20 Ticket Skirmish Map (Server Starter Map)

[Bluedrake42]

Can we please have a 20 ticket Skirmish map or something, so servers can set it as their default first map... that'll give players enough time to vote for a new map, but you won't have to play a boring skirmish map for an hour every time the server crashes/restarts due to squad bug, lag, ddos, what have you...

[Mouthpiece]

I agree, It's totally boring to play the skirmish map over and over again after a crash/etc. Noone takes it serious. People just mostly derp around in those rounds.

[Steeps]

Wouldn't 50 be a little better? At 20 you would be loading maps more than playing the game.

[Pronck]

I support this idea! Sick of those boring skirmishes.

[Psyrus]

Wouldn't 50 be a little better? At 20 you would be loading maps more than playing the game.

The point isn't as a real map to play, just for when the server crashes. Regular skirmishes would be the 100-150 tickets is is currently the norm.

I wholeheartedly endorse this idea.

My suggestion would be as follows:

- One of the smallest skirmish maps we have, with a new layer "Starter" or whatever
- Each team has 50 tickets
- Each team has an automatic ticket bleed (not sure if possible, but reasonably confident) of 10 tickets per minute.
- Thus it's a 5 minute round (max, plus briefing time) whereby people can rejoin, set the next map and mess around a little.

[Spec]

Moved to the correct forum section and approved. Next time put suggestions into the correct section right away

[KiloJules]

I completely fail to see the point for this...

To initiate a map vote and set the map you need an admin anyway. So if there is an admin and people don't want to play the 5th skirmish of the night he could just !runnext.

And that can happen whenever/after the vote is finished, everything is set up and enough people have rejoined.

-----

The proposed 20 or even 50 tickets aren't really enough anyway (people will f around, kill and tk eachother, etc.) and the bleed just tops it of imo.

[Moszeusz6Pl]

I dissagree with it. It's just unneded job. As KiloJules said, admin can runnext if needed, and server with 62 players, can run that round in few minutes(150 tickets/(31 players*2tickets per wounded and dead) gives a bit more than 2 deaths per players, which would take about 5 minutes, enough to decide maps, do mapvote and setnext. If you would reduce tickets to 20, it would end within 1 or 2 minutes.

And if players leaved the server, you still have time to gain new, before starting bigger gamemode.

[Bluedrake42]

no you can't "runnext" thats the whole reason I'm suggesting this
on the cia servers if you try to run next it crashes the server

and also I play skirmish on marlin, and it usually takes like 45 minutes for a side to win
Unless we all suicide of course, but I don't want to have to do that

[Mineral]

Depends on the server it seems. PRTA doesn't crash at all and usually has kokan skirmish as first map, which doesn't take long at all.

I understand the idea, and kinda agree with it too. But from an admins perspective I don't. It wouldn't give enough time to sort out the squads/switches , no time to run a mapvote and you always lose players at server crashes which might require a bit of seeding (at which skirmish is best).

But maybe it's worth a shot, no harm in testing it out. But 20 is much too low. I would say about 75, it gives the admins enough time to do their job, the players enough time to rejoin and seed and find a good spot on the server and everyone gets to shoot like a maniac for 5min before the real fun begins.

[Rudd]

The problem with setting the skirmish with 20 tickets is that if there are significant player numbers on, the map will end in about 5minutes. Sounds like your server operator needs to choose a wider variety of skirmish maps.

adding in extra layers just for this would be a terrible misappropriation of dev and tester effort I'm afraid.

However, perhaps we could implement the same kind of flag ticket cost we see in AAS? that way the map could last longer if tactical, but a team losing flags will make the map move alot faster.

[Vicious302]

with 100 players, assuming most servers go to that.. 150 tickets will theoretically go 50% fast anyway.

[Quobble]

most of the servers crash if you skip a map. most server crash if you dont run the previous map properly.

I TOTALLY agree with the 50 ticket idea.

[Maj.Osama]

well if you make it bleed like AAS it 'd be much better ,
cause one team can take all flags so that the map finish fast and give time for vote or reseed the server .

[notmyingamename]

cool idea. restarts would be a great place to insert a scenario too. 5 minute timer for the opfor's objective - demo a bridge, overrun a checkpoint... something along of the lines of falkland skirmish 16 layer, raid on pebble island. single objective, quick and dirty

[=-=kittykiller]

yes I agree, how many times we have to play asad khal (good map though)

perhaps even this map is "sandin" ? 50 tix

[=-=kittykiller]

cool idea. restarts would be a great place to insert a scenario too. 5 minute timer for the opfor's objective - demo a bridge, overrun a checkpoint... something along of the lines of falkland skirmish 16 layer, raid on pebble island. single objective, quick and dirty

the idea of a restRT MAP MY FRIEND IS A SMALL MINUTE OR FIVE LONG BUFFER TO PREVENT ENDLESS RESTARTS AFTER CRASH.

its so simple an idea its got to be genius level thinking.

think of all the times server crashes, then ure playing a pointless skirmish, mumble chat goes for pizza etc.

this isn't to seed just to restart a 5 minute warning in effect. 100% great idea

[viirusiiseli]

Any regular skirmish with 75 tickets would make it quick enough so people don't get bored but long enough for a mapvote&setnext.