Battlefield 4 Would you prefer the tower on Siege to stay up?
- Thread starter 5starGeneralAlphaSnake
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2015
- Messages
- 214
I would like to see the Tower stay up, either stay up for the whole round, or the tower can only come down, with 500 ticket or less is reached on either side. That way snipers and anybody who uses the tower can do what they want before the tower come falling down.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 611
Hey Lt!!!
I would of course kick if someone was, but generally I've found myself kicking and banning less and less on Shanghai. The main thing would be proactively warning players using a keyboard bind (to make it easier), or even the !YELL command. It would be a standard W/K/B (with the B being a 1-day TBan)
There are enough people on the server that are BIG supporters of the tower being up, that as soon as anyone starts taking the tower down, multiple (regular players who play all the time) will snitch on who's doing it. I'm pretty confident this will happen, just as it does in Lockers, where people snitch on who's mortaring from uncaps. I don't think this would be very difficult to enforce as long as everyone knows you're an admin, and what is going on. Generally I've found the simple presence of an admin is enough to keep everyone in line. Since this would be an "Discretionary Admin Rule" only when you are there and willing to enforce it, it would make things easier by only being a rule when don't mind doing a little extra admin duty.... this would most certainly require a proactive admin.
The ticket threshold of course could be 1,500 / 2000, or 1000 / 2000, that part really doesn't matter too much as the main problem here is when the tower comes down right away at the start of the round.
Anyone else have any thoughts or opinions on how this might be implemented or how you feel about doing this? I'm usually a pro-active admin, but some of you may be inclined not to be as involved as me.
Binary
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2015
- Messages
- 249
Binary,
First I wanted to make sure none of thoughts are coming across as offensive or anything. Sometimes when one writes something a certain aggressive tone can be interpreted. I have nothing but respect for you. You didn't write anything that offends me or that I thought you might be offended, I just wanted to make sure I didn't offend....
Anyways, I started to think about enforcing this and you might be right. It might be actually OK to enforce. The YELL command would help, but I know leadership really doesn't like use to use it. Only when it's really necessary. If we wouldn't have permission to use the yell command, it might be difficult to enforce due to the "but I have my chat hidden...." complaint. Maybe a pyell would be better suited.
I know sometimes when we get metro going we do pistols only as a sort of fun option. However usually this breaks down once we start getting over about 16 people in the server. Granted it's quite a far cry from keeping the tower up because not everyone can shoot at the tower. There are only so many tanks and C4 people willingly to try. However, it is still an example of trying to force gameplay that isn't a rule.
Lastly, in a question I posed yesterday, does any other level have something like "the tower in siege" where people want it to stay up. Then I thought of locker. Almost always C eventually gets taken down. Do people every complain about that coming down? If not, why not? It seems that if you control C with it up, it can be very difficult to break through and usually rockets come flying. Locker people feel free to chime in.
First I wanted to make sure none of thoughts are coming across as offensive or anything. Sometimes when one writes something a certain aggressive tone can be interpreted. I have nothing but respect for you. You didn't write anything that offends me or that I thought you might be offended, I just wanted to make sure I didn't offend....
Anyways, I started to think about enforcing this and you might be right. It might be actually OK to enforce. The YELL command would help, but I know leadership really doesn't like use to use it. Only when it's really necessary. If we wouldn't have permission to use the yell command, it might be difficult to enforce due to the "but I have my chat hidden...." complaint. Maybe a pyell would be better suited.
I know sometimes when we get metro going we do pistols only as a sort of fun option. However usually this breaks down once we start getting over about 16 people in the server. Granted it's quite a far cry from keeping the tower up because not everyone can shoot at the tower. There are only so many tanks and C4 people willingly to try. However, it is still an example of trying to force gameplay that isn't a rule.
Lastly, in a question I posed yesterday, does any other level have something like "the tower in siege" where people want it to stay up. Then I thought of locker. Almost always C eventually gets taken down. Do people every complain about that coming down? If not, why not? It seems that if you control C with it up, it can be very difficult to break through and usually rockets come flying. Locker people feel free to chime in.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2015
- Messages
- 542
does nt matter!
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 611
Lt!!!!
You have always been a gentleman, never have you said anything that has been offensive to me in any way (even slightly).
If this gets implemented it shouldn't be too tough, as long as there's some common sense, and open communication, behind it. For example, if an admin wants to implement this rule, he/she should ask via admin-chat if it's ok to do so. If any other admin objects then the rule then its off the table - its either all on board or none. I've been playing later in the evening lately and when there's 30-40 players, its a lot easier than when there are 64. I've almost always been able to identify who is taking the tower down right away.
On other maps, "levolution" isn't quite as game changing, on Siege its almost as if you're playing a different map altogether. The sniping style and visibility changes, the inaccessibility to the C peninsula (including when you spawn, its always by the street), it changes a lot strategically.
I would love to implement this as a trial, maybe even for a month or so but as is everything in EGO, its a community decision and the decisions come top down, so i'm comfortable with with any actions / in-actions leadership takes on the issue, but it would be nice to see how it goes. Even if for a little bit.
Binary
You have always been a gentleman, never have you said anything that has been offensive to me in any way (even slightly).
If this gets implemented it shouldn't be too tough, as long as there's some common sense, and open communication, behind it. For example, if an admin wants to implement this rule, he/she should ask via admin-chat if it's ok to do so. If any other admin objects then the rule then its off the table - its either all on board or none. I've been playing later in the evening lately and when there's 30-40 players, its a lot easier than when there are 64. I've almost always been able to identify who is taking the tower down right away.
On other maps, "levolution" isn't quite as game changing, on Siege its almost as if you're playing a different map altogether. The sniping style and visibility changes, the inaccessibility to the C peninsula (including when you spawn, its always by the street), it changes a lot strategically.
