Which playstyle do you play and enjoy?

[Snow.]

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.

[Backfromhell]

Quit Ren X Pub Games after some "hardcoding" changes. PuG never played because I played without voice chat and I don't need any commander stuff either.

Tried again later and it gave me too many PuG changes in public games.

Quit quickly.

Also set the number of players to 64 by the CT server (no dev decision) was an absolute no-go.

[limsup]

I've played overwhelmingly public games. At times we have fun people there not tryharding, enjoying a lighter game, with some socializing & banter in chat. Since the game has not a huge playerbase and consequentially no matchmaking, games can become very frustrating. You just have to be lucky to have such a light and enjoyable match as a lot of factors can break that.

For PUG-s, I've only played a single one and don't plan to do anymore. Too fast paced, too stressful for my old bones

(If anyone wonders: though we've won 2 out of 3 games that PUG under Gliven's command and I was best support both times, its too much excitement for me)

In a nutshell: if anyone wants to play competitively, if they love fast paced games, go play PUGs (CT discord on Fridays, RenX discord on weekends at the moment).

If you want less competitive, more easy paced games, seek out a public server during PUG times

[isupreme]

Pugs require  Ears.    No thank you.

[kira]

Usually i dont like to play pugs because the time it takes for the gathering a late hour it begins my eyes start to close up... 

I mostly all the time play public and being social while playing which I find more satisfying. 

It is tough to command 31 random dudes5 through text but it possible and do happen, which leads to remarkable matches and fun enviorment to be in. 

[Handepsilon]

I told people 64 is too much, but nooooo~

I'd probably enjoy PUG, but it's very late for me, so I can only play PUB. It's a bit too grindy though, somehow

[Alpha001]

Don't feel like it's worth playing anymore. All it brought was depression where you can only play as engineer and just stand there repairing while everyone shoots around. Especially in pug. Pugs were fun but it's all the same thing all everytime from tactics to everyone defending or base capping.

[Joel]

Pugs and pubs both are great, but I prefer pugs over pubs just because it's more organized and fun, and the main problem I have with pugs is that it starts very late for me which makes it very hard for me to attend it.

Sometimes pubs are better if you want a relaxing game, so its really hard to say which one is better

 

 

 

 

[kira]

The chaos on public games can be solved by using voice chats on discord.
all you gotta do is hop on voice chat and call other teamates as well (hopefully they do because many are  avoiding it)
 

[Backfromhell]

@kiraNot everyone speaks English and there are some who do not want to use voice chat. Furthermore, the pub (even if teams were random) would then go even further in the direction of PuG.

Many can also use TS or Dis with friends without X additional players in there. Pub is a completely different mode than PuG, believe it or not.

[kira]

there are who can who just need a little cheer up

[roweboat]

I only played public games for years, still enjoy the dynamics and gameplay.

Finally been playing PUGs a bit regularly now, but I do find the time frame for them a bit difficult sometimes, since it is early afternoon for me. And honestly 3-5 hours is alot of time needed to dedicate to it for a fair play session. its a great time when it all works out though =D

[OTT]

Haven't played the game for a while,quite busy irl,and I'm also waiting for the DDoSer to get bored(yet again) before playing again,

Anyways,

For those looking for a more serious/competitive gameplay(I do sometimes),the PUG is obviously the better choice here(no shit),the last few times I played,it was more balanced than it ever was before thanks to the commendable efforts of the organizers.My main issue with it is that teams already know which faction they'll be next map,so when they lose,they try to vote a map that favors their faction,and that kinda defeats the purpose of balance if you ask me.That's how things were when I last played pugs,not sure if it changed now.

However,I still prefer Public games,while balance(stacked teams) and player attitude can be an issue,there is still more chance there for random and funny stuff/dialogue to happen,more chance for epic comebacks,as the team composition changes often during matches.I chill 90% of the time when it comes to games(my life is already "competitive" enough),and public games offer that without much stress,as you can join and leave whenever you need to.

Cheers!

[Singleplayerdood]

Only fight against bots over here! I'll never have proper skills to play multiplayer nor do I have the time to do so! Also, why this choice ain't in the list?

Edited November 9, 2021 by Singleplayerdood

[Snow.]

On 11/9/2021 at 5:01 PM, Singleplayerdood said:

Only fight against bots over here! I'll never have proper skills to play multiplayer nor do I have the time to do so! Also, why this choice ain't in the list?

