Thoughts

[Sn00ks]

We need to ensure the L4D servers all have the latest versions plus the Death Aboard map plus the mods to fix the team swapping issue.
We can use HLSW to manage the servers and as long as each team knows which side they should be before they start we should be ble to kick things off easily enough.

If we are just going to have the last three maps of a campaign, as Mr B suggested, then once they are off we can leave them to their own devices.
It'll also make things a hell of a lot easier for us to manage.

The only problem is that playing the last three will heighten the chances of a draw, forcing a decider. Might be better to have say the first three maps?

[OldBloke]

...and how easy it will be to control the server when sat next to it - Oldie?

Remember - I'm not around Saturday. RCON will do the job, surely?

[Benny]

We need to ensure the L4D servers all have the latest versions plus the Death Aboard map plus the mods to fix the team swapping issue.
We can use HLSW to manage the servers and as long as each team knows which side they should be before they start we should be ble to kick things off easily enough.

If we are just going to have the last three maps of a campaign, as Mr B suggested, then once they are off we can leave them to their own devices.
It'll also make things a hell of a lot easier for us to manage.

The only problem is that playing the last three will heighten the chances of a draw, forcing a decider. Might be better to have say the first three maps?

sounds good, unless we can sort a maplist that works.

[Sn00ks]

sounds good, unless we can sort a maplist that works.

  That'll be the mapcycle and maplist files. If we comment out the extra maps for the campaign in the maplist it'll stop them playing on after the three maps and forgetting the results. But that might be complicating things too much.

[Penfold]

Can I just say mass cod4 is no fun what so ever. Last time I was at the lan it worked better to have a semi and the a match for the winner and the wodden spoon.

Then let's kill it.

If no one thinks it matters not having a mass 1/2 room vs 1/2 room then we can drop that format totally. It frees us up for some more smaller group comp's which are more fun and more intense tbh. Perhaps replace it with a smaller CoD4 team-based event?

[Sn00ks]

Then let's kill it.
 
If no one thinks it matters not having a mass 1/2 room vs 1/2 room then we can drop that format totally. It frees us up for some more smaller group comp's which are more fun and more intense tbh. Perhaps replace it with a smaller CoD4 team-based event?

 
I agree with Penfold agreeing with Armitage. The CoD mass game was not very enjoyable and felt like a chore.

[TeaLeaf]

Agreed with all the agreeing.  Drop the mass and move it to a smaller team based event which people can opt into.

[Benny]

I concur with the concurrence.
Can we dig up BF:Vietnam and rock it old school style? I like a game with vehicles, especially great big troop transporting choppers that you can fly into buildings.

[Penfold]

I wonder how many people still have it?

If we concurring with the general concurrence to drop mass games, aren't we taking a step backward with this?

Is it too similar to CoD4?

[Armitage]

a small knock out comp seems the best way to play COD4.

[Benny]

I wonder how many people still have it?

If we concurring with the general concurrence to drop mass games, aren't we taking a step backward with this?

Is it too similar to CoD4?

I was tongue avec cheek.

I agree with Arm's statement above. I like small CoD games. The only really big game we could manage is either CS or BF. (or 16 player L4D)

[Penfold]

So does someone fancy coming up with a timetable of games and comps and list of who's taking responsibility for what? .

[sheepy]

ill start a new topic for it and discussion