I would love to implement this as a trial, maybe even for a month or so but as is everything in EGO, its a community decision and the decisions come top down, so i'm comfortable with with any actions / in-actions leadership takes on the issue, but it would be nice to see how it goes. Even if for a little bit.
Binary
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2015
- Messages
- 12
1
I would love to see an experiment with this on the weekend where like at night, the rule is put into effect, that way if it is liked and a huge hit, people will say something about it in chat. If a lot of people agree and just a handful disagree, I think that it has potential. Even just the idea is worth trying out as so many people hate the tower down, and having a guarantee that the tower will remain up for a specified time at least would draw people in. The more popular the server becomes, the more people willing to pay only $5 a month for dedicated supporter for not having to wait for the cue line.
I would love to see an experiment with this on the weekend where like at night, the rule is put into effect, that way if it is liked and a huge hit, people will say something about it in chat. If a lot of people agree and just a handful disagree, I think that it has potential. Even just the idea is worth trying out as so many people hate the tower down, and having a guarantee that the tower will remain up for a specified time at least would draw people in. The more popular the server becomes, the more people willing to pay only $5 a month for dedicated supporter for not having to wait for the cue line.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2015
- Messages
- 249
Binary,
I really like the idea of an admin discussion before the rule is implemented.
I do have a few more questions though. What if you are the only admin at the start of the round and you decide to implement it, then another admin joins later and doesn't like the idea. Would it reverse back to the tower can come down?
I would also be interested in a server vote. Perhaps ask people if they would like the rule implemented before the round starts and take votes. Majority rules. This would increase pubs views of eGO trying to tailor it's servers to the way people like. If people want to take the tower down, they can vote that way. If the majority wants it up, we can go that way as well. However, this can ONLY take place before the match starts. Once the tower is taken by a team, the server vote cannot take place.
Lastly, I would like to emphasize balance. If the tower being up is causing balance issues, the tower up rule needs to go away. I personally believe once the tower is down, the game is more balanced. I would be curious to see what ticket differential people thing would be far before the rule goes away. 400 tickets? 500 tickets? I have only seen a couple handful of matches where a 600+ ticket differential was reversed.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2015
- Messages
- 261
Doesn't matter to me. Plays fine with it up or down.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 611
For sure, its really totally discretionary.... a vote on the issue would be great, but that would take some programming and work to implement, I'm not sure if it would be easy, or even needed at this stage, until we see how popular the idea is. What I was thinking is really more of a "lets do it if everyone is on board" approach, so we can get rid of that one goofball non-member that really wants to take it down as soon as the round starts because he wants to see people rage in the chat. If there's a legit reason (i.e. balance) or an member/admin level (e, eG, eGO) objection, then its no longer an issue at all, by all means take it down!
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2015
- Messages
- 56
I agree on this part.
- Joined
- May 8, 2016
- Messages
- 27
All depends on the flow of the game really. If the other team has it and we're struggling to get any form of support up there, I'd attempt to take it down asap.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2016
- Messages
- 11
If the tower stays up then I can actually snipe
Up or down is okay with me. I admit when I want to be jumping off the tower to get on a roof to snipe or to take B or D I want that tower to stay up. But once it goes down I'm fine making the adjustment to play without it. Also sometimes you need to take it down because so many are jumping off it taking flags. You may not be able to control your home points with the tower up. And then again at times - I'm the one who takes down the tower. After all as I say when the tower does go down, "If you can't take C then take it down." I'm only joking when I say that.
I like jumping from the tower to take points and think everything looks much nicer with the tower up, but I don't see why we would ever admin a part of the game intentionally placed there by the creator. I've seen it go down right after we start, and other times it stays up for quite awhile, admins shouldn't be basing an entire rule off of their preference. At the most it could be implemented the same way we do "pistols only" or "knives/shovels only" in DOD:S, or tell people to not go sewers in Kalt until we get more people to populate. You can let people know, maybe go as far as using /say Please leave the tower up until x amount of tickets but kicking or banning them for playing the game the way it was created is just wrong.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2011
- Messages
- 3,122
I am pretty sure it would also go against EA's ROE for servers as well,but don't quote me on that
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2015
- Messages
- 249
Is this something we could check into?
Is this option even being something seriously considered by leadership allowing admins to dictate if the tower can be enforced to stay up?
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 3,272
Holy Smokes folks, i didn't expect a very thoughtful discussion that went into many possible options. Good job Battlefield Division.
For the EA/DICE EULA, i do know that servers were getting removed for BF2 and 2142 because of banning weapons and kill trading servers.
Im smiling from all these thought out and interesting responses.
For the EA/DICE EULA, i do know that servers were getting removed for BF2 and 2142 because of banning weapons and kill trading servers.
Im smiling from all these thought out and interesting responses.
I think that the tower getting destroyed is a great thing that is part of the game. Don't we already have something in the ways of allowing all the weapons in the game because it is part of the game and there should be no changes to the game. It is the same deal with the map, it is part of the game and should not be changed at all. Regardless if people have lag issues, I have lag issues when the tower goes down but that does not effect my gameplay at all, once the dust settles and whatnot everything goes back to normal.
When people want to have the tower stay up then that is breaking a "rule" of the server, technically. None of the weapons are removed from the game. It should be straight forward that there is no altering of the game, that was put in for a reason and there really should be no reason to remove that feature.
I complain a lot about a few of the weapons in the game but that does not stop me from playing and having fun playing with others in the server.
When people want to have the tower stay up then that is breaking a "rule" of the server, technically. None of the weapons are removed from the game. It should be straight forward that there is no altering of the game, that was put in for a reason and there really should be no reason to remove that feature.
I complain a lot about a few of the weapons in the game but that does not stop me from playing and having fun playing with others in the server.
