Snow.

I agree and since I frankly don't expect this will stay on topic. This thread/discussion is closed, poll will stay open. It's a pity, because I would have been really interested in what players like about one style or another.

I am not sure what you are trying to achieve here. What I read between the lines here are attacks and accusations against whoever, I can only assume. It seems to me that your aim at the moment is to provoke drama and try to discredit other people/another group. Unfortunately, I still haven't found out which playstyle you prefer and why. As I perceive it, you are interested in something completely different.

My point is, why didn't you comment on the topic there, but now, when it comes to a survey asking which game style the players prefer. I have to admit that there is probably a connection, but I am surprised that you didnt commented on it right there, because that post was made much earlier than this one. It is understandable to me that if someone invests time, they would also like to see this actively used. But if there are many who don't like this, especially when it actually causes people to give up a game, it should be questioned. Than it is important to evaluate options and possibilities and not simply ignore this with the flippant statement: "The players should change." Also understandable to me is when people only complain to get annoyed. But not when solutions are proposed and just because they don't suit personally, they get ignored or their proposals are talked to pieces. If your assumption were correct, why has it never been possible to fill a second server even if it was actively seeded by several players? I have observed a few times how this has been tried by several groups (CT and FPI did it, dont know others) and unfortunately it has not worked. There is some conjecture as to whether this is due to the players, the server providers or the game itself. For example your already mentioned "Pilfering players off an active server by shit-talking another server". But the fact is, we have had this circumstance for a very long time. At the moment it is currently implemented and players use their options, even if I personally also dont like 24/7 for example Field, it is a players decision. If you don't like it, you have to campaign for the voting system to be changed or expanded. I'm not sure if I remember this specific situation and I don't know if I was involved in it. I can only remember one similar situation where map changes were spammed on each new loaded map with intention until Field would come back. Which led to quite a player drop, and to calm the situation down I had them take a vote that was clearly in favour of Field (80-90%). All players who have left before the server have not filled another server (Neither CT nor any other). If this was such a big problem for you, why didn't you directly contact the respective admin/mod who did it or someone else from the team to clarify this situation, but instead waited for an occasion to take it out in public? Reminds me a bit of a mud fight. Your post also leaves some room for interpretation, including the accusation that FPI (or part of our members) would try to prevent other servers from being used/filled. Which, if that was the statement, is a false accusation, because this is simple not true. I could also make accusations here, but I will refrain from doing so now because I don't think it would be helpful and we are also digressing from the topic. One of the proposed solutions that has already been rejected. Without an alternative counter-proposal. Basically, I find it very unfortunate how the thread is currently developing. In my eyes, there is too much focus on the issue of player limits at the moment and other digressive topics. Which in my opinion, is one but for sure not the biggest factor in the players choice of why they prefer to play PUB or PUG.

Even though this was not the intention of this survey, I find it interesting that you bring this up on this topic and context. But there is probably a connection. It is most likely true, that there are probably enough players for a 2nd server. But as others have already mentioned, players are in this point herd animals and mostly dont even try to fill a 2nd server. There were already made some attemps in the past which tried to resolved this issue and make it more attractive for players to fill a second server. But as long as some people are not open minded to discuss a community wide solution this will I think go nowhere if only some single groups try solutions. Also interesting you bringing up the point of shit-talking about a active filled server, there are some observations that can be made in this context. Wondering why you bringing up this points in this thread and not in the mentioned thread. As I wrote in the thread, both playstyles have their justification and their charm and have different focuses. But it is also true, the difference between them and what works one style doesnt have to work on the other. And it's good to have variety which we should support and not impose one for the overall game. It is legitimate that players may not like changes. To ignore feedback like this, will make people leave and dont improve the game (I thought this is a community game). Since I'm around in this community, the playerbase didn't grow, what simply cannot be discussed away because its a fact. It is perfectly okay to have ideas and try them out (for example breaking stalemates), but if they don't go down well, or if they only go down well with a small group, you have to think about solutions (either rolling back or doing something new). But when people are inaccessible to feedback, people feel ignored, resign and/or just leave without comment. When I joined this game and community I already noticed there are a lot of negative vibes, and I asked myself, why is this so. Since a while I can understand players why they have this attitude. Because they don't feel heard. There is (and/or was) a huge group of players who dont participate on forum or discord and just play the game. I know we can blame them for not doing that, but cant force them. But most of them only give their feedback on ingame servers. So it is no rocket science, just listen to them what they saying. But as long only feedback from "PUG players" is the main input, it Is clear in which direction it is going. Those players dont have a (huge) lobby and I want to give them a voice to improve and to achieve an improvement of the situation. Because with this point I fully agree:

sorry, wassnt aware that people could only play skirmish/single player, I assumed that there is no one who plays Skirmish exclusively. However, you are right and I have added it.

