Additional maps at our BC2 Vanilla conquest server?

[Nino-6-years]

Uggh ... don't mind the cracking noises. Those are just my dry bones passing through .... *cough, cough*


Anyhow, what's the goal of altering the map rotation? In terms of variety there aren't many options left to consider, if any at all. I strongly doubt that maps of the current rotation will be removed, except maybe Atacama Desert, which leaves only these possibilities:
- remove Atacama Desert
- add Harvest Day
- add Nelson Bay
- add Port Valdez
- add Heavy Metal

Heavy Metal is garbage. I think everyone agrees on that. Won't be added.
Port Valdez was part of the map rotation in the past, but got removed quickly due to constant imbalance/baserape. Unlikely to be added, but possible.
Nelson Bay has experienced the same fate as Port Valdez. Also unlikely, but possible.
Harvest Day isn't infantry-friendly, thus not the typical RC map. Very unlikely to be added, but possible.

Conclusion? Our options are very limited. Bad Company will remain repetitive and there is nothing we can do about it. Even if a new map would show up, it would drown in between the other ones. You would need to wait a decade until the new map showed up. Again, if the purpose of adding new maps is more variety, hence more fun, then it will be of no use. But don't get me wrong. It's still better than nothing, but not really satisfying either (at least for experienced players).
However, "challenges" would be great. For example allowing only pistols for one round on a random map. Or using/killing only with 40mm smoke grenades. But that's probably just me being me ... And considering that modern peoples attention span is that of a wet toast (thanks to social media), most wouldn't even notice the rules and ruin the fun.

[[RC]Hunter]

Look who there is ... listen my son, do not start talking about age and / or cracking bones ...

@neet
If a server features multiple players switching teams to make it a better experience for everyone, it cannot be any better. You will find a lot of threads about it here in the BC2 forums ... 24/7 one map servers are a common scenario in many FPS games and often they are full because they attract players loving to play this particular map. If you map rotate like we do, often players leave because they do not like the particular map coming next, other players will join because of this very next map and our original intention and idea to host BC2 servers was based on the aim to focus on infantry battles but not endless battles, multiple maps in a good running time in minutes per map.

The map voting, I am was never a fan of it but would not nessecarily speak against it ... I may have a look into it, however it is not nessecary for Battlefield servers with a map rotation, since the map rotation is the key for variations. I doubt you would spot players voting Oasis 10 times in a row for example ...

The base camping rule is not an easy task, I have a different opinion about it, I outlined it at lenghts already in the past, for example here.

@nino
the challenges are a funny idea, for this an extra server could be done. But such an event you need to announce in order to attract players. I could think about coding some extra lines to help limiting the weapon classes, we could run an extra little database to record the knife or smoke launcher kills ... ... but of course this would be no option for the standard BC2 conquest server.

[neet]

hi

Sorry for replying late,was busy with real life.

Yeah i understand and like your approach in this particular matter.

And yes you are damn right about it, Oasis will be voted most of the time.
Actually when i asked for vote map i didn't mean to choose from all the maps.It is suppose to be next upcoming 3 maps or only 2 maps.Like if we playing at laguna presa then server msg will be to vote for next map.1.Laguna alta,2.white pass 3.Arica Harbour.I am not fan of big maps but if server is full and players want to play then i don't mind playing Harvest Day,Nelson Bay,Port Valdez...well not Heavy Metal.

@nino.In current map rotation laguna presa is where most of baserape happens if teams are unbalanced.Reason being passage to come out of base is narrow.But i don't understand why Nelson bay had same fate.I believe you when you say it was removed because of more baserape but i like to upvote what marta suggested.Replace Atacama Desert with Nelson Bay or Port Valdez but if we have vote map option then there is no need to remove any map rather add these 2 maps.we can try for couple of months and see how things go.

[neet]

I got time to read that link you shared here.

About that basecamping and baserape problem i actually agree with Makkan that sniper camps at base and we can't even kill them.I knew few campers who won't even come from base and sits there whole time.

I don't do baserape and i don't remember i ever did.And i fully agree with your baserape protection and you are right again that if it hadn't been there, server will empty very soon.Then it becomes very annoying when powerful enemies kills you instantly when you spawn...it is worse.Players then got no other option but to leave the server but with baserape protection one can still use smoke etc and still got chance.

But right now as much as i know there is only one solution i could think of that teams scramble every map or if you could enable autoblancing based on players skill or points.it could be tricky script but i did played in some server few years back and u also said you know how it works.

But teams scramble every map still a good option instead of one team being raped over and over .You might have check stats and you know it do happens a lot continuously for 3-4 maps maybe more.When a team is losing with 250+ tickets it takes so much time to for the teams to get balanced.
But if once players knows that teams going to be scramble every map then they won't leave the server either i believe.

[Nino-6-years]

@nino
the challenges are a funny idea, for this an extra server could be done. But such an event you need to announce in order to attract players. I could think about coding some extra lines to help limiting the weapon classes, we could run an extra little database to record the knife or smoke launcher kills ... ... but of course this would be no option for the standard BC2 conquest server.

While I'd generally welcome this idea, my concern with an additional server is that the player base could get split, leaving either one server empty or both only half-full. In this case it would be better to keep the server as is for now. Not sure how it would work out in practice though. Depends on the execusion and the general population of BC2. Are you registering new players or do you notice the common suspects mostly?

@nino.In current map rotation laguna presa is where most of baserape happens if teams are unbalanced.Reason being passage to come out of base is narrow.But i don't understand why Nelson bay had same fate.

Yes, I have been through this many times. Laguna Presa and L. Alta are very susceptible to baserape. The problem with Nelson Bay was, that the Russian Team (the ones spawning with parachutes) would lose almost every time, because they'd get shot before even landing, rendering them unable to take any action. This map was removed pretty quickly form the rotation due to this constant disbalance.

@nino.Replace Atacama Desert with Nelson Bay or Port Valdez but if we have vote map option then there is no need to remove any map rather add these 2 maps.we can try for couple of months and see how things go.

As far as I know you can only vote for maps that are included in the map rotation, which means adding those two maps is risky in the long run due to their low acceptance amongst most players.

Is it possible to keep the current rotation (e.g. without Port Valdez), but allowing an ingame vote for an excluded map (in this example Port Valdez)? I think this provides a good compromise and solution - you aren't forced to play this map, but are able to activate it when in the mood to play it.

[neet]

As far as I know you can only vote for maps that are included in the map rotation, which means adding those two maps is risky in the long run due to their low acceptance amongst most players.

Is it possible to keep the current rotation (e.g. without Port Valdez), but allowing an ingame vote for an excluded map (in this example Port Valdez)? I think this provides a good compromise and solution - you aren't forced to play this map, but are able to activate it when in the mood to play it.

I like your suggestion nino.+1 for that.
Once in a while it is kind enjoyable to play those maps for a change and it is also safe when players actually vote for it .