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.

[Dagama]

I like turtles

[kira]

10 hours ago, Dagama said:

I like turtles

how exactly, dogs arent your firsr choise?

 

[Madkill40]

There's definitely enough active users to fill two servers around most times these days, it's only not seen because players aren't motivated enough to try - and when attempts are made its usually done in bad faith. (i.e. Pilfering players off an active server by shit-talking another server) 

I honestly wouldn't mind a 40 slot and a 64 slot, with the idea that both can be filled up. 

Users just have to try harder and for longer than a mere week to fill two at once otherwise RenX is going to struggle to break out of this never-ending 1-server-at-a-time. 

 

Less negativity would go a long way.

Not sure why users are praising 'Backfromhell's earlier comment that essentially shits on changes made to prevent stalemates (i.e. Commander mod) -  We even tried having a 40 slot and 64 slot server simultaneously running once before, but there wasn't enough motivation behind both being filled and users tended to fill the 64 slot over the 40 slot server. 

Again, it's not impossible, there just needs to be more drive from players to fill servers instead of just one server. Use bots to pass the time, encourage others not in-game to join lower pop servers, take advantage of being able to play on smaller and more unplayed maps with low-pop. 

The advantage about more than one server going at a time is if you don't want to play on a certain map, instead of "Change map" votes, you can just hop to the other server [provided its on a different map than the current server]

Edited November 11, 2021 by Madkill40

[Backfromhell]

Perhaps some stopped playing for similar reasons.

"In the old days" there were only 40 player servers and both TMX and EKT were well attended, even a third server from time to time.

But it was a long time ago in the age of the Internet. I will not go into further development in the past, as this is about who plays which (or all) modes.

Positive and negative things are part of it.

[noxidevad]

EKT was 64 players, and that includes the CTF/C-CTF servers. 

[OTT]

14 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

There's definitely enough active users to fill two servers around most times these days, it's only not seen because players aren't motivated enough to try - and when attempts are made its usually done in bad faith. (i.e. Pilfering players off an active server by shit-talking another server) 

I honestly wouldn't mind a 40 slot and a 64 slot, with the idea that both can be filled up. 

Users just have to try harder and for longer than a mere week to fill two at once otherwise RenX is going to struggle to break out of this never-ending 1-server-at-a-time. 

 

Less negativity would go a long way.

Not sure why users are praising 'Backfromhell's earlier comment that essentially shits on changes made to prevent stalemates (i.e. Commander mod) -  We even tried having a 40 slot and 64 slot server simultaneously running once before, but there wasn't enough motivation behind both being filled and users tended to fill the 64 slot over the 40 slot server. 

Again, it's not impossible, there just needs to be more drive from players to fill servers instead of just one server. Use bots to pass the time, encourage others not in-game to join lower pop servers, take advantage of being able to play on smaller and more unplayed maps with low-pop. 

The advantage about more than one server going at a time is if you don't want to play on a certain map, instead of "Change map" votes, you can just hop to the other server [provided its on a different map than the current server]

All past attempts to have both options in the server list (64 and 40 player limit) have resulted in people ending up on the 64 player server eventually.In my opinon,one of the main reasons why these attempts failed is that maps weren't split too,we need to only have earlier RenX maps on the 40 players server(Walls,Islands,field,Xmountain etc..),since they were made from the begining for the 40~ player limit,and the 64 limit servers should only have newer maps that were made huge enough to hold 64 players(Field X,Outposts .. also lakeside being an exception from the earlier maps).

While I'm pretty sure the 64 limit server is still guaranteed to fill up,the fact that people will not able to play some of their favorite maps on this server could give a handful of them an incentive to join the 40 limit server.

This could be discussed more among server owners,it's worth a try I guess,40 players playing on Outposts might be little bit playable,the same can't be said about 64 players playing Islands.

Edited November 12, 2021 by OTT

[noxidevad]

We've also tried to think outside the box and try different player counts and try different methods but however this has become essentially exhaustive. The other issue you truly have within RenX, is the player base is a herd-like mentality. They will follow the herd regardless, It's almost a catch-22

Whilst in general i am not of a fan of Renegade-X for the time being, by all means i am sure EKT/FPI will almost likely be willing to give some of the above another try (would be handy having CT somewhat onboard ie trial player counts) even if it's just for few days or something, that way we can at least say we tried again and that's the least we can do.

