut was typing in game which I did point out on TS before he left.

I had a really bad 2 rounds too guys, it wasn't much fun not even standing a chance to get to objectives. There was even c4 right up against the spawn area preventing our tank from coming out. When I tried to shot the c4 I got sprayed by way too many bullets to even get a shot off.

When its that unbalanced its like shooting fish in a barrel.... No fun for anyone.

Sometimes I wish that there was no levelling system in FPS games (like CS) as it encourages less teamwork and a "kill at any cost" mindset for a lot of players trying to get to level 50 as quickly as possible. As a casual game I probably wont hit 50 by the time the next one comes out so for me its all about the fun of playing with some mates. Tonight wasn't fun!

Let hope this get sorted as most of the time its all fun, fun, fun, with a great bunch of guys having a laugh on TS =).

DZ

Quote from: Tutonic;336972The thing that really bugs me is, I shouldn't have to ask for someone to swap teams. If your team has capped every point, and you've got buckets of kills and a two man advantage - do you not think it might be sensible to even things up a bit?

Both Naldo and Varg did, when it became apparent that the US side weren't able to come together as a team and mount a proper breakout attempt. Instead, most of US were doing the middle lemming route. Before Varg and Naldo switched, Bazer had already led me and I think it was Snokio out on a flanking run and capped C.

This game is as much tactics and strategy as it is anything else. A lockdown is a lockdown, and it can happen even when both teams have the exact same level of individual skill. It's teamwork that wins, not individual performance.
Trying to keep it perfectly fair at all times is, in my opinion, punishing teamwork and rewarding teams that break down. Player number advantages are automatically fixed by the autobalancer. Going over to the other team to even things up should be something all members ought to consider regularly, but not until it's absolutely clear that the other team is beyond turning it around for themselves.
At the point where you quit, that point hadn't yet been reached. At that point, it was a spawnkilling issue, not a balance issue. Once the spawnkilling was curbed, it became apparent that the balance was off, Varg and Naldo switched, and despite rallying and working together as a true team, we still lost it.

And if you'd listened to the comms, Naldo did make several attempts at changing sides, but every time he tried the autobalancer had beaten him to it, and the game wouldn't let him switch due to the crap playernumber algorithm not letting you give a team a player advantage. if it's 10-10 or 11-10, you can't change, because that would make it 9-11 or 10-11, giving the team you're joining the edge. There has to be a clear two player advantage, and even then you're gonna have to sit around and ninja the available spot before the autobalancer does it.

Quote from: Tutonic;336967I wasn't on TS. I was asking in the text chat on the server, very politely, for someone to swap sides.

That explains it. Call me simple, but I just can't focus on the game, multiple conversations mixed with info and tactics on TS AND read the chat. I'm also dyslexic, so you may or may not understand that the chat in BF3 is not the best option to communicate with me at least.

Quote from: DrunkenZombiee;336980It was me having a hissy fit on TS not Tut. Tut was typing in game which I did point out on TS before he left.

Oppologies about this mix up between you both.

QuoteSometimes I wish that there was no levelling system in FPS games (like CS) as it encourages less teamwork and a "kill at any cost" mindset for a lot of players trying to get to level 50 as quickly as possible. As a casual game I probably wont hit 50 by the time the next one comes out so for me its all about the fun of playing with some mates. Tonight wasn't fun!

If you follow your squad leader and carry out the task he has assigned. together as a team. Spot for each other etc etc

You will gain more points than you would just kill hunting. Fact.

You get score multipliers for everything you do as a team.

Quote from: faust82;336983Trying to keep it perfectly fair at all times is, in my opinion, punishing teamwork and rewarding teams that break down.

To clarify this one, premature balancing action because one team has found a strategy and work together in a way that gives them the advantage nerfs them, and such doesn't encourage teams to play tactically. If the perceived imbalance carries though map after map it's a completely different case, but allowing proper teamwork to secure a decisive win on a single map isn't wrong in my opinion.

i do not pay much attention to the text chat in game for bf3 apart from randomly looking at it and seeing publics swearing ive not seen many dmws using it apart from to say hi, we should be making an effort to discuss things in teamspeak and be on teamspeak while on bf3 to help promote teamwork with other memebers on ts shouldnt we?

In complete agreement there DD. I mean, what do we have teamspeak for if we're not gonna use it? The textchat is just some annoying box that turns up to the side in various shades of blue. I only look at it when I see green for the squad..

Quote from: faust82;336989In complete agreement there DD. I mean, what do we have teamspeak for if we're not gonna use it? The textchat is just some annoying box that turns up to the side in various shades of blue. I only look at it when I see green for the squad..

