FORCING Players to Team Tank?

[Mike Nomad]

I see where its been mentioned that forcing players to team tank is being considered.

:d Like its been said many times before in different situations... :d


"They'll PRY my cold, dead hands off the controls before I "Team Tank" at this time!"


I've tried it time and time again.... only to find myself dead far more than when I go it alone. IF..... I could find a savvy partner, it could possibly work. Possibly. :d


Now then, if a map were to have this "feature" hard coded into it, the map would not see the light of day on our Server. If its an option, that's ok! But force fed??:eek: You can keep it.:mad:

[Heinz]

when the game was new and super populated, it was definately an issue. see the numerous back and forth battles in threads relating to team tanking on the RO forums. lately, however, there's a tank around for everyone.

[[FLOT]Antonio]

I can rarley ever team tank, im a lone wolf, but if i have to, like on a map that only has one tank, i can do it well. the main problem is that peole will not listen to you and get cocky, and unexperience, you tell someone to angle the tank, and they think your crazy.

[OneShot]

lately, however, there's a tank around for everyone.


That is what I have found as well, unless it is on a CA map with limited tanker slots. You may not get the "ride" you want always, but no need really to "team tank" imo unless of course you have a bud that you enjoy tanking with, then enjoy yourself and I will enjoy the double and triple score for a single kill:p.

[Heinz]

exactly. :)

[Reservoir Dog]

I'm not completely opposed to the idea of having this on a map. A mutator that did it across the board for all tank maps is not a good idea.

A map requiring team tanking would have less tanks than drivers. Overall tank number would be less than typical tanking maps. It could have a lot of obstacles to navigate so the driver would be busy while the gunner is lookout. It might have more AT guys than normal so the gunner would be forced to be look-out while the driver is humming along. If all tanks had 2 players (one shooting and one angling the tank) you would see more defensive fights (over time maybe). I would see senerios for maps which could utilize both roles in a tank being filled, but thats just my opinion.

As far as transports, it would end alot of headaches for players if one guy wouldn't jump in and take off without teammates. Forcing a minimum number of players before a transport takes off (and scalable for number of players) kinda makes sense to me. Just my two cents worth........:)

[Mike Nomad]

I'm not completely opposed to the idea of having this on a map. A mutator that did it across the board for all tank maps is not a good idea.

That's beauty of life!! Differing opinions.. I disagree. From our experiences, forcing team tanking by *ANY* means is a BAD JOKE. No, its a nightmare! I've seen time and time again where there were too few tanks for many players. Many, who all felt they weren't "team tankers", standing around in a spawn area waiting for a tank. Finally, they simply left the server in utter desperation. I can assure you, when I see that happening - that map is history.

A map requiring team tanking would have less tanks than drivers. Overall tank number would be less than typical tanking maps. It could have a lot of obstacles to navigate so the driver would be busy while the gunner is lookout. It might have more AT guys than normal so the gunner would be forced to be look-out while the driver is humming along.

All I can add is; "It might be great on a small, sparsely populated server but hardly worthwhile on a large active server." Otherwise, it could be called an "Infantry Only map with a few tanks thrown in for flavor." :)

Really though, Combined Arms maps should be just that Combined Arms. Not combined Arms with a performance clause biased at forcing this or that. Same for an infantry only map. An Armor Only map should be just that..... ARMOR ONLY with no built-in jazz, to force this or that... if such occurs then its no longer an ARMOR ONLY map.. its a hybrid, a bastardized only "whatever" map.

If all tanks had 2 players (one shooting and one angling the tank) you would see more defensive fights (over time maybe). I would see senerios for maps which could utilize both roles in a tank being filled, but thats just my opinion.

If team tanking was FORCED upon players in a particular map... regardless of the justifications, I'd have to SEE it work well while leaving NO players standing around waiting in the spawn areas holding their PUTZ instead of being in a tank having fun and enjoying the game. I see that and I assure you, the map is history.

As far as transports, it would end alot of headaches for players if one guy wouldn't jump in and take off without teammates. Forcing a minimum number of players before a transport takes off (and scalable for number of players) kinda makes sense to me. Just my two cents worth........:)

For transports it makes sense except for one glaring problem. The problem being the delays in gameplay that could be encountered while a transport is waiting to meet its "fill quota". That would prove, in the long run, to be a handicap and a problem to be overcome or compensated for.

Observe the highly successful and popular maps in use and enjoyed at this time. That sez it all. :wink1:

Anytime you introduce "controls" you must include counter measures/options. If there are none or no options to modify or turn off the controls then the map will be STILLBORN.

I'll bin any "control freak" map that forces insidiously intrusive "mind game" controls upon players.

[=GG= Mr Moe]

It would be nice to have a choice, yes. I read that thread* too, but I think you took that way out of context. Someone noticed a variable in the code and asked if that meant it was possible and a couple of people replied. Total of 5 replies at last post. That was all I got out of it.

But to keep it simple for argument's sake, a mutator would be better than forcing someone hardcoded in the map. I do agree that if admins don't want a map like that on their own server, they don't have to put it there. But if the creative powers that want to make the map want it in their map, that is also their choice and they take the risks themselves about players playing it.

It all does sound very capitalist, doesn't it? If people like it, they will play it and it will be supported, if not, it will fade away and players will go to their next choice. Supply and demand, etc..... :p I love America!

----------------------------------

*if we are talking about the same thread....if not, my bad :o

[Mike Nomad]

Moe, you got it right... the control freaks are salivating... hahahahhahah :d:d

I agree. The Admins and players will "call the shots". :wink2:


This hairbrained concept has as much chance as a naked swimmer in a bay full of sharks! :eek:

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Well, when it comes down to it, if it is a good map, I won't have a problem with it personally. With the right person, Team Tanking is great.

[Mike Nomad]

Well, when it comes down to it, if it is a good map, I won't have a problem with it personally. With the right person, Team Tanking is great.

"With the right person" says it all.

I personally feel that the "variables" involved in finding the right person will outlast the time limits of any map. (try it sometime, see how FAR you get)

Then one has to also consider the idea of forcing everyone to wait until a personel carrier is fulll before the game can proceed? That is utterly ridiculous. Unless of course, all sorts of routines are included to accomodate different numbers of players so the game can proceed.

Sorry Moe, the entire scheme of control this and control that is nothing more than hairbrained "control freak" dreams that guarantee stillborn maps.

I can just imagine an entire server waitng for an asshat to either jump in a tank or a half track or perhaps as happens now, a player stepped away to answer the door or phone and everyone waits and waits some more..

Yeah.... that'll be a major improvement on what we have now. NOT!

I'd politely suggest that more content, weapons, vehicles and flexibility in maps should be the #1 priority. Not control freak crap.