 

[Backfromhell]

NOxid , Beta 2 to end of 4 (could be first 5 too not sure ) was 40 players. Don't know the Beta (or Alpha) before.

and discussions and trials after the 64 players everytime end up in Nowhere.

but that's the past and now we have 2021. Dinos are also extinct (I'am a Dino)

 

[Madkill40]

10 hours ago, OTT said:

While I'm pretty sure the 64 limit server is still guaranteed to fill up,the fact that people will not able to play some of their favorite maps on this server could give a handful of them an incentive to join the 40 limit server.

The most played maps are Walls, Field(-X), Islands, Tomb.  Sometimes a few others. 

The maps have set player-amounts for the post-game map vote, so at this point a 40-pop max server will enable what it deems appopriate and likewise, with 64-players.

Unless I misunderstood and you weren't implying a 64 player slot server just shouldn't have 'OG' maps in its rotation whatsoever? 

8 hours ago, N0xid-Ev4D said:

even if it's just for few days

It could be trialled, just not at the cost of there being no 64 slot server. Have both, fill both, it's doable, the amount of users are there. And yes, a max of 40 can have certain larger maps stricken from its rotation. 

Could be done. But reassurances need to be made, gather people willing to participate. 

[noxidevad]

7 hours ago, Backfromhell said:

NOxid , Beta 2 to end of 4 (could be first 5 too not sure ) was 40 players. Don't know the Beta (or Alpha) before.

and discussions and trials after the 64 players everytime end up in Nowhere.

but that's the past and now we have 2021. Dinos are also extinct (I'am a Dino)

 

My bad i thought you was referring to old ren for the 40 players base

[Backfromhell]

NOxid, relax, there's still plenty of room in my Jurassic Park

[Dagama]

On 11/10/2021 at 7:36 PM, kira said:

how exactly, dogs arent your firsr choise?

 

I dont know

[Snow.]

On 11/11/2021 at 3:47 PM, Madkill40 said:

There's definitely enough active users to fill two servers around most times these days, it's only not seen because players aren't motivated enough to try - and when attempts are made its usually done in bad faith. (i.e. Pilfering players off an active server by shit-talking another server) 

I honestly wouldn't mind a 40 slot and a 64 slot, with the idea that both can be filled up.

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.

On 11/11/2021 at 3:47 PM, Madkill40 said:

Less negativity would go a long way.

Not sure why users are praising 'Backfromhell's earlier comment that essentially shits on changes made to prevent stalemates (i.e. Commander mod)

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:

On 11/11/2021 at 3:47 PM, Madkill40 said:

[...] RenX is going to struggle to break out of this never-ending 1-server-at-a-time. 

[Madkill40]

6 hours ago, Snow. said:

Wondering why you bringing up this points in this thread and not in the mentioned thread.

On 11/5/2021 at 9:51 PM, Backfromhell said:

Quit Ren X Pub Games after some "hardcoding" changes. PuG never played because I played without voice chat and I don't need any commander stuff either.

Tried again later and it gave me too many PuG changes in public games.

Quit quickly.

Also set the number of players to 64 by the CT server (no dev decision) was an absolute no-go.

"hardcording" changes doesn't refer to the Commander Mod? 

Not sure what else that could refer to that is a noticeable ''hardcoding changes''

On 11/11/2021 at 4:35 PM, Backfromhell said:

"In the old days" there were only 40 player servers and both TMX and EKT were well attended, even a third server from time to time.

But it was a long time ago in the age of the Internet. I will not go into further development in the past, as this is about who plays which (or all) modes.

Technical difficulties killed the servers, [due to one user] once the difficulties had passed were sorted there's been a struggle to have more than one server going at a time and the moment two servers have been filling up the technical difficulties returned once more. 

 

@Snow. I dislike throwing out the derogatory term of "herd mentality", I don't think that's true because if it was filling up two servers would be easier because of "herd mentality". There's a lot more competition out there, what with other free to play multiplayer games, launcher download timeouts whilst downloading the game and a low patience threshold when it comes to filling another server. 

There is a CT NA server, but the attitude of some players involves players harassing NA players to keep playing on the EU server regardless. 

Regular players falling into the burnout pit and ruining the vibe during games, just because they're bored they nasty things or act inappropriately despite being regulars/familiar to a lot of players which also hurts the game, which hits harder on a game with lower numbers and 99% of the time one server to enjoy playing on. 