I actually can't read it before it fades away most of the time. But then my reading speed is below avarage. I do compensate by talking a lot though ;)

I came on tonight just before the carrier rush map started and was on the land defending side the first round where the pubs raped the carrier, there where a lot of wrong doings from randoms at that round, and most of the dMw's I noticed tried to do things to fix it, either in chat or by moving back like i did after a little while. Second round when I was on the attacking side I started in the chopper flew a few guys in that jumped out before faust owned my ass with AA, then I took a boat to the far left and people spawned on me, about that time we just rushed and took the map in about 20minutes, so it's not impossible. As what happened on the roof of the boat yard on that second round I don't know, other that on the first round it was quite easy to take out people on the roof when they tried that strategy.

On Seine Crossing when we where pushed back to our spawn, my squad with Dick, Faust and Varg tried for A a bit, but I found it useless after a few atemts, then I just ran for the far right side of the spawn, didn't meet anyone and got all the way to C bridge where the rest spawned on me and we capped C, then E and D before anyone else even noticed, this was about the same time when things got hot on TS and ingame chat, everyone was just madly focused on the A flag. I have no idea what happened on the square between A and our main, but people need to be more explorative and check out the maps, sure if the mined the roads so the tank was useless and the nade/mortar spamming was intense it's frikkin anoying, but I didn't meet any resistance from our main, all the way trough C,E and D, just when I went back for B i met someone that nailed me..  also as meeting high skilled shooters like TE-Owner and others, just learn how they act, he's way better and faster then me, but still started to comment about my M60 ;)

Edit: Faust just reminded me that Varg joined our side and squad later on in the round in Seine Crossing, may have been Snookio in the squad at that time..

Im not on ts very often as there is a lot of chat going on, not in a bad way, just by the sheer number of people who join so can be difficult to gets a word in

Yeah, TS can be bit of a mayhem. Some want the general chatter, others talk tactics, and usually both teams talk their team tactics in the same channel because noone wants to miss out on the general random hijinks.
It's a bit of a wishful scenario, but I'd wish there was some possibility of listening to two channels at once, and mapping a separate talk key to each channel. That way, you could do the tac stuff, and still opt into the mayhem if you wanted.
That's not possible on our server though, since TS3 won't run several instances, and you can't hook two tabs up to the same server since it checks for duplicate ID's. Takes some ugly workarounds to get my scenario going there.. Feature request? :p

Quote from: faust82;336983Both Naldo and Varg did, when it became apparent that the US side weren't able to come together as a team and mount a proper breakout attempt. Instead, most of US were doing the middle lemming route. Before Varg and Naldo switched, Bazer had already led me and I think it was Snokio out on a flanking run and capped C.

This game is as much tactics and strategy as it is anything else. A lockdown is a lockdown, and it can happen even when both teams have the exact same level of individual skill. It's teamwork that wins, not individual performance.
Trying to keep it perfectly fair at all times is, in my opinion, punishing teamwork and rewarding teams that break down. Player number advantages are automatically fixed by the autobalancer. Going over to the other team to even things up should be something all members ought to consider regularly, but not until it's absolutely clear that the other team is beyond turning it around for themselves.
At the point where you quit, that point hadn't yet been reached. At that point, it was a spawnkilling issue, not a balance issue. Once the spawnkilling was curbed, it became apparent that the balance was off, Varg and Naldo switched, and despite rallying and working together as a true team, we still lost it.

And if you'd listened to the comms, Naldo did make several attempts at changing sides, but every time he tried the autobalancer had beaten him to it, and the game wouldn't let him switch due to the crap playernumber algorithm not letting you give a team a player advantage. if it's 10-10 or 11-10, you can't change, because that would make it 9-11 or 10-11, giving the team you're joining the edge. There has to be a clear two player advantage, and even then you're gonna have to sit around and ninja the available spot before the autobalancer does it.

Ye Canals arent the best of rush maps (yeah i do liek rush when server is limited to less then 40 man)
But i fully agree on your post, people can say what they want, tactics and teamwork by a squad can change the battle, first round the attackers got owned, but then again, they were doing everything wrong when you attack on that map. Running like lemmings one by one up the choke point ramp...
Varg and several other dMw chaps moved back behind the objectives to give the attackers a chance of moving up...
Round changed and Varg, me and not really sure who the last was landed one the roof and had the defenders distracted while the team attacked.. its pretty simple and easy to do.
So why the heck bash people for knowing what they are doing, varg and naldo is probably our best players and they everything in their power to keep things as fair as possible, but lets not ruin their game either..

on the attacking from spawn note, if you sniping or mortaring from spawn, i will defend myself, i will snipe or mortar their butts till their either dead or moved out of spawn..

