High Points Servers

[RocketChild]

Re: High Points Servers

Please understand I think the BFROE is important and I think we need it.

I really like the idea of ROE. My feeling is if they post here, and are moderators of this forum, then they need to put some of their philosophical reasoning behind it. I don't want to have to go over to their forums and read and read and read through a year's worth of debate to figure out what their rationals were.

But I was pointing out, to me, some crimes are not extreme enough for the death-sentence of stat-wiping. EA has my email address, send me a warning FCS!

[<EsP>Fury]

Re: High Points Servers

My point is and continues to be you have to go after the server and the players.
Just going after the players that break the rules and not the server is total hypocracy and that is why people dont obey the rules.

[RocketChild]

Re: High Points Servers

Thing is, we don't hear the stories of them going after servers. I am sure they do go after them. But, I would think, since money is involved, they don't "pull-the-plug", they just tell them to clean up their act or they will take further action.

One of the ROE guys noted that they are like the secret police by saying they "have never discussed the reasons why someone's stats were while, and never will", I know right where that quote is if you want me to go get it too.

This to me leaves us feeling complications. I don't need to know someone's real name and email address, but I would like to see large lists of people/servers that have been punished and the evidence that found them guilty. Our whole society is based on the idea that secret courts are wrong, going back to the revolution (in the US of course); and we belittle the Nazi Germany and Stalin's regime because they executed people for simple crimes, with some evidence or hear-say.

[GreenTree]

Re: High Points Servers

"High points server" can mean a couple of different things. One of the admins here got his stats reset a while ago for PLAYING on one. Not running it, playing on it. The definition of "High Points Server" that the servers generally use is big map with few people. If you read enough threads here, you'll see Indian Scout (who is in the know, by every indication) pronounce that as acceptable, and you're in no danger of getting stats reset by playing there.

OTOH, if you're playing Karkand or Warlord or something, and the admin there is adamant that there is to be NO ARMOR, yelling at people to get out of it, with people generally playing along and having a good time doing the "infantry only" gig, AND YOU STAY, then believe it or not you're now playing on the sort of "High Points Server" that is NOT allowed and this DOES put you at risk of getting your stats reset. Which is what happened to the individual who moderates on these forums.

Okay, if you're a ROE lawyer, familiar with every word & line & nuance of the ROE, you probably should know better. If you're read these forums for a while, you should know better. HOWEVER, if you skimmed through the ROE when you installed the program some bunch of weeks back, and took away "don't cheat, don't hack, be a good sport, and life is good" then the concept that continuing to OBEY THE RULES THE SERVER ADMIN IS GIVING YOU is putting you in danger of getting wiped, just doesn't seem real obvious. Everybody's having a good fair "infantry only" fight with hummers & vodkiks but no tanks/apc's, life is good, right?

OKAY, I understand why EA didn't want such a thing at the time (hypocrisy of OFFERING it now in 1.4 aside), and how server admins do NOT get to make up & enforce arbitrary rules on ranked servers. Okay, fair enough. But for the casual player, putting your stats at risk because you didn't leave the server as soon as you see "no tanks, no apc's" scrolling in the top left corner, is extremely heavy-handed and doesn't come close to passing a "reasonable person" test.

Bust the admin and/or server, okay. Bust the players, come on. They were being the good sports & enjoying what was offered to them. A warning e-mail, maybe, with a reset for repeat offenders (i.e. violation after warning email = 2nd warning, violation after 2nd warning = reset), but a no-warning reset is nonsense.

If the server admin wants everybody doing a kill-revive-kill-revive drill, the guy who stays around for 2 hours of that probably COULD be expected to recognize that this isn't right... but "no armor" is so vastly different that, while it constitutes "high points" by EA and BFROE's definitions, it takes the lawyer rather than the reasonable person to recognize it as such.

JMHO.

[<EsP>Fury]

Re: High Points Servers

They could easly come up with a Wall of Shame page on the same web site that hostes the BFROE pages.

In the Wall of Shame page you list servers that have been delisted or demoted to unranked status along with player names of those that have had there stats reset for breaking the rules.