The repetition of going from Field-X to Field then two maps later back to one of the Field's, which is why I would hope more and more that players would think to fill a 2nd server than just stop playing entirely.

The attitude of voting for a map change the moment a map is changed to another one after a round is also quite a sour approach by some players - again, its regulars that commit this moreso than other less familiar players, which they shouldn't do just because they can. One time on FPI's server they forced a map change from Lakeside to Field, the Lakeside game which had just started, and there were roughly 38 players which is enough for Lakeside game but it wasn't a majority that got a choice - because the ones happy with Lakeside were playing rather than spamming the chat. But rather than FPI encouraging players to fill a second server the FPI admins just listened to the one or maybe three players who spammed chat for a forced map change because they didn't win their vote for 'Field'. Justifying it with "Field fills the server" is bogus and a poor excuse to deter people from leaving when those players who complained could have just as easily encouraged playing on the CT server or any other server to play on. 

CT has always tried to encourage more than one server to be filled, be it their second server or the EKT/FPI server if CTs server was full. You can't fill a second server if a minority of players expend their energy to hamper migration attempts rather than use that energy to encourage filling another server or migration attempts.

[Agent]

I’ve said this before, but the issue with only one server cannot be resolved without one of the following, preferably some combination of the three:

1) An influx of players

2) A technical solution to load balance players across multiple game servers when a match ends (see old posts about “soft limits”

3) Reduce the hard limit back down to 40

 

Blaming the community, be it the players or the server owners/staff, is pointless. My understanding for as to why the soft limit idea was never implemented, was just that nobody else knew how, and I never had time. It requires devbot or other systems work to orchestrate. Since the concept was entirely opt-in, it was relatively uncontroversial. In theory this could still be implemented with some bot changes and maybe a mutator, but would require coordination with a server owner.

[Snow.]

2 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

"hardcording" changes doesn't refer to the Commander Mod? 

Not sure what else that could refer to that is a noticeable ''hardcoding changes''

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.

2 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

I dislike throwing out the derogatory term of "herd mentality", I don't think that's true because if it was filling up two servers would be easier because of "herd mentality".

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.

2 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

The repetition of going from Field-X to Field then two maps later back to one of the Field's, which is why I would hope more and more that players would think to fill a 2nd server than just stop playing entirely.

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.

2 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

One time on FPI's server they forced a map change from Lakeside to Field, the Lakeside game which had just started, and there were roughly 38 players which is enough for Lakeside game but it wasn't a majority that got a choice - because the ones happy with Lakeside were playing rather than spamming the chat. But rather than FPI encouraging players to fill a second server the FPI admins just listened to the one or maybe three players who spammed chat for a forced map change because they didn't win their vote for 'Field'. Justifying it with "Field fills the server" is bogus and a poor excuse to deter people from leaving when those players who complained could have just as easily encouraged playing on the CT server or any other server to play on.

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.

 

1 hour ago, Agent said:

3) Reduce the hard limit back down to 40

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.

[kira]

Instead of writing book series on fourms, it would be much benefit community if you guys scout new players that joins the discord, and follow up if they need help to get familier with game so they won't quit day after. 

Quite simple solution isn't it? 

[Agent]

13 minutes ago, Snow. said:

One of the proposed solutions that has already been rejected. Without an alternative counter-proposal.

Yeah, it's one of those things that are absolutely impossible to do without controversy.

I suppose you wanted more direct responses to your initial question though, so here we go with my more in-depth personal perspective I guess:

I don't really play anymore for obvious reasons and I voted as such. For the last several years though, I mostly just played whenever friends or people I knew were on voice chat. As the years dragged on that became less and less frequent, as many of the folks I'd come to know became less and less active. Whether I played PUGs more or pubs more tended to alternate. PUGs are great for planning a specific time to play some RenX for folks, everybody can plan for it. Pubs are great for impromptu, when you're just quickly looking for a game to play together. That's just part of the nature of organized events vs standard matches. The game quality of PUGs vs pubs didn't really matter that much to me, I just enjoy playing games with folks I know and like, regardless of what the game is. I suspect that's true for at least a few people. And I by extension the only reason I would ever play the game again, is to play with friends who happen to be playing it. After 7 years, people do get tired of just playing the same game.