I promise; "if a map comes out, where we are forced on or in a rail-like framework, (hamsters in a habitat) or, this way or no way gameplay, it'll run once or twice on our server before its binned." :frown:

[OneShot]

For me its all about choice, if I want to team tank that is one thing, and I have done it in the past and it was OK sometimes, :)and sometimes it was not. :whaa1: Players have jumped in with me on occasion and we have given it a try, but normally after getting killed a few times we "single" up anyway. :confused:

Often my lag/ping is different than another players and this directly effects our ability to be an effective "team" imo. For clan play or ladder play I can understand this approach, or with a good friend I have no problem playing as a team, but I feel that should be my choice!

For normal public servers I would not like to see it implemented. To force me to play such as this with players with different skill levels (veterans vs. rookies), and different levels of enjoyment in playing (some guys don't mind getting killed, while others do) via a hard code change or a mut, no thanks, it is not for me! I for one would not play on a server where this is mandatory. You Guys can of course, and I hope you have fun and enjoy yourselves.:wink2:

[JAKL]

Considering the thread on the RO boards that spawned this discussion is centered around modders discussing what's possible to do, I don't see how it would spawn such a discussion as this one here.

Personally I don't see this discussion any different than from the guys that like the AB mutator which puts a heavier emphasis on realism. If anything this would potentially do the same as I would stand to guess you didn't see too many solo tankers in WWII nor did you see guys driving off in an empty half-track.

The half-tracks especially would benefit from something like this. On the larger CA maps it would be almost a necessity. As for it impacting gameplay, is the gameplay that great when you are on a full server and one guy runs off in the HT leaving 5 other guys to walk on foot? Or say on a map like Berezina where guys go off in the limited number of tanks solo leaving the other tanker spots sitting there beating their meat.

Knowing the guys that would be the most likely to implement this, they would make it configurable either for the mappers, admins, or both. They would also try to make it scalable depending on the number of players. Again I don't see why what was posted in the RO thread would create this discussion but I have a pretty good idea...

[TruSlaughter]

nothing more boring than to be a cab driver for someone. i prefer to tank alone, basically it's not that i'm antisocial it's that if i'm going to die i'd rather it be by my own misfortune. secondly the more tanks that are on the battlefield gives better odds of survival and the ability to cover someone elses back.

[Reservoir Dog]

Most of these tanks were crewed by more than 3 people, alot more. And guess what, there were probably noobs in the crew along with experienced tank crew and probably not everyone got along all of the time. And a soldier who ran off with a transport while others were waiting there, because he wanted the "freedom" to do what he wanted and not wait and not follow orders from "control freaks" like his CO would have been shot on the spot. "Solo tanking," as much as I enjoy it, is not very realistic or historical at all. I really don't understand how this community completely embraces AB to compliment realistic armor doesn't want to make other aspects realistic for vehicles. Seems to be a realism cafeteria line: "Yes, I think I will take a little of that realism," "No I won't have some of that realism," "Mmmmm that realism looks fresh today, I think I will have a little of that on the side." I guess that's the beauty of life.

Mike, your biggest point, from what I read, is you hate maps where tank crew are sitting at spawn with their "Putz" in their hands? I'm not sure of your point other than there is a need for this option on some maps which would guarantee no one is left behind.

Even though waiting for a transport to load up or driving a tank around and angling it is not the most exciting things to do, they are necessary. They are all part of team work and help teams win a battle. And they were without question done in the war.

[OneShot]

I believe that not everyone plays on line games the same, particularly to win as a team. Certainly the object is to win the map, but often players drop off the map long before the battle is decided. Certain players may be more concerned with their personal kill score than others, while other really do not concern themselves with the outcome, they just want to enjoy themselves while playing on the map, regardless of the outcome.

My feeling is no one has the right to tell me how to play the game, after all I have paid my money the same as everyone else. If I want to play that way then I will join a clan, or find servers which caters to it, but for servers provided by the developers whom I have patronized I disagree with this approach. Especially with the lack of players on the majority of servers (with the exclusion of Butch's TWB's servers and TWI's West Coast server which seem to be well populated) including the new 50 player servers, seems a moot point! I could possibly see the need if you could not find an empty server, but it appears to me to be plenty of available player slots out there. My appologies for going off topic.

I'm all for realism but from my readings ( I am certainly not a mapper, coder, or animator by any stretch of the imagination) only the engine used in RO:OST has certain limitations (please correct me if I am wrong). So true battlefield realism can never be achieved if what I have read is correct. We are talking about requiring a tank to have at least three players before it can move out of spawn, when this same vehicle gets stuck trying to run over a dilapidated small wooden picket fence or a close line? I like to see certain realism applied where it does the most good, such as historical backdrop for a battle or ballistics, or vehicle characteristics, but if someone wants to put the effort into making a team mut, knock yourself out. I am sure some in the community will be glad and appreciative they did, just not me, sorry guys, we just disagree.

So as long as it is a 'team mut" I have no problem with it as I stated, much the same as the AB mut. Some server use the AB mut and some don't, players have a choice. I would not want to see the AB mut force feed to all the servers by being code into the game/maps, I don't think anyone does? I for one would not want to see a "'team mut" hard coded in the game as well. That is all I am saying and just my opinion. I can see the validity for the reasoning behind the "team mut", I really do. But to have to wait for players to get killed and respawn before a HT takes off has two sides imo. What if the wait is considerable (no one else getting killed at the time) and the time is running out on the map, and you need to get back to the battle area to finally be able to kill that sniper or take out that MG position you spotted when you just got killed, quickly before he moves? Of course you can always use VOIP, but what if no other players are in the vicinity such as on larger maps? So that is where I see both sides of the discussion. Why not just up the available numbers of HT that can spawn, after all they are just transports right? Armor is a different scenario for me, as I discussed in a previous post.

While it is correct tanks were crewed by more than one person, "realistically" speaking I believe infantrymen were normally strictly controlled in battle as well. Are we next going to see players fighting on the ground on infantry maps as they choose using the tactics they are confident using or only as they are ordered by squad leaders? There are clans and other groups that fully embrace this type of team play, and that is fine for them, again I have no problems with it as long as it is a mut Guys. Again just not for me.

@Jakl;
I believe we discuss what ever we choose to discuss here as you also do here as well, or not. Not everyone here may go to the other boards, or feels comfortable posting elsewhere perhaps? Often you have to hunt for topics on other boards (such as the RO forums) because of the vast amount of people posting in different threads. I did not see the thread on this topic at the RO boards for several days, well after I saw the thread started here. I believe often topics of interest are started here for the benefit of the members here, despite the fact that the topic may have been/being discussed at other forums. No big deal, at least, that is what I believe anyway, just a question of convenience and ease for the members here to be made aware of news/topics as it pertains to on-line MP gaming in the community.

[Reservoir Dog]

One Shot, no one is telling you how to play a game. Just as AB is out on some servers and some not. By the way, AB is coded into maps like Hubes Breakout. You stated you wouldn't want to see this or anyone else. I know you have played that map here at RGN and I didn't hear any objections from you about it. All it is is more options for either a mapper or administrator. As far as administrator level, I am opposed to a mutator that can't be configured on a per map level. I thought I was being clear about that on my first post. As you have said, there are players who will appreciate it and some not. No one is talking about hard coding it and force feeding it to the community. Not sure where you are getting these ideas from.