Sorry for misspellings/not making sense, got a crappy fever atm -.-

There used to be a time when a DMW server was something special. Somewhere where you could go and play to get away from the frag hunting, chaotic public servers.

When I play on our BF3 server, it feels no different from any other public server which is a frankly depressing state of affairs.

I'm not going to carp on about this any longer, as it doesn't seem to be having the desired effect. If this is the way you want the server to run, I guess I'll just go and play BF3 elsewhere.

I agree with you, dMw servers ARE supposed to be special, but the problems last night were threefold, and you only seem to want to address one end of them. You had a slight skill bias towards one team, a complete breakdown of teamplay and tactical thinking in the other, and a couple of all-out spawnrapers. With a situation that complex, there's no one-button quick-fix for it.

The spawnraping issue was a real pain, and should be clamped down on. Hard. If it weren't for that though, the balance issue wouldn't have been that huge, and everyone would have a nice time. This turned into a perfect storm, where it just happened that a couple of the best players I've seen in this game so far were on the same team that had loads of spawnraping pubbies. If one or the other hadn't happened, things would have balanced out by themselves. At least if some teamplay had occured.

Things did balance too. We had an excellent game for the rest of Seine after US broke out of spawn and our remaining Ãœberfraggers managed to change sides. US actually managed to pull a bit off the RU lead, but it was too big to begin with. We still had an excellent time trying, and I think the remaining pubbies and public regulars (saw a good number of them) enjoyed it as well.


The core issue here seems to be what dMw should do about stuff like this when (it's only a matter of time) it happens again. Had there been an admin presence on Seine, players could have been moved or eliminated. Without that option, we were powerless to influence things in any real way. Being unable to get our team to work together for a breakout, a team change for Naldo and Varg was the only option available to us, and we all could hear them bitching on TS when the autobalancer got in the way of them switching sides. I don't know how much else could have been done. Perhaps you have some insight for us there, but without that magic insta-change button, changing teams is a real pain. Additionally, if you've changed teams a couple of times, the game seems to quarantine you in your team for a couple of rounds, so even when there is an open spot on the others you might find that you can't switch.

It simply boils down to everyone (or at least gameleaders/admins) sitting down and agreeing on some set procedures for when the server goes to hell, and the admins being a bit more high-profile in-game. Knowing how to implement balancing measures when there's no admins available, and knowing when to do it, is vital for all of us if we're going to keep playing this game. I know I enjoy the game much more when the teams are fairly even and the battles get intense. (With intense I mean fast-paced and dynamic, not an all-out rocket&nade meatgrinder in the middle).

This being said, we can't have a situation where the desired outcome is constant 1-ticket wins. For one, we'll never get there, and even attempting it would probably just ruin the game. Team advantage will shift based on map, the people on, and the level of teamplay on each team. dMw's ethos is, as far as I've understood it, fair, tactical teamwork based play, which for me means that as long as a team has decisive wins without doing anything wrong, that team should be allowed to continue carrying it on to a win instead of instantly nerfing them. That's pretty much their reward for playing as a team. if dMw players are causing an excessive bias towards one team, that should be corrected at map-change when it's much easier to sum the numbers and have a little bit of a chat about how the round went.

I agree completely with that. The dMw server should be something special. However making it something special is not done over night. So far the admins have listened to feedback from members and made changes to balance the games out and accomodate tactical play. For those of you that were on for the last bit of the Seine Crossing map around midnight last night, THAT is how the dMw server should be, always. Squads moving together, balancing classes and moving as a team to take objectives. It was a LOT of fun. I think TE was the only dMw not on the US team at the end, so I can't speak for him if his experience was the same.

We can make the server and the game fit in to the dMw ethos and make it a true tactical server and a place to escape the sillyness of most public servers. It is not something we can quickfix though, and we need to use a few days trying out changes one at a time. We all know what happens if you bring out the nerf mallet and smash it around too hastely. Lowering the player cap and upping the tickets seems to be a step in the right direction as I've said. Obviously there are other issues still, but I think we need a few days to have enough "data" to make the correct decisions on what to change.

One way of dealing with mortar spam, is to simply enable friendly fire. That way mortaring players have to be more carefull of where they lob shells. It will also impact aircraft, tanks and rpg/granades though. So this is a BIG change. If it were my choice, a tactical server should already have ff and be on hc just for the realism of it. But we have many members and many opinions to consider before the admins can make any major changes.