I guess as far as personal preferences go, the pugs do tend to be more organized, but also more stressful and more prone to people getting upset with eachother. I can't remember the last time I played a pug and felt comfortable speaking as a player. More recently when I was playing New World (MMO), I actually ran into the same exact issue -- I just wasn't comfortable speaking in such a large group, but also so many people just sounded so incredibly pretentious when talking to eachother that I didn't even want to take part anymore. That issue doesn't really happen with pubs. You'll occasionally get obnoxious people moaning about the team or something, and in pubs I was always more likely to get PM'd about random things when I was just trying to play a game, but in general you'll have a more fun casual experience in a pub game. You just have to focus more on having fun than on winning in pubs. That difference isn't exactly unknown, either:

Even those who aren't trying to play with anybody in particular, they're preferring to play matches with other players. I guess that's where the player counts tie in I guess.

 

All of that is to say, the game styles... don't really matter, to me anyways, as long as people aren't jerks. I suppose if I were to try to play today on my own, the first thought coming to my head isn't actually pug vs pub, it's "am I going to be bothered by other people?", and I can't definitively say no, and I don't think I'd have any real recourse if someone did, so I just don't.

[OTT]

Eventually we'll have to stop pretending there are enough players to fill 2 servers with 64 player limit right now and in the near future,that might only happen during Saturday/Sunday pugs for obvious reasons,not sure if the new launcher will change that,but we the community have to find our own solutions for now.

A similar discussion was opened 2-3 years,and many agreed that it wouldn't hurt to give the 40 limit a trial again,to make it possible for more than 1 server to fill,and for better gameplay on smaller maps,so active servers were set to 40 limit,just 1 person refused to compromise and stuck with 64 limit,and the trial failed obviously.

I know many people have already said this many times,but let me say it 1 last time(from me at least),with the engine at its limit,64 player limit increases vehicle lag,net lag,and of course ruins the gameplay of maps that weren't made for that number of players.

1 hour ago, Madkill40 said:

CT has always tried to encourage more than one server to be filled, be it their second server or the EKT/FPI server if CTs server was full. You can't fill a second server if a minority of players expend their energy to hamper migration attempts rather than use that energy to encourage filling another server or migration attempts.

Well since YOU brought FPI and CT into this,with all due respect,from my experience that is sadly not the case,no server owners care about filling another server,we can all encourage players to fill another server and many do actually,but that will be just talk,we need actions,actions from the community all together,we need server owners to be willing to compromise.

Sorry,but when you say CT,who exactly do you mean ? the owner ? the admins ? the moderators ? or some people who hang around there and only play on CT RenX server and only join FPI or other servers to complain about lag and tell other people to leave current server and join CT instead,even if neither servers are lagging or both are actually lagging,and when they find no issues,they invent ones.So you bring that one time issue you had on FPI,but I don't see you commenting about that or the many issues people had with stacking players ruining public games on CT.Funny thing is FPI admins,since it's birth,had tried their best to prevent team stacking,but they got backclash instead,because they trying to "prevent people from playing with their friends" as if stacking both in game and discord voice is the only way to play and have fun with your friends.We used to do that in the past,but when the game put us on different factions,we actually switched voice channels too(not left and rejoined repeatedly ingame until we are with our friends),and it was still fun.

2 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

The attitude of voting for a map change the moment a map is changed to another one after a round is also quite a sour approach by some players - again, its regulars that commit this moreso than other less familiar players, which they shouldn't do just because they can. One time on FPI's server they forced a map change from Lakeside to Field, the Lakeside game which had just started, and there were roughly 38 players which is enough for Lakeside game but it wasn't a majority that got a choice - because the ones happy with Lakeside were playing rather than spamming the chat. But rather than FPI encouraging players to fill a second server the FPI admins just listened to the one or maybe three players who spammed chat for a forced map change because they didn't win their vote for 'Field'. Justifying it with "Field fills the server" is bogus and a poor excuse to deter people from leaving when those players who complained could have just as easily encouraged playing on the CT server or any other server to play on. 

My friend,if you bring me one issue you had on one server,I could bring worse issues I had with another,this particular issue doesn't have much effect on filling 2 servers,since you need to fill the first server anyway before trying to fill another.People trying to fill another server when the first one isn't full yet has always ended up in failure,patience being the main reason.This isn't what where're discussing here,this isn't about FPI or CT,the universe doesn't revolve around that,most of the players aren't affiliated with neither or don't care at all,they just want to join a server with players and have fun.