As far as saying something like you disagree with this be tried on a TWI server, it sounds like you want to limit options for admins and players. I'm not understanding the point you were trying to make as it is very unclear. You did say you weren't opposed to a "team" mut which is exactly what we are talking about. Why couldn't it be tried on a TWI server?

As far as a small box or clothline blocking a tank, that is not an engine limitation. That is a mapper who didn't set his collision settings properly. Not a good example. And waiting for team members can easliy be set by the spawn time (which is an option already but different mapper do it differently).

Your proposal for transports is just add more. You mean make a new map? Take for instance a map I like, Barashka. To accomodate 50 players someone could remake the map, wait for TWI to remake it (not even sure they will), or have a mutator that the admin can set 3 or 4 infantry minimum in transports (that would solve alot of headaches), or scalable to player count, and 2 tank crew per T34s and PIVs. The admin has just had the freedom to scale vehicles to a map he likes to suit 50 players exactly the way he wants it. And he didn't have to make yet another "unofficial" version of a map. The admin could also tailor some of the CA maps so the problem of tanks and transports running off leaving the team behind wouldn't happen. Have you ever tried to get that sniper or mg while running on foot from spawn because of no transports? Good luck with that if you think waiting for teammates slows you down. If you can't see the freedom in this, I'm sorry. Scaling up maps to suit more people, having the option to not use it on certain maps, and stoping the lone rangers in transports are all positives in my book. I can't see anything about this that can resemble "someone telling you how to play a game" or "force-feeding you anything." Thats just my opinion.

[Mike Nomad]

Mike, your biggest point, from what I read, is you hate maps where tank crew are sitting at spawn with their "Putz" in their hands? I'm not sure of your point other than there is a need for this option on some maps which would guarantee no one is left behind.

Yes, I said that and it clearly means that maps that do not have enough vehicles to satisfy the numbers of players in the map. Now if some mapper were to come up with a method to exponentially increase the vehicles available as the number of players in those classes able to use said vehicles increases, that would be a great solution. This bickering and fussing over a concept that is obviously flawed is going nowhere fast.

Even though waiting for a transport to load up or driving a tank around and angling it is not the most exciting things to do, they are necessary. They are all part of team work and help teams win a battle. And they were without question done in the war.

Short, sweet and to the point. If this concept is forced upon us in a map.... that map will not see the light of day on our server since it sets a very bad precedent of literally taking control of the server away from the Server Owners/Admins. That.... AIN"T GONNA HAPPEN.

[Mike Nomad]

Hubes Breakout, has portions of it written specifically to make it work WITH Armored Beasts. If I'm not mistaken its because of the custom skins. In that respect of course nobody is going to object.

I doubt that OneShot, or anyone else for that matter, is advocating the limiting of options for Server Admins at all as that would be totally against everything Server Admins want and need. In fact, to be honest, I believe the crux of the matter is to ensure Server Admins have the opportunity to exercise options to use, not use or, modify certain aspects of this concept of vehicular controls, either forced team tanking or ensuring only full personnel carriers are able to leave a spawn area.

As long as these "features" are Admin controllable; off/on & modifiable and not RAMMED DOWN OUR THROATS, then I see no harm in them. If however, they are hard coded into a map and not Admin controllable, that map will NOT run on our server.

As for the clothes line comment... its a very good illustration for the very reason you pointed out. The small fences, clotheslines and other items that stop a Tank cold in its tracks are absurd and are a detail that careful attention should be paid to. Items such as those and others should never bring a Tank to a screeching halt.

The concern over transports is a valid one. The main concern of whether or not the round will be in some kind of "pause" while the carrier is being loaded or waiting to be loaded? What if the server at the time has only enough players to fill three carriers and there are four or five carriers in the spawn? Is the game then essentially in limbo until there are enough to players satisfy the quota for the carriers? Will the Admin be able to make adjustments and/or turn off this "feature"?

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Hey, it is really simple...

If you don't want to play more than one required in a vehicle, find another map or server.
If you don't want to play AB, find another map or server.
If you don't like combined arms and one of those maps comes up, find another map or server.

etc... etc... etc... there are plenty others out there. No one is FORCING anyone to do anything.


It really, really is that simple. :d

[Mike Nomad]

Hey, it is really simple...

If you don't want to play more than one required in a vehicle, find another map or server.
If you don't want to play AB, find another map or server.
If you don't like combined arms and one of those maps comes up, find another map or server.

etc... etc... etc... there are plenty others out there. No one is FORCING anyone to do anything.


It really, really is that simple. :d

Yes, from a player's point of view it is that simple... I agree.:)

[JAKL]

Yes, I said that and it clearly means that maps that do not have enough vehicles to satisfy the numbers of players in the map. Now if some mapper were to come up with a method to exponentially increase the vehicles available as the number of players in those classes able to use said vehicles increases, that would be a great solution. This bickering and fussing over a concept that is obviously flawed is going nowhere fast.

Actually what it means is that the map doesn't have enough tanks for each guy to tank solo but rather work as a team which is what the mapper is going for in the first place. But yeah I remember having this same discussion before and what a coincidence it involved the same mapper that is involved in discussions this time :wink2:


Short, sweet and to the point. If this concept is forced upon us in a map.... that map will not see the light of day on our server since it sets a very bad precedent of literally taking control of the server away from the Server Owners/Admins. That.... AIN"T GONNA HAPPEN.

All I've seen in the RO discussion is a group of mappers/modders talking about what's possible. Nothing about cramming this down people's throats. For these hardline statements to be made on these boards when all it is at the moment is a group of guys throwing around options seems a little over the top but then again I've got a pretty good idea why the initial post was sparked off here.

Since there is a fair amount of opposition to the idea, why not post in the RO thread? Perhaps others in the community share your opinion. If the mappers/modders get enough of the "why don't you guys spend your time on something else" maybe they will. Just an idea.

[Mike Nomad]

Actually what it means is that the map doesn't have enough tanks for each guy to tank solo but rather work as a team which is what the mapper is going for in the first place. But yeah I remember having this same discussion before and what a coincidence it involved the same mapper that is involved in discussions this time

You missed the point entirely....
Now if some mapper were to come up with a method to exponentially increase the vehicles available as the number of players in those classes able to use said vehicles increases, that would be a great solution. This would, perhaps, be a genuine beginning.

All I've seen in the RO discussion is a group of mappers/modders talking about what's possible. Nothing about cramming this down people's throats. For these hardline statements to be made on these boards when all it is at the moment is a group of guys throwing around options seems a little over the top but then again I've got a pretty good idea why the initial post was sparked off here.

And your point is??? Besides attempting to start some sort of argument with your flamebait comments?? BEHAVE!