I say we try to be patient in these first few weeks of a brand new game. Take care of your fellow community members and try your best to make every game a fun experience. You don't have to win to have fun, as we clearly demonstrated on our last game of the night. Except for TE ofc, who won :p

I'd like to thank the admins also for taking everyones opinions seriously, and Ninja actually making the effort to come on TS last night to hear all sides to the situation. I can also add that I think one thing would help avoid these situations from the admins side, and that is incresed admin precense. The admins can't be on all the time though, so this is something a bit harder to achieve. But ofc we look forward to hopefully seeing admins on and hearing your sexy voices on TS with us for a few laughs.

FF cuts both ways. It will drive away some of the pubbies, but it makes the game waaaaay more tactical. You'll have to think before you send flying down a hallway.
You'll also fall victim to the idiots a lot faster. Guys who can't be arsed looking at the minimap or the ground before rushing over a claymore, then insta-punishing you for it.

Can everyone please just take a moment to re-read the  Community Membership Standards  (http://www.deadmen.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?3366-Community-Membership-Standards)and the General Gaming Standards (http://www.deadmen.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?26782-General-Gaming-Standards) threads.

Things have got heated on here but at the end of the day we're all fighting the same cause.

You've  all been here long enough to know  that we  always get teething problems with the introduction of a new  game. I know  that Ninja's been listening and commenting on the problems  when  presented and these are and will be addressed. Things such as  reducing  the number of player slots have been done in an attempt to get  the right  level of balance and that has worked. Prying into the admin thread I see that he and his team are also working on the other  matters.

Everyone has made valid points  and we're all trying to  get to grips with the game. There are some problems - some serious - but that's to be expected with a game which is so new. Infighting will solve nothing.

There are a few things though we should try and remember.

1. Language: Please be aware that we have a diverse age range of players all with different sensibilities. Swearing is not acceptable and not tolerated on TS or on server (especially before 9pm). We're all guilty of it but let's try to keep it nice.

2. dMw'ers *should* autobalance themselves if the game is one-sided   and if a nudge is needed to prompt that then so be it, it's not personal. We've had this   before on COD and BC2 where people are in the throes of a game and just   don't make that mental click.

3. Spawncamping is unacceptable period and should be jumped on. If there is no admin on then check Steam or report it back.

4. EVERY dMw player is an ambassador for our Community and has the rights and responsibilities that entails.

There's no reason why this game can't or won't work it will just take a bit of time to get the agreed rules and parameters sorted. In the interim, just give it a bit more flex than you would normally..... we'll get there.

I think we all agree on those points, as well as the Standards, but point 2 is a bit unclear. Autobalancing ourselves is all well and nice, no lack of clarity there, but at what point does one determine that the game has gone one-sided? I think we all agree that if the same team wins round after round, there's something wrong, but with BF3 team advantage can change in a heartbeat, depending on map and the level of teamwork. One team can be dominated for most of a round, and then turn things around by themselves by playing smarter. Do we start balancing mid-round if one team has been doing well up to that point, not only undoing the results of their teamwork but robbing the other team for the opportunity to turn it around for themselves? This is why I think we need to come to a common understanding of when we intervene and when we take a wait-and-see approach hoping that the game will balance itself.

Please bear with us and please keep posting your feedback as we WILL get there, but if you have something to say try to keep it non-personal.  If you have an issue with specific people, please address it to a Game Admin or the Game Leader in the first instance so that they can try to deal with the issue raised in a less flammable way.

@Faust: I think the point at which it is one-sided is determined by the dMw member on the whole.  Whether that is the same point as someone else might decide is open to question, but the diverse nature of the opinions makes us stronger as we can debate them and come up with sensible answers.

I'd also echo what Penfold said, the game is young, the admin tools don't always do what they said on the tin, and we're struggling towards establishing which modes work best with which player numbers on which maps.   With your continuing help & feedback we will get it right in the end.

Quote from: Penfold;337033Can everyone please just take a moment to re-read the  Community Membership Standards  (http://www.deadmen.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?3366-Community-Membership-Standards)and the General Gaming Standards (http://www.deadmen.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?26782-General-Gaming-Standards) threads.

4. EVERY dMw player is an ambassador for our Community and has the rights and responsibilities that entails.

Pen hit the nail on the head there.

Just a bit of feedback - I NOW LOVE RUSH! with the lower player limit on the server it is much more playable and i'm able to do some teamwork based game play with other dmw'ers! quick question is the ticket limit also increased as with the rush?

Quote from: .DickDastardly.;337092Just a bit of feedback - I NOW LOVE RUSH! with the lower player limit on the server it is much more playable and i'm able to do some teamwork based game play with other dmw'ers!

Idd, tonight was awesome fun!