Project Reality Forums

Well, I remember when there more votes. First modern or ww2, then *** or ins and then maps. Problem is it take too much time. People want to play the game. More voting means more annoyance for everyone.

But the real problem is shrinking community. Admins don't want kill server. I remember happens when everyone runs WW2 and someone wants modern map so it basicly killed a server. So it also might be a case why we get these strange voting options. In my opinion these vote options are just playing safe so people wont leave too quickly.

I wanted dedicated server with WW2 maps (and maybe with Vietnam) so people who want play mostly these maps could have place for themselves.

robert357 wrote:The reason why there is vote for *** INS and WW2 is very simple. People played a lot of WW2 maps on release to the point that any attempt to change it to other setting would kill a server. Now however people are a little bit tired of WW2. So this give more options for WW2 map vote because one match is usually enough.

Same with map votes with different sizes.

And I understand this might look shady for people who love INS and big maps, but it is how it is. I personally also would love to play on other maps like Vietnam or Falklands but these maps rarely got votes also.

Your "ideas" dont make sense.

A server should bring some variety with votes and admins can actually make that happen.

1. vote: 2km / 2km / 2km

2. vote: 4km / 4km / 4km

3. vote: Vietnam / WW2 / falklands

4. vote: INS / INS / INS


repeat


Look how easy that is. Im sure that every admin who can breath could make that happen...

Or have 3 votes and winner of each would be put against one another, 4 options would make an extra vote no? Anyways I think the real issue here is that all these suggestions about how to run votes doesn't take the admin into consideration, maybe he doesn't want to spend 10+ minutes sorting through voting options? Maybe the admin just kinda wants to play and police the griefers without going into some deep meta-voting system to get the optimal map selection. I think a lot of it comes down to admins choosing the maps that they feel would be a nice follow-up to what the server had been playing. The admins are human and have their own biases and follow their own instinct, getting upset over bad votes is getting close to splitting hairs - at least there is an admin online can't we appreciate that fact and let the maps suck once in a while?

Would it be possible to create another vote system within the game or the engine doesn’t allow it?

Something like the players can whenever they want during the first part of the round start to vote AAS/INS then during mid game maybe MAP SIZE then MODERN/WW2,VIETNAM and according to some filtering process through those votes having the maps possible displayed and suggest their will?

Please keep suggestions regarding the voting system out of this thread. If you have any feedback regarding that, feel free to create a new thread in the feedback section.

That being said, the votes I saw yesterday were nice. Votes between ww2/modern and AAS/INS were done separately. Afterwards it was 3 similar maps (in this case all 3 wood maps). Always nice to see servers listen to feedback

Finrar wrote:Amount of 4km desert maps played in a row is quite high sometimes. Some map variety would be nice.

I agree with this. There are 62 maps in PR, with countless layers. There currently seems to be a strong bias on the SSG admin team towards certain types of maps.

Here is an example from sunday - SSG ran Khamisijah 3 times in a day and also ran five 4-k maps in a row, Kashan and Khami were played right behind each other, and there is also what seems to be a bias towards desert maps.

This makes Inf-players think twice before joining SSG. It would be nice to make an effort for more map variety

Nate. wrote:I agree with this. There are 62 maps in PR, with countless layers. There currently seems to be a strong bias on the SSG admin team towards certain types of maps.

Here is an example from sunday - SSG ran Khamisijah 3 times in a day and also ran five 4-k maps in a row, Kashan and Khami were played right behind each other, and there is also what seems to be a bias towards desert maps.

This makes Inf-players think twice before joining SSG. It would be nice to make an effort for more map variety

@(SSG)PR:BF2 Administrators Team
I don't wanna see something like this at next time. As i was already tolled to you guys set next like (one) 4km map and (two) 2km maps, then do map vote between AAS and INS. In case if AAS won then repeat this procedure. If anyone have any doubt let me know.

@Nate i think (one) 4km map then (two) 2km maps not bad?

RaNa-Rocxs wrote:@(SSG)PR:BF2 Administrators Team
I don't wanna see something like this at next time. As i was already tolled to you guys set next like (one) 4km map and (two) 2km maps, then do map vote between AAS and INS. In case if AAS won then repeat this procedure. If anyone have any doubt let me know.

@Nate i think (one) 4km map then (two) 2km maps not bad?

People still gonna vote for the 4km asset whoring.

Rabbit wrote:People still gonna vote for the 4km asset whoring.

did you read that what was i said? there is no map vote between 2km & 4km.
2K then 2K then 4K then map vote between AAS and INS

RaNa-Rocxs wrote:did you read that what was i said? there is no map vote between 2km & 4km.
2K then 2K then 4K then map vote between AAS and INS

Yeah sorry, I get it now, I thought you were saying a map vote with 1 4km as a choice and 2 2km choices. But now see you were talking about map rotation order.

I have a little announcement
Please lock this feedback thread because SSG going to shut down all PR servers from 02/12/2020.
We will request again to unlock when required.

Thanks.

That's sad af.

reopened because there are SSG servers again

I realize that SSG is a Pakistani special forces group but for some reason I remember your clan as being largely part German, is that a total fantasy or not or am I mixing it up with someone with a similar name long go?

Cheers, nothing to complain about.