Which kind of playstyle on Renegade-X do you play, enjoy and/or prefer? At the moment we have currently two established game styles: - Public (PUB) - Pick-up-Games (PUG) Also feel free to comment why you enjoy a playstyle.

My opinion about those features, they work in PUG, but public is a different style and things which work on PUGs or PUBs dont have to work on the other playstyle. Both have their charm, but are simply different and trying new stuff is also ok, but if it doesnt work like intentended it should reverted. It wouldnt be that huge issue if servers could be adapt it on configs to what is working for each style or let players decide with votes. But it seems like most people dont care much about public games and force the whole game to PUG style. Even when features doesnt make sense and players complain about those settings. Feels like "not the game has to change, the players must change".

wow so many servers and active players... that must have been a great time

Mods are not always around, thats why it is ok that there is the possibility to votekick for players. If someone abuses this option, you should report the abuse via !modrequest or direct to responsible server mods, in most cases screenshots, videos, logs, etc. makes it mods much easier to support and clearify the situation and probably ban the affected user from using votes. @Sniff My Danglersif that happens again use the above described procedure to get support.

What does it break? I dont really understand your point atm. In my experience as player and admin of a server, I see players want to decide it on their own with democracy decisions... If they want to play on 1v1 with Ion, Ped, Commander, I'm fine with that if they want to play it this way. Also sometimes there is none commander and no one wants to command but people want to stop harvy... I think a voteable option would be the easiest way to implement that... also atm I dont see any other option?? You can additonal make a config paramenter to enable/disable it on server side so server owners can deactivate those votes if they dont want to have it voteable. Thats true and I dont think it needs to be added, as you already mentioned there are already to many informationen on the HUD. Maybe adapt loading screen of maps, if people connect the first time it can show the server settings, for fast computers force it to show it 30secs.

I fully support that suggestion and would be the best solution for that problem. correct, it is already implemented. it is decided by server owners what the limit is, default is one player. That needed to be said. And also to be added: It doesn't exactly increases the motivation to run a server (and pay money for it!) where you are held responsible for basic problems by players and often have to make that clear.

It has already been a while, there have been different special events on map PARADISE. Would there be any interest in resurrecting it? In needs a minimal number of participants so that it makes sense to make the effort of preparations, which is which is quite large (more than one PUG). To see what have been done on those events, check out the following youtube videos: I would be very happy to receive feedback of any kind

did you read the what happen? That case had nothing todo with this, and I never did and never will do use those possibility to switch. If I want to switch I use the same option as every player has (which I rarely use), but when I switch I do it at the start or to balance during the game and no one else will do this from FPI staff. Remember that for the future. https://www.discord.gg/mBKzher We all know in the most cases it will be ignored. And switching of a good inf player to the other teams ruins the game for the left people on this team and make them leave and is somekind of roflstomping. To clearify: I really dont have a problem if someone wants to play for the other team, and to beginning of the match I would never check who switched - I want to play too and not checking stats whole time. Dont forget, all mods are players too, they want to play too and only if necessary we try to help in which case whatever needed. I would be very happy if this role wouldnt be necessary, but sadly we need it. Basically in my opionion: swaping should only allowed to the beginning of a match (maybe 5mins) and after that only to balance teamcounts. Then such discussions would not be necessary. Because if people know they cant switch, they will just play and not standing afk in a building an hitting whole time switch button, which also makes the teams unbalanced. Nothing more to add. Feel free to contact me via discord.

To clarify the situation / Statement from my site: You complained about a unbalance and not enough teamplay which does not really match with this statement As StyX already posted, Air was lost and you switched. Didnt noticed that switch because I was busy defending. After that I tryied a turnaround for our team by sneaking, well it didnt work, you killed me, that happens (quiet often as sneaker), but that was not a reason for switch! I used the respawn time to check teams and saw there are two players less. So I switched you back for a balancing, because someone needed to change and it is not quiet a fairplay move and kind of teamplay to leave his team and switch before moments a building is lost. If you have any more needs for clarification, you are welcome to join EKT/FPI Discord to discuss it.