This would end all the speculation and prove the law is the law.

[imported_TheDragon]

Re: High Points Servers

"High points server" can mean a couple of different things. One of the admins here got his stats reset a while ago for PLAYING on one. Not running it, playing on it. The definition of "High Points Server" that the servers generally use is big map with few people. If you read enough threads here, you'll see Indian Scout (who is in the know, by every indication) pronounce that as acceptable, and you're in no danger of getting stats reset by playing there.

JMHO.

uh - this is where you are now wrong
while it MAY HAVE BEEN ok before (according to 'him')
Indian Scout just said = NO WAY NO HOW to ALL high points servers
(even though they are still undefined)

and I restate my question
is 18 players on 64 man map ok?
no? how about 20 players???
where is the brake point???????
what . . . not defined????
silly me for asking

[JonnyMacFred102]

Re: High Points Servers

Okay...

Well what if you had a server that was on a 64 player map, had 16 slots, but did not say High Points? How would you count this as high points? What gaurantees you will always get higher points than in any other round? What if the admin just wanted to play a slower paced game that lasted longer? You think that these people are going to get there stats reset because they are playing on that server? Meh, i see nothing wrong here.

I have played on so many (and continue to do so) servers with 16 players and 64 map, and nothing tells me i am in danger of a reset. If i am in a slower mood and do not want fast gameplay, let's say 64 player karkand, i will join one.

As long as the rules are normal, these servers are allowed.

[RocketChild]

Re: High Points Servers

"High points server" can mean a couple of different things.

JMHO.

I don't want to go through the whole thing, commenting on each line...but:

If you are talking about Spetnaz, he was bust because he was on a HPS (which Indian said was cool fine) but the server had a rule about k/p only.

I have hung out in this forum for a long time, and PBF and BFROE's forum. I have seen so many descriptions of what a HPS server is from Admins, but never gotten a clear picture (in writing). I have even heard ROE people comment on how much backend arguing that they have over the subject and its definition. So, now that it appears to be a real rule, where is the reasoning behind it?

They have a million stickies around here. Why not post a sticky for a few months.

Personally, I think HPS servers are find, though they really do everyone that plays on them a disservice because the time it takes to make points is totally negating the total gain you could achive outside on regular servers.

[imported_TheDragon]

Re: High Points Servers

Okay...

Well what if you had a server that was on a 64 player map, had 16 slots, but did not say High Points? How would you count this as high points? What guarantees you will always get higher points than in any other round? What if the admin just wanted to play a slower paced game that lasted longer? You think that these people are going to get there stats reset because they are playing on that server? Meh, i see nothing wrong here.

I have played on so many (and continue to do so) servers with 16 players and 64 map, and nothing tells me i am in danger of a reset. If i am in a slower mood and do not want fast gameplay, let's say 64 player karkand, i will join one.

As long as the rules are normal, these servers are allowed.

\\

although I agree with you 100% (emotionally)
the part in your quote that is BOLD _ (which I just did for emphasis)
according to Indian Scout is WRONG
he said ALL such servers are in violation of new ROE

[RocketChild]

Re: High Points Servers

Okay...

Well what if you had a server that was on a 64 player map, had 16 slots, but did not say High Points? How would you count this as high points? What gaurantees you will always get higher points than in any other round? What if the admin just wanted to play a slower paced game that lasted longer? You think that these people are going to get there stats reset because they are playing on that server? Meh, i see nothing wrong here.

I have played on so many (and continue to do so) servers with 16 players and 64 map, and nothing tells me i am in danger of a reset. If i am in a slower mood and do not want fast gameplay, let's say 64 player karkand, i will join one.

As long as the rules are normal, these servers are allowed.

I totally agrea! I love to slow it down sometimes, I have not been on an HPS in a good while, but, that said, since I have been playing EF non-stop, they are already HPS servers just because their are only 17 players online in a 64/64 map! :laugh:

[JonnyMacFred102]

Re: High Points Servers

according to Indian Scout is WRONG
he said ALL such servers are in violation of new ROE

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.

[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"

[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.

[CensoredByGod]

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

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.