Since there is a fair amount of opposition to the idea, why not post in the RO thread? Perhaps others in the community share your opinion. If the mappers/modders get enough of the "why don't you guys spend your time on something else" maybe they will. Just an idea.

Here's a better idea; We'll stay right here and have our own discussion in our own forum. You can go anywhere and carry on. In fact, why don't you? I am truly tired of your sniping and offhanded remarks. If you cannot find a way to contribute, in a positive manner, to the theads in our forum then please, don't post. Your agenda is quite obvious. Please, stay on topic and stop trying to disrupt our forum. Enough is enough!

[OneShot]

One Shot, no one is telling you how to play a game. Just as AB is out on some servers and some not. By the way, AB is coded into maps like Hubes Breakout. Sorry RD, I did not know this, you are a mapper, I certainly am not as I admitted. Never said you specifically were telling me how to play the game. But if this concept were to be implemented community wide then it would in fact be telling me how to play the game! If as you state this is not the case then I have no problem with it. You stated you wouldn't want to see this or anyone else. I know you have played that map here at RGN and I didn't hear any objections from you about it. All it is is more options for either a mapper or administrator. In that case, as stated, I am all for it! I did not know it was part of Hubes. I am not a huge fan of Hubes, and I stated that on the servers, with or with out the AB mut applied. Just my personal view, no disrespect to the mappers whom created Hubes. As far as administrator level, I am opposed to a mutator that can't be configured on a per map level. I thought I was being clear about that on my first post. You may have been, my bad then, my apologies. No one is talking about hard coding it and force feeding it to the community. Just stating my opinion, not opposed to it, so long as the option is there to play or not with it running on the server.

As far as saying something like you disagree with this be tried on a TWI server, it sounds like you want to limit options for admins and players. I'm not understanding the point you were trying to make as it is very unclear. You did say you weren't opposed to a "team" mut which is exactly what we are talking about. Why couldn't it be tried on a TWI server? On a TWI test server, no problem, much the same as the 50 player concept was done would be fine. That is how I feel TWI servers should be used. I just would not want to see it installed on all the TWI public servers "permanently," due to the fact that other than I believe a couple of servers, all the 50 player servers available are in fact TWI servers. Again my fault for not making that point clear.

Your proposal for transports is just add more. You mean make a new map? No just change the load out, from my impression it was not a "big" problem in the beta stages, again I am not a mapper, just offering suggestions, good or bad. Take for instance a map I like, Barashka. To accomodate 50 players someone could remake the map, wait for TWI to remake it (not even sure they will), or have a mutator that the admin can set 3 or 4 infantry minimum in transports (that would solve a lot of headaches), or scalable to player count, and 2 tank crew per T34s and PIVs. The admin has just had the freedom to scale vehicles to a map he likes to suit 50 players exactly the way he wants it. And he didn't have to make yet another "unofficial" version of a map. The admin could also tailor some of the CA maps so the problem of tanks and transports running off leaving the team behind wouldn't happen. Excellent, no problems with it and sounds logical. Have you ever tried to get that sniper or mg while running on foot from spawn because of no transports? Good luck with that if you think waiting for teammates slows you down. Yes I have on TractorWorks and recently on Elyna, as well as others, thus my reasoning for offering my comments. You are alluding to the hazard of being able to advance in the open as opposed to cover of the transport. Sometimes a transport can announce your arrival to your foe. Transport are pretty vulnerable as well, but you are right they do provide cover from bullets. What I am asking is to add more transports, not player slots, just more transports. If the server is not full, and a limit of say three players had to be in a HT before it could move, you could have one heck of a wait in the spawn my friend. Sorry but the 50 player servers, other than a few as I mentioned before are not full RD a majority of the time when I log on . And even if the new servers are full, what are we talking, maybe 5 or 6 servers, max of say 300 players? For a FPS that is Worldwide? Not like people are waiting to get on the 50 player servers now. When first introduced, TWB/TWI servers were like that, but now the newness has past and at least I have not had a problem getting on a 50 player server. So I still fail to see the necessity for this RD? If you can't see the freedom in this, I'm sorry. As long as it is applied as you state, I do, and no apologies necessary. We are just differing on our impressions/opinions/views, no big deal Guy. Scaling up maps to suit more people, having the option to not use it on certain maps, and stopping the lone rangers in transports are all positives in my book. I can't see anything about this that can resemble "someone telling you how to play a game" or "force-feeding you anything." That's just my opinion. That's cool and I respect you opinions RD. As long as it is used as you describe I have no problem with its except for the possible "lone rangers" analogy. Because if this how I want to play, then by implementing "team" concept only on a server you are in fact dictating how I am to play. Yes it may be for the "better of all players" in someones opinion but the fact remains you are telling me how to play. I can't leave when I choose or go where I choose with out others in a transport, I can't fight in a Tank without others, nor be able to shoot the gun because I may be regulated to driving or hull mg only!

Just a question, why not as a mapper provide ample transportation for all? If not used they simply sit in the spawn correct? Those who want to team then can, those who choose not also have the option, without creating a "conflict" between players. Is this not what you were alluding to when you mentioned scalable? "X" amount of players on the map yields "X" amount of vehicles? I just request an extra amount of "X" vehicles not to cause conflict amongst players in spawns. You still have the same amount of players, just fewer waiting in the spawns, and thus more action on the battlefield right?

Also, then it is the driver whom decides where the players need to be deployed correct? And if one player leaves/jumps out of the transport, would it not stop dead in its tracks? What if I want to move East and the other players choose West, guess what I have to go West or walk? That is restricting my freedom to play as I wish! I have to then move out on foot or wait for 3 players who think as I? What about putting all your eggs in one basket. Load up a single HT with players and one well place shot and they are all dead. Advance with 1 or 2 players in multiple transports would the attack not have more chance of advancing (given reload time) on the objective? Some maps have reinforcement and time limits, would this not effect the outcome of a map if all the infantry players were restricted to just a small amount of transports and thus more vulnerable and had to spend time waiting in spawn for other players?

As I said for clans, and other organization that really enjoy this type of play, I think it is terrific. For me, I do not want to spend my gaming time driving players around the map or driving me where I do not want to go. While it may be admirable, and a necessity to win a map, I choose not to participate, when I game I want to have fun and decide for myself what is fun! If that is selfish or not a team player, then that is what I am. As stated my on-line gaming time is very limited so perhaps RO:OST is over my head or with the new maps/innovations becoming to sophisticated for me.

I have "team played " when I first purchased RO, only to be ridiculed, insulted, and demeaned by my own crew member! I have also driven transports and been treated the same. Sorry but this was not my idea of fun guys! Ban all you want from the servers, jerks will always be present. Again I have no problem with the evolution and eventual use of "team" play, so long as I have the choice to play with it or not, my only purpose for posting on this topic.

[JAKL]

You missed the point entirely....
Now if some mapper were to come up with a method to exponentially increase the vehicles available as the number of players in those classes able to use said vehicles increases, that would be a great solution. This would, perhaps, be a genuine beginning.

