High Points Servers

Re: High Points Servers

HPS are quite easy to define. They are any server that doesn't play the game as intended. eg knife/pistol servers, flag hopping servers where US must keep the Hotel flag at all times to stop the ticket bleed then players repeatedly cap flag after flag and may not attack each other.

They are usually 16 players on 64 player maps but that alone is not a HPS "as long as" they play the game the way its intended.

The trouble I see now is this. As IS didn't write this ROE, all questions about it need to be answered by EA/DICE and you know what problems that will cause, we will never get an answer.

I agree though that they did need to clarify the HPS as to what exactly they are but to date they have been the types of servers I outlined.

Re: High Points Servers

Im awaiting Indian Scout's next shallow/implied response..

my answer has to be vague as I didnt write this version so I dont know what they had in their head when they wrote it..

keep on topic please

Re: High Points Servers

Ya, I get worried about this stuff because going forward, how far back are they going to look? Even now when you read through the ROE, which I just had to do, there is a nice statement that contradicts the HPS rule Here is the quote:

1.4 Maps

1.4.1 Custom maps are never permitted on ranked servers, although we do permit map sizes to be defined independently of maximum players.


WTF does that entail? Indianscout reports he has just PMed DiCE for more clarification on this. My concern is it is going to come back with some damn legalise speak that does not give the reasoning why, but some ambiguous doubletalk.

feel the same as u man. i mean i thought the objective of a game was to have fun pure and simple. having to keep a careful watch on what servers u join and worrying about things uve done in the past that may or may not have broken a set of rules that is unspecific as a whole really takes alot of the potiential "fun" out of the game. i know when the ROE was established it was done with the best intentions and i commend EA for doing so. however it created more problems that it fixed.

if EA wants to get serious about busting cheaters they should take 3 steps im sure everyone in the bf2 community will agree are necessary and beneficial for the proper enforcement of the rules.

1) Go after the servers themselves that clearly state high points or knife and pistol in the title. (it is unjust to not to punish the server owners that provide the means to cheat just because they pay a monthly fee.)

2) Revise the ROE and and make it crystal clear as to what a rule violation is. also define terms such as high points in a way even the "village idiot" would understand.

3) Make it possible to view the ROE in a place that is highly frequented by new players so as not to cause confusion later on.(the Tbf2 forums or the site itself would be a start.)

one final point/ idea i would only propose is that EA cut its losses with past violaters and concentrate on the current violaters because chances are if the violaters are intentionally cheating they will still be dioing it. doing this would not only make it easier for the ROE police to do an immense job that they have before them, but also benefit people who made mistakes in the past but have since learned better than to do things such as padding and visiting the illegal servers.

[RocketChild]

Re: High Points Servers

Im awaiting Indian Scout's next shallow/implied response..

From what I am gathering, the ROE team, though still involved with it, had EA write/publish the rules.

Re: High Points Servers

Not sure if you read through all the posts, but the last few on the previous page explain why a few of us think they should be preserved.

Nah I didn't.

Re: High Points Servers

Im awaiting Indian Scout's next shallow/implied response..

[RocketChild]

Re: High Points Servers

Not sure if you read through all the posts, but the last few on the previous page explain why a few of us think they should be preserved.

Re: High Points Servers

Personally, I don't see what people find so attractive about High Points servers. If I need a badge, I go into a 64 man Karkand (that's 64 man server and map).

[RocketChild]

Re: High Points Servers

Ya, I get worried about this stuff because going forward, how far back are they going to look? Even now when you read through the ROE, which I just had to do, there is a nice statement that contradicts the HPS rule Here is the quote:

1.4 Maps

1.4.1 Custom maps are never permitted on ranked servers, although we do permit map sizes to be defined independently of maximum players.


WTF does that entail? Indianscout reports he has just PMed DiCE for more clarification on this. My concern is it is going to come back with some damn legalise speak that does not give the reasoning why, but some ambiguous doubletalk.

Re: High Points Servers

It (NO HIGH POINTS SERVERS) needs dropping from the ROE

Or discribing in proper terms.

And what is an high score, In my 1st week I thought 50 was high, after a month 100 was high now I think 150 is high

Or can EA just look at your best round stats and decide that you've crossed the line at sometime (past their unknown definition line) and wipe your stats.

In the future we will need to check our scores and leave the server before we cross the line.

Re: High Points Servers

Sometimes we don't have a choice. All the local servers are 64 man servers, and at 3 am there are sometimes 60 of us playing, sometimes there are 16.

True there should be an admin around, but who's going to up to admin a server at 3am?

KBK

[RocketChild]

Re: High Points Servers

Ya, I could argue a lot of the ROE rules, like no base camping? If you are a sniper behind the lines, disrupting aircraft take-offs, does this constute some level of vengeful reciprocity by and Admin or EA?

I would like some more reasoning for these ROE rules. I need to go dig out the topic from Monday about them.

Re: High Points Servers

Im with the majority on this, 16man 64player maps can be extremely fun if your just looking for slower paced (Though I have seen some major battles in these rounds) more tactical game. Hard to cover all the bases or get any one. Personnally I play on them for the relaxed atmosphere and the one on one dogfighting/chopper fights. I dont see how they can be considered "High point" since it takes you an hour to get the same points you would have gotten in an hour of 16/16 32/32 64/64 only you dont have the 6 minute map load every 20 minutes.

As for the rule in the ROE, I also agree. The rule is there but if you werent active in the discussion of it, you probably wouldnt understand it (even many who are active cant understand it). Why would EA allow for this type of play if it were not supposed to be done? I mean it wouldnt have taken any effort to make the maps player specific, 16 man = 16 man map, etc. How can the ROE team devise a rule that would actually limit what the game allows and has allowed since its release. With EA dropping the Min.Playertostart req. how can you even begin to enforce it? Like someone else asked "How many players would be considered playing "High points"?" a 32 man map with only 16 players but 32 slots is no different than a 16 slot on 32 player map.

I just dont see how they can limit (especially this late in the game) what was originally coded into the game. No vehc, K&P, etc. these anyone can understand but really, how can you say dont limit these things but limit the maps the themselves.

[RocketChild]

Re: High Points Servers

Well that may be true. But tell me something. If there is no definition (not even by BFROE) of what a high points server is or what requirements it has to meet to be one, then that server is not violating anything since there is nothing.

So if the server did not say High Points, and there is no rule saying 16 player 64 map is illegal, the server is not bad.

True, considering DiCE is changing how many people are required for starting a ranked game. But, since it is written, then it can be enforced. But, I want to have a laundry list of examples (a precedence) of when this rule is applicable.

[imported_TheDragon]

Re: High Points Servers

Well that may be true. But tell me something. If there is no definition (not even by BFROE) of what a high points server is or what requirements it has to meet to be one, then that server is not violating anything since there is nothing.

So if the server did not say High Points, and there is no rule saying 16 player 64 map is illegal, the server is not bad.

you and I (and others) agree = but not "them"