We all know there are issues with the player base's attitude,but we can't expect the average player to fix it,this is something for the server owners to work together to fix.Not sure why some people are afraid of experimenting,this player base is persistent,drama didn't kill it,the DDoSer didn't kill it,and surely a few trials won't.

Anyway,this is going nowhere,and never will most likely,but I want to tell myself that I tried.

My dude @Snow. forgive me if I went off Topic,I tried to abbreviate

Farewell everyone

[Backfromhell]

3 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

"hardcording" changes doesn't refer to the Commander Mod? 

Not sure what else that could refer to that is a noticeable ''hardcoding changes''

Minelimit ,Vehiclelimit was hardcoding too, but looks like my memory is a bit better . Madkill.

Regards

from Jurassic Park

PS: btw, here ppl can write which playstyle they play with comments, or when the stopped why?

 

[Madkill40]

9 hours ago, Snow. said:

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?

In case you didn't read between the lines, it was possible, it was happening, technical difficulties i.e. [DDoS] completely killed RenX the moment a 2nd server started filling up at long last on both occasions. Weird coincidence, right?

[Madkill40]

8 hours ago, Backfromhell said:

Minelimit ,Vehiclelimit was hardcoding too, but looks like my memory is a bit better . Madkill.

Regards

from Jurassic Park

PS: btw, here ppl can write which playstyle they play with comments, or when the stopped why?

 

Those limits existed in OG Ren, so... what are you saying?

[Backfromhell]

Madkill, refresh your brain please.

B2 -B4 or start of B5 was the minelimit free.

EKT had an higher minelimit and TMX a lower one. TMX was AOW and EKT was Marathon.

You must learn to read my stuff correctly too

Vehicle Limit was the same (possibility to change in maps), I never talked about Alpha or eventually B1 (if this ever exist) . I start playing at 2.

Do me a favour don't tell stuff what isn't true. thx.

PS: It seems like you live in your own world.

 

[Agent]

1 hour ago, Backfromhell said:

Madkill, refresh your brain please.

Quit being an ass. I was one of the people who largely supported moving creative control for those limits from server owners to level designers, and even I assumed you were talking about commander mode and building armor and airdrops and such. There’s been lots of changes over the years, the limits were comparatively small.

There’s nothing wrong with trying to establish a default game style, which we seriously struggled with for years due to the lack of any official/vanilla option, no way to fund such, and some folks actively and very vocally objecting to the creation of such. It was part of the “de-facto official server” crap shoot issue that was extremely difficult to manage for years.

There’s no such thing as an easy solution to a hard problem. Establishing some commonality between servers so people could still feel like they were at least playing the same game, was one of those overly complicated hard problems. Not sure why you’re taking your distaste for a really old small change out on madkill of all people, if it bothers you that much make a mutator, something like that would be trivial to implement.

I did get a giggle out of the phrase “refresh your brain” though, not gonna lie, but still very rude!

[Backfromhell]

Agent, you are following the Thread, right?

I wrote why i stop and Madkill felt direct offended.

Madkill did not write anything about "Which mode do you play". Only offending and telling things against my personal choice why I stop and other things.

So you find it's rude to write "refresh your brain". He compares the old Renegade with B2 and following Betas.

So sometimes it's better to read not only partly like Madkill did.

But , thats OK. I still don't know (he must not write) which Gamemode or all he like.

And your Hardcoding was a no Go for me and you must accept it. Doesn't matter if that count or not.

Survey to answer is aloud.

Have a nice day :)

[Snow.]

3 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

In case you didn't read between the lines, it was possible, it was happening, technical difficulties i.e. [DDoS] completely killed RenX the moment a 2nd server started filling up at long last on both occasions. Weird coincidence, right?

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.

[noxidevad]

Which playstyle do you play and enjoy?

Which playstyle do you play and enjoy?

Which playstyle do you play and enjoy?

Which playstyle do you play and enjoy?

Either get back on topic or lock this pointless thread now.

 

 

[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.

[roweboat]

Very disappointed the conversation devolved so quickly. The question posed is valid and should be discussed respectfully.

 

Feel free to open another topic to bring ideas together - if you can avoid ad hominem attacks and naysaying.