Actually I believe I responding to the heart of the matter when responding to the very first sentence. I also like how you went back and added in blue highlights which wasn't in the first go around.

Yes, I said that and it clearly means that maps that do not have enough vehicles to satisfy the numbers of players in the map.

This statement right here was the crux of the TW argument as well as Berezina. You thought more tanks should be added and the mapper (Slyk) felt that would change the dynamic of what they were going for, i.e. forcing the winning team to play as a team and not go solo. It's no surpise that the only way the Germans win TW is through team work and that often means a couple of guys acting as taxi drivers.


And your point is??? Besides attempting to start some sort of argument with your flamebait comments?? BEHAVE!

No flamebait at all, just stating the obvious FACTS. I see it as no coincidence that within an hour of Slyk responding in the RO thread you made your initial post here. In subsequent posts you've reiterated TW arguments (quoted above) and you've made comments about control freak mappers and then forcing mind games on the players, all of which on numerous occasions you've used in reference to Slyk. And you want to accuse me of sniping? To use your words Rave On Mike...


Here's a better idea; We'll stay right here and have our own discussion in our own forum. You can go anywhere and carry on. In fact, why don't you? I am truly tired of your sniping and offhanded remarks. If you cannot find a way to contibute, in a positive manner, to the theads in our forum then please, don't post. Your agenda is quite obvious. Please, stay on topic and stop trying to disrupt our forum. Enough is enough!

I'm tired of you trying to tell me what I can and cannot say on your boards when I've always done it within the rules you outline. I am providing my opinion on the subject, you just don't happen to agree with it.

I personally think it is way too early in the discussion to go on the offensive as you have regarding something mappers are just talking about doing. Considering the fact that Slyk has always tried to look at his maps as being as friendly as possible to server admins, considering he used to be one, I don't see why you would think he would do any different this time outside of your continued animosity towards him. I thought you were ready to "forgive and forget"?

As for the suggestion for the RO boards, I was merely attempting to get you guys to give vour perspective in the actual thread where the mappers are talking about this as I would think it would go a long way in providing a different perspective. RD and OneShot have had a particularly good back and forth of ideas. Otherwise something will potentially get implemented that you don't like and then there will be bitching about it when in fact you never let the mappers know ahead of time. Don't give me the "we may not feel comfortable posting there." I thought that got resolved with JCoq came over and stated that as long as you post within the rules you've got nothing to worry about.

In summary, I think it's an interesting topic that is up for discussion on the RO boards and one that would be well served hearing all different perspectives. But I also think it's way to early in the discussion to get all worked up about it.

[Mike Nomad]

Now that you have thoroughly and completely derailed this topic, I'll ask again that your stick to the topic and the topic alone. If you cannot do that, I'd rather you didn't post.

[OneShot]

Actually what it means is that the map doesn't have enough tanks for each guy to tank solo but rather work as a team which is what the mapper is going for in the first place. But yeah I remember having this same discussion before and what a coincidence it involved the same mapper that is involved in discussions this time :wink2: If it is the mappers intent, fine, it's his map, but why must I be delegated to a driver slot or have to waste time waiting in a spawn to have fun on his map? Sorry, not my idea of a good time and in all likelyhood not a map for me. Personally, when these types of maps get full I leave the server. Less populated I play and enjoy the heck of the maps. To each his own right?




All I've seen in the RO discussion is a group of mappers/modders talking about what's possible. Nothing about cramming this down people's throats. For these hardline statements to be made on these boards when all it is at the moment is a group of guys throwing around options seems a little over the top but then again I've got a pretty good idea why the initial post was sparked off here. Not until yours and my last post, no where in the initial thread or any other posts here, did I see mention of the RO Boards. We are just discussing a topic, plain and simple, here at the RGN forum, not on the RO boards. How we discus things here is up to the staff and moderators here, hardline or not, all views, opposing or not, appear to me to be welcomed here. May not be the case on other boards?

Since there is a fair amount of opposition to the idea, why not post in the RO thread? Perhaps others in the community share your opinion. If the mappers/modders get enough of the "why don't you guys spend your time on something else" maybe they will. Just an idea. Again we are just discussing a topic amongst ourselves, others are free to come here and join this discussion if they choose, as we are free to do there. These are public forums after all. I'm not trying to tell mappers/modders what to do, let them do what they want. The players themselves will speak with their participation, playing of the maps, acceptance of new concepts by joining the servers, or not, when the time comes. From your comments that it is just some ideas being bounced around by some guys, it may well not be necessary. So why post at the RO boards if this is just an idea/options that appear to be going no where?

@Jakl;

You keep making comments about "you have a pretty good idea about why this and why that was started, and about coincidence" Whats up with that? Want to join the discussion on the topic great, love to hear your views/opinions. Looking for something more out of this, then why beat around the bush?

[JAKL]

Now that you have thoroughly and completely derailed this topic, I'll ask again that your stick to the topic and the topic alone. If you cannot do that, I'd rather you didn't post.

Mike I've been on topic the entire time and the only time I commented otherwise is in responding to one of your statements such as I'm doing now.

But to keep it on topic I'll summarize for you:

* I think this is a good discussion to have and it would be beneficial to both sides to have it reflected in the RO boards
* I like the idea of limiting a troop transport from leaving without a minimum number of players
* Depending on the map I could like the idea of forcing two people to tank but it would depend on the map and the implementation
* I do think it is too early to get worked up about what's being discussed let alone implemented
* I do think the only reason Mike posted this here is his ongoing animosity towards Slyk.
* I've always posted within the rules and will continue to do so regardless of whether or not Mike like's my opinion. That's how discussions take place.

[Mike Nomad]

You sir, are over the top in your confrontational accusations and flaming buried within a so-called innocent "on topic" post. Therefore, you have earned a one month vacation for being a smart arse. You were warned.

I asked you very nicely to STAY ON TOPIC. Instead, you tried to get "cute" and flame away anyway. Have a nice vacation.

[OneShot]

This statement right here was the crux of the TW argument as well as Berezina. You thought more tanks should be added and the mapper (Slyk) felt that would change the dynamic of what they were going for, i.e. forcing the winning team to play as a team and not go solo. It's no surpise that the only way the Germans win TW is through team work and that often means a couple of guys acting as taxi drivers.

But why? No disrespect to mappers and I know this is a better question for Slyk or Reservoir Dog, but why make a map where someone has to do this? I respect a mappers choice to create a map the way they feel, again their map. And even much like HalfLife 2 I have no problem with certain "puzzles/strategies" (probably not the correct verbage) that first must be overcome before advancing, I just don't understand the need to create tactics where certain players need to be delegated to a role they may not want in order for a side to win a map? How about a new player to the game, unless they have read a thread on some board dealing with this topic will they ever figure out what the FPS and the strategy of the map is all about.

