|
A secondary mod on our server? (r)
|
|
|
|
|
| mayer | Date: Monday, 2014-01-27, 2:02 PM | Message # 1 |
|
Admin
Group: Recruit
Messages: 276
Status: Offline
| As already said, running battlegroup on this server is a bad idea because it takes attention away and its arcade-ish gameplay does not appeal to many in our community (me included) and isn't fit for competitive gaming.
(Mr_J's previous request for BG42 was downvoted by the majority)
However i think we should not shelve this thread yet.
I particular I ike the idea of having BF1918 seperately installed
Why? Because it is a well made mod with unusual setting and its community is unfortunately dead
Also this year marks the hundredth anniversary of the beginning of WW1, a BF1918 event would be the perfect commemoration
|
| |
| |
| Xenanab | Date: Friday, 2017-06-16, 9:27 AM | Message # 61 |
|
Colonel
Group: Silver Donator
Messages: 465
Status: Offline
| Quote luiscarlosred (  ) I think it was cool, it could happen. There is a 1918 bf server that is active and seems to be cool, on Saturdays the guys come together to play.
And exactly this is the reason why I don't understand the need to play BF 18 on our server now.
I mean, would you be happy if a new FHSW server opens up somewhere in Europe and holds events too?
Battlefield 1942 is a dieing game. You can't ever expect that its popularity will be risen again by a high mark. Instead of spreading out interests we must focus community action on one thing without stealing other players away.
If you want to play BF 18 then why don't you just join their server on Saturday 7 / 8 pm as advertised on multiple Battlefield gaming boards by ACE and Granate ?
I don't know guys.... you are thinking of pulling off some mean stuff like a certain other gaming community back in the day.
|
| |
| |
| (HH)Benjamin | Date: Sunday, 2017-06-18, 1:12 PM | Message # 62 |
|
Colonel
Group: Trusted
Messages: 372
Status: Offline
| I don't think we should put any BF1918 maps in the rotation cycle of the server, but I think it would be good/alright to do some BF1918 events, as I personally would like to do this. I also have not seen a populated BF1918 server for quite sometime, so if there is a community coming back, I'm currently unaware of it.
|
| |
| |
| bubu | Date: Wednesday, 2018-04-11, 6:05 PM | Message # 63 |
|
Colonel
Group: Admins
Messages: 428
Status: Offline
| A bit of revival/new wind to this thread.
Some time ago there were both the main FHSW server and the test FHSW server running simultaneously. Personally, I haven't noticed any performance drops by running 2 servers at the same time.
Assuming that BF1918 is less demanding than FHSW server, the BF1918 server could be run as separate server along the main FHSW permanently. I am saying this with 80% confidence as I also think about the upload speed the server has allowed in contract with Hetzner at the moment. However, at the last event with approx. 52 players, I haven't noticed any bandwidth related issues for the players on the server / lags. Please, correct me if you noticed any personally or remember players having a rage on lags 
So I am ready to click and run the BF1918 server alongside the FHSW 
Message edited by bubu - Wednesday, 2018-04-11, 6:09 PM |
| |
| |
| marduk | Date: Thursday, 2018-04-12, 11:52 AM | Message # 64 |
 General
Group: Admins
Messages: 1681
Status: Offline
| I support this idea because I think our community could benefit from providing a bf1918-server. We would have more variety in maps and could have both FHSW- and bf1918-events. I reckon we would strengthen our player base and thus keep FHSW alive for a few more years.
This is a gaming community. People come here to relax. If you start an argument you will get kicked.
Quid pro quo.
Marduk aka Postduk
|
| |
| |
| crazygamelover | Date: Thursday, 2018-04-12, 1:25 PM | Message # 65 |
 Colonel
Group: Trusted
Messages: 308
Status: Offline
| I would like to see new life breathed into BF1918, but I'm afraid a separate server running at the same time would split the player base and reduce player count at peak FHSW hours. Could we run BF1918 only during special events to concentrate the players onto one mod at a time?
|
| |
| |
| marduk | Date: Thursday, 2018-04-12, 1:38 PM | Message # 66 |
|
General
Group: Admins
Messages: 1681
Status: Offline
| Quote crazy: "Could we run BF1918 only during special events to concentrate the players onto one mod at a time?"
I am also thinking about that, but I think it is problematic to dictate people when to play FHSW and/or when to play bf1918.
I suggest to set up a bf1918-event as the first/next step (just like we set up FHSW-events) to see how many players we get on the server with that mod. Depending on the result we plan the next step.
This is a gaming community. People come here to relax. If you start an argument you will get kicked.
Quid pro quo.
Marduk aka Postduk
|
| |
| |
| starking018 | Date: Thursday, 2018-04-12, 10:52 PM | Message # 67 |
|
Colonel
Group: Friends
Messages: 395
Status: Offline
| Technically, 4 cores and 100Mbps (that's the upload bandwidth available, right?) is more than enough to run 2 BF servers with no interference. I can only think of one issue with the FHSW server that I have noticed a long time ago, and I haven't noticed recently (maybe it was fixed). There used to be lags coinciding with chat message or server announcements appearing. I wondered if it could be disk access related. Something like that could potentially affect the other server on the same machine, but if such an issue appears again we should find a way to fix it anyway, and not be deterred from trying to run another server because of such a possibility.
Personally, I'm not very attracted to playing BF1918, compared to FHSW. I'm just a little curious to see and experience some vehicles there.
In principle I'm OK with you running a BF1918 server in parallel. However, I'm somewhat skeptical about it becoming a success.
I think that trying to populate a second server while the first one (FHSW) is underpopulated (fewer than 8 players or so) is worse than doing that while the first one is well populated, because much more people want to leave/not join at fewer than 8 or so. So I think that what usually happens naturally - small servers getting players only during peak times - is probably also the better thing to happen (of course it would be even better if it became a popular server).
Air Troll a.k.a. starking018
|
| |
| |
| bubu | Date: Friday, 2018-04-13, 11:52 AM | Message # 68 |
|
Colonel
Group: Admins
Messages: 428
Status: Offline
| Most valuable hints Crazy and Trolli
I haven't been thinking about making it a success really. I'd say I thought about it in a way we have 2 servers to present our community, not about populating them both. So not really sure how it will turn out.
Quote starking018 ( ) 100Mbps (that's the upload bandwidth available, right?)  How does 730 Mbps upload and 950 Mbps download sound to you lmao! I guess you are smiling as much as I am xD
And yes, 4 cores, 16GB RAM.
Message edited by bubu - Friday, 2018-04-13, 4:13 PM |
| |
| |