Like I said I like to have fun when playing RO, and driving around is not my cup of tea. Just me guys, sorry. I see it time and time again where guys join a server running a new map and after a short period of time they leave the map and then you see them playing Arad or Danzig on another server! Could be a reason here guys? Sorry for going off topic.

[Mike Nomad]

To get this thread back on topic:

If a mapper cares to hard code something into a map he's created, that fine as long as he makes it perfectly clear in the "readme" for the map. By doing so it allows the Admin of a Server to make an informed decision as to whether he cares to place that map in rotation.

Team Tanking is marvelous for those who like to team tank. Solo Tanking is a great deal of fun for those who enjoy solo tanking. Both modes of play should be available.

With this personnel carrier issue, its another story.... if the map's progress is going to be "held up" or interrupted by having to wait to meet personnel carrier quotas, it'll fast become a boondoggle.

If a sensible, mutually accommodating solution is offered to make everyone happy.... fine - if not then I'd say such a map would be a specialty map for "special" uses. Not totally appropriate for a public server. It would, more than likely, be ideal for Clan Matches and Clan Match Servers.

[Heinz]

how could a thread about team tanking go so astray? jeebus, these games are supposed to be fun fellas :eek:. the Slyk maps were never going to be tank maps. he's not very knowledgable in that department, has shown a predjudice agaisnt tank maps, and even the AB mod, etc. his take on things is obvious.

that does not make him a bad person, just makes him a CA mapper. that's all. I could tell right away he was over his head in any technical tank discussion or talk about tanks in a map. again, does not make him a bad person.

that being said, he makes great maps, no doubt. to the extent that RO is not a done bird, ready for the fork to be stuck in it, the AHz guys are certainly doing yeoman's work in helping RO be a great game.

I have to say, there's way too much "fight" around here for my liking. just much ado about nothing, IMO.

throw up an Insurgency server, and have some fun. :)

[Mike Nomad]

how could a thread about team tanking go so astray? jeebus, these games are supposed to be fun fellas :eek:. the Slyk maps were never going to be tank maps. he's not very knowledgable in that department, has shown a predjudice agaisnt tank maps, and even the AB mod, etc. his take on things is obvious.

that does not make him a bad person, just makes him a CA mapper. that's all. I could tell right away he was over his head in any technical tank discussion or talk about tanks in a map. again, does not make him a bad person.

that being said, he makes great maps, no doubt. to the extent that RO is not a done bird, ready for the fork to be stuck in it, the AHz guys are certainly doing yeoman's work in helping RO be a great game.

I have to say, there's way too much "fight" around here for my liking. just much ado about nothing, IMO.

throw up an Insurgency server, and have some fun. :)

Heinz, never once was Slyk or his maps ever mentioned by myself or any other RGN members. Jakl made it his business to drag Slyk into the mix by pointing the entire matter of the thread's origination towards Slyk and then tried to apply DRAMA to the thread.

Truth is, All we voiced were opinions relative to Forced Team Tanking... some people simply cannot stand to be disagreed with. You will NEVER find me "BAD-MOUTHING" Slyk's maps and map work nor that of Lex, Teufel and Drecks. They're all good at what they do.

I simply put, disagree with the premise of FORCED "ANYTHING", not just FORCED TEAM TANKING etc.. and made my thoughts known. :wink2:

[Heinz]

oh, ok. sorry, i may have misread it.

[Reservoir Dog]

For clarification, Hubes uses armor and penetration calculations from AB whether the mutator is active on the server or not. That is why you have to load the files on a server running the map. In essence, players and servers are "forced" to use AB on this map.

Every map I have seen people waiting on vehicles to spawn on a full server (32/44/50). They are waiting for the vehicle to blow up or be abandoned. I haven't seen one map that has enough vehicles for everyone on a full server. The reason is because of the server load it would bring (very low frame rates for everyone). Second reason is it would just turn a map into a deathmatch, no strategy and no teamwork involved. RO is not a deathmatch game hence the different roles, weapons, vehicles and other limiting factors.

I seriously doubt a mutator can increase vehicle spawn factories. This is set in the map only. Not only would trying this cause vehicles to spawn on top of other vehicles, but into walls and other obstacles (which the engine won't allow to happen).

The reason why mappers put limited number of vehicles on a map is to see how a team will work with limited resources. In other words, strategy and teamwork. Which is the heart of a game like RO.

To sum up everything, the only things that are proposed is a possible server mutator or mapper's tool. NOTHING IS BEING FORCED. If it is a mutator and you don't like it, then don't use it. If it is a map that the mapper wants a team to use a specific stratey and you don't like it or think you are being forced to play it a certain way, then don't play it. Its really simple. Nothing is being forced, spoon-fed, or any arm twisting done on the whole community.

Since this has been established I really don't see a need for this thread to go on any further. I would like to make a suggestion that it is closed.

[OneShot]

I agree with RD, after all he has the experience and knowledge of mapping. Clearly there are limits to what can be done on RO maps without sacrificing performance hits, thanks again for clarifying that for me Guys!

Again I am not a mapper /modder and have no expertise in the technical nuances of this FPS. Thus a big part of my reluctance to post in the RO boards thread on this topic. I leave that to guys like RD, Slyk, Drecks, Keystone, Slashbot, ViViD and all they other talented guys out there. But I now have a better understanding of RO!

I have certainly voiced my "solo" opinions and said all I need on the subject as well. Personally, I enjoy both deathmatches as well as map conquest play. For me it just depends on the map and number of players on the server at the time. Again to each his own, and everyone should get out of RO:OST what he/she wants, I'm just looking to have some fun Guys.

[Mike Nomad]

....<snip>To sum up everything, the only things that are proposed is a possible server mutator or mapper's tool. NOTHING IS BEING FORCED. If it is a mutator and you don't like it, then don't use it. If it is a map that the mapper wants a team to use a specific stratey and you don't like it or think you are being forced to play it a certain way, then don't play it. Its really simple. Nothing is being forced, spoon-fed, or any arm twisting done on the whole community.

Since this has been established I really don't see a need for this thread to go on any further. I would like to make a suggestion that it is closed.


ArmoredBeasts2_HubesVehicles.u - deals with allowing Armored Beasts to WORK with the custom vehicles in Hubes Breakout... it does not include the entire Armored Beasts mutator.

As an Admin, I agree if we don't like the map it won't be in the rotation... As a player, I also agree, I do not have to play the map. And that is exactly how it will be.

What purpose would closing the thread serve?? The more sensible, factual, non-emotional input we obtain..... the more informed and better off the entire community is.

[Mike Nomad]

.....<snip> Again to each his own, and everyone should get out of RO:OST what he/she wants, I'm just looking to have some fun Guys.

Certainly, that's exactly what all of us are seeking. FUN!! A little relaxation, fun and simply put, enjoying time in a server, playing the maps we enjoy with the folks whose company we enjoy. That's really what its all about.

To once again get back on topic, Team Tanking has its place in the scheme of things in our community right alongside solo tanking. Choices.... that is what makes life so interesting and grand. Take away the choices and you truly enter the doldrums of boredom. In essence, we will all choose exactly which style of play we enjoy and frankly, on public servers, I have seen more solo tanking than team tanking hands down.

I admire those that try Team Tanking. I did and didn't care for it. Obviously, it takes a great deal of work and practice for two or three people in a tank to be able to work and perform well together. Most people boot the GAME and play the GAME to enjoy themselves. I know I do. So far, RO has given me many, many hours of top notch enjoyment.

As many of you know, I am a solo tanker. I like to think I do fairly well at it. In fact, I have yet to have a Team Tanking Crew stop me cold in my tracks . Its usually the other way around. I credit that to the fact, they simply have not WORKED and PRACTICED enough to work well and perform as a Team.

When I take time out to play and enjoy the GAME.... and it becomes serious WORK to be able to play the GAME, its all over for me. :d

I'll leave the "WORK" part to the Competition guys and those who take a score in a game as seriously as their next breath. Its all good though, as long as we all have a choice. Relax, have fun and enjoy RO the way you like to enjoy it, not the way anyone "thinks" you should. :wink2:

[OneShot]

What purpose would closing the thread serve?? The more sensible, factual, non-emotional input we obtain..... the more informed and better off the entire community is.

I certainly can't argue with that Guys!

[Reservoir Dog]

ArmoredBeasts2_HubesVehicles.u - deals with allowing Armored Beasts to WORK with the custom vehicles in Hubes Breakout... it does not include the entire Armored Beasts mutator.

If by custom you mean standard tank classes in RO with the AB armor and penetration calcs then, yes, you are right. There are no true custom (non-standard) vehicles in Hubes. I failed tp see your point. I personally find it revolutionary that a mapper could use AB to enhance his map even if the server is not running AB mut. It is obvious that with the tank selection in this map, it wouldn't work without AB. I was just throwing out an example of how players are "forced" to use variables set by a mapper. Like I said, no complaints about it on this board or RO's. Yes I know that AB mut is used on this server, but on this map it is set by the mapper not the server admin is the point. If AB was not on RGN, would you feel "forced" to play Hubes using a mut and not like it because a mapper forced you to play it a certain way?


What purpose would closing the thread serve?? The more sensible, factual, non-emotional input we obtain..... the more informed and better off the entire community is.

First, as far as factual, there was never listed a link to the discussion in RO forums. Even after One Shot said he couldn't find it. Here it is http://www.redorchestragame.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20411. I don't think its a secret. I hope that it helps to end some of the speculations I have seen. In fact some of the concerns brought up here have already been address on this thread.

Sensible would be to have someone on the development team participate in these discussions.

Starting off a thread with "They'll PRY my cold, dead hands off the controls before I "Team Tank" at this time!" might not be viewed, by some, as non-emotional. It could also lead to some major tangents, wild ideas, and other emotional statements in this thread.

I am not trying to be difficult with this post. But since it is not going to be closed, I needed to respond to a few things that were said and also stating my opinions. Thanks.

[Mike Nomad]

ArmoredBeasts2_HubesVehicles.u - deals with allowing Armored Beasts to WORK with the custom vehicles in Hubes Breakout... it does not include the entire Armored Beasts mutator.
If by custom you mean standard tank classes in RO with the AB armor and penetration calcs then, yes, you are right. There are no true custom (non-standard) vehicles in Hubes. I failed tp see your point. I personally find it revolutionary that a mapper could use AB to enhance his map even if the server is not running AB mut. It is obvious that with the tank selection in this map, it wouldn't work without AB. I was just throwing out an example of how players are "forced" to use variables set by a mapper. Like I said, no complaints about it on this board or RO's. Yes I know that AB mut is used on this server, but on this map it is set by the mapper not the server admin is the point. If AB was not on RGN, would you feel "forced" to play Hubes using a mut and not like it because a mapper forced you to play it a certain way?

By "CUSTOM" I refer to the SKINS & ANIMATIONs. They are apparently the deciding factors. I'm not into semantics. The inclusion of certain aspects of AB is for compatibility and does not mean that the vehicle's attributes CHANGE if AB is not originally on the server, they remain as intended by the mapper and play with stock behavior. Unless AB is loaded and used by the server, nothing changes.

What purpose would closing the thread serve?? The more sensible, factual, non-emotional input we obtain..... the more informed and better off the entire community is.First, as far as factual, there was never listed a link to the discussion in RO forums. Even after One Shot said he couldn't find it. Here it is http://www.redorchestragame.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20411. I don't think its a secret. I hope that it helps to end some of the speculations I have seen. In fact some of the concerns brought up here have already been address on this thread.

Sensible would be to have someone on the development team participate in these discussions. Starting off a thread with "They'll PRY my cold, dead hands off the controls before I "Team Tank" at this time!" might not be viewed, by some, as non-emotional. It could also lead to some major tangents, wild ideas, and other emotional statements in this thread.

I am not trying to be difficult with this post. But since it is not going to be closed, I needed to respond to a few things that were said and also stating my opinions. Thanks.

Your opinions, like anyone else's are more than welcome. As for difficult, well... that's a matter of opinion and interpretation. :wink2:

First of all, I fail to comprehend why anyone would insinuate that OUR FORUM does not provide a factual, sensible venue for users to gain accurate information relative to any topic discussed or debated in any other forum. We are not compelled to take this discussion anywhere else and ultimately, will not. If such where the case, then perhaps as it appears to be suggested, we should close this site and participate elsewhere.. I doubt it. In fact, that simply will not happen.

I firmly believe the users and myself are very comfortable in our own forum while relating to and discussing the current topics found elsewhere. We find we are less apt to be overly scrutinized and subject to ridicule, sarcastic nonsense, overly zealous enforcement and biased attitudes as has occurred in the past and I might add unfortunately, still does.

Secondly, SENSIBLE is very much a part of the basic FACT that we are addressing the matter and discussing it intelligently. Truthfully speaking, I KNOW this thread is being read by those involved in the discussions elsewhere. Certain of those parties are not predisposed to playing ignorant head games of purposely ignoring our input as a few knotheads are, since they have told us so. Therefore our thoughts, apprehensions and opinions are indeed getting to the right places and hopefully, will prove to be helpful.

For the benefit of those who feel I am contrary and uncooperative, I say they need a serious laxative. I buy the games, PAY for the hardware and PAY for the bandwidth to be able to enjoy them and where I am able, support them. The day I stop enjoying RO, I'll look elsewhere for the "fun factor" of my computing. I play the game online and on our server, for the relaxation and the enjoyment of the company of others.

When the day comes that the game I enjoy or maps I enjoy are forcibly controlled by "IAH control freaks" who insist that I play the game exactly as they see fit, the game will get gone and that will end the tenure of that game on *ANY* of my systems. I repeat, for the sake of clarity and understanding; "They'll PRY my cold, dead hands off the controls before I "Team Tank" at this time!" While meant to be humorous, I might point out that many a truth is said in jest.

Take my Solo Tanking away... I'm gone.

I don't know any other way to make myself perfectly clear. Someone wants to dictate the way I MUST NOW play the game? Especially after enjoying it for over a year?? Hell will freeze over first!

Why are people having such a difficult time understanding myself and many others do not enjoy team tanking? Simply put, if a map is released that forces team tanking upon the players, without options to control that "feature", it will not see the light of day on our Server. That is the bottom line.

Speaking as a Player; If I, or anyone else for that matter, can no longer enjoy the game as we have played it for the last 14 months, then what is the point? Choice is what its all about... CHOICE & OPTIONS!! I simply will choose to not play the map. If all this control noise gets too involved, I'll find another game altogether. It won't be the first time or the last. Choice man, that is what it is all about.

Speaking as an ADMIN; My desire is to provide the players that are regulars on our server exactly what they want to play and and enjoy. After a year's time, I believe I have a good understanding of what is and is not popular. If the Vehicle Limiting, Team Tanking ONLY maps do not offer options to turn the restrictive "limiters" off, then we will not be bothered to run those maps. Oh, we'll try them out, and if they allow for low player counts to be able to play we'll test them further. If not, well the handwriting is on the wall.

To force someone to wait in a spawn area for others to get in a tank, into "specific seats" before its able to be used or, to have people wait in a spawn area for a Half Track or UPC to have a certain number of people occupy that vehicle is insane unless its calculated to scale according to the number of players actually in the map!

Imagine, if you will, 4 people are in a map and all they can do is get in and out of a tank or transport vehicle because there are not enough players in the map to actually play the game. That is a very BAD JOKE on everyone.

Sure, if the platform had 5-8 thousand players online at any given moment around the world, it might work out but at the rate and direction we are going, its highly doubtful. Let's get real and face facts, pushing people around by limiting this and that without restoration options is definitely not the way to go if you want to keep players on this platform. We are already seeing serious turnover and losses.

Thankfully, we all still have the freedom of CHOICE. :B

[OneShot]

First, as far as factual, there was never listed a link to the discussion in RO forums. Even after One Shot said he couldn't find it. Here it is http://www.redorchestragame.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20411. I don't think its a secret. I hope that it helps to end some of the speculations I have seen.

Sorry RD if I gave that impression, never meant to imply it was a secret and thanks for the link. I believe I said it was difficult to locate for me! Honestly, I did not know where to look. Obviously, I assumed it was on the RO boards, but it may as well have been at AHGN? I believe Mike checks all the forums and boards. I did see it after a couple of days when I searched for it, but admittedly I do not dig thru all the threads or posts over there, especially the "technical" pages, as most are way over my head. If I log on and a topic jumps out at me I read them. Otherwise, often I may not know that a thread even exists.

RO boards have what nearly 12,000 members worldwide that post 24/7, page after page of topics and threads, so I hope you can understand why I failed to see the thread there initially! Also frequently the title of the thread is just the first word or two of the discussion on the title/initial page at the RO boards, so I may have seen it and not even realized it was the thread on topic (which I believe was the case here). Now when I signed on here at RGN that morning it was listed on the front page in full, so I read it and posted my opinions.

I'm sure you as a mapper RD probably look for specific threads, such as level design first, I on the other hand like to look for history threads first, news/general discussion then I look around the various other topics if they interest me. No disrespect here guys, and certainly not trying to be argumentative, hopefully you guys know me better than that, just trying to shed some light as it involved my posting and comments. Thanks, see you on the battlefields.

[Reservoir Dog]

By "CUSTOM" I refer to the SKINS & ANIMATIONs. They are apparently the deciding factors. I'm not into semantics. The inclusion of certain aspects of AB is for compatibility and does not mean that the vehicle's attributes CHANGE if AB is not originally on the server, they remain as intended by the mapper and play with stock behavior. Unless AB is loaded and used by the server, nothing changes.

This is a quote from Hubes Breakout beta 1 in the RO forums. It is a response to me from Vivid on why he coded his vehicle factories using AB files:

A lot of servers don't want to run the mutator full time, I will only allow my map played by this mutator, so we have vehicle factories that call the mutator to work without needing it to run full time on the server.

It is balanced with the mutator otherwise PIVH against defending T34-85 or 76 is just silly, as all they have to do is get a good angle and can never be removed, the mutator alllow front turret penetrations witht he turret is facing its opponent this is a major bonus.

Also the angle armour is only adding +30 protection not +300 percent which is ridiculas.

Well I am hoping amizaur fines a way to pass how long a tank stays alive and buring in the factory ares and not just a global default, also I am hoping he allows mappers to change ammo loadouts.

Not sure if it can be any clearer Mike. It has nothing to do with skins and animations :confused:. Also, the map won't run on a server without the AB files installed, I can post that quote too if you want but I think you know this. Like I said earlier, this map forces players to play a certain way, and I heard no arguments. BTW, I am a big advocate for AB and the concept used in Hubes. This is a response to people saying they won't be "forced" to play a certain way by a map.

[Heinz]

I like beer.

[Mike Nomad]

@ RD.... if that's the case, I'm shocked that we were NOT told. I never knew the map would not run without AB running on the server. I always thought that by having AB on the server I was adding to the realism of Armor battle. Hubes modifies that?? That is hard to believe. I was under the impression that the 3k file was for compatibility. It doesn't really matter but I'd like to know what is really going on with a map.

Odd, I just went back and read all of ViViD's posts.... I find nowhere that he says anything other than this about AB 2.065:
2.065 AB Mod there was an update able to take out HT's more effiecently, Amaziur had not done anything to the Halftrack code themselves.

So you should have the same impact that the normal halftracks have on a 2.065 format.

If you using 2.03 I would suggest in updating to 2.065 which is a far better version.

PS it works just the same if the AB model is activated.
I turned AB off and the map ran just fine... I must've done something wrong. :)

But ... to stay on topic, If a map comes out that forces me to team tank.. odds are, it will NOT see the light of day on our Server.

Why is that so difficult to understand? I like solo tanking, if the map is going to force me to team tank.. it will most likely enjoy a spot in the bin or, I'll not play the thing. Its really that simple. :wink2:


@ Heinz, I like beer too! :)

Ya know, its almost coming to a point where running a server is not fun anymore.... :confused:

[Reservoir Dog]

Ok, you don't like to team tank. I get it.

I like beer too. We all have that in common.

I think I will have a few while on the DH-RGN server tomorrow. Cheers.:d

[Mike Nomad]

Great!! I'll see you there!! DH is looking real good.:wink1:

[=GG= Mr Moe]

I like beer.

You know what, I agree with you :bravo:

[Heinz]

You know what, I agree with you :bravo:


I knew I liked you. BHSmile

I had some ggs w/ my coffee this morning, and will obviously do so again with my afternoon (into evening) beers. :bravo: