|TG| TacticalGamer.com (old)

Player feedback for all Project Reality: Battlefield 2 servers.
Locked

Tactical Gamer 0.7 server [USA]

Awesome!
196
42%
Good.
108
23%
Alright.
44
9%
Has some problems.
55
12%
Bogus.
40
9%
Never played.
26
6%
 
Total votes: 469

waldo_ii
Posts: 961
Joined: 2008-04-30 22:58

Re: |TG| TacticalGamer.com (USA)

Post by waldo_ii »

Guybrush wrote:But I'm hesitating... Is it ok by TG to just support the server financially, thus securing a member slot, without maintaining any forum presence ? How is this regarded ?

Anyone can get a supporting membership- there are no requirements. You do have to have a forum account, of course, but other than that, there aren't any requirements.


Just don't get banned ;)
|TGXV| Waldo_II

Image
MarineSeaknight
Posts: 287
Joined: 2008-01-08 16:12

Re: |TG| TacticalGamer.com (USA)

Post by MarineSeaknight »

mp5punk wrote:Hate the admins, there selfish and abusive in powers, the people are also disrespectful, i got into the lil bird with my sq name and apperantley there are "people" in the server assigned to fly it which is ****. I hate that server so much.
Your opinion is your opinion, and I will respect that. But so no one that reads this will this will get any idea other than the truth, let me explain some things by quoting the official rules for the TG server, found in whole here.
Official Tactical Gamer PR Rules wrote:9. Reserving assets

To assist the Commander in performing his duties, the Commander has final say on distribution of all assets. Naming a squad "Attack Helo" does not entitle that squad to the attack helicopters unless the CO designates them to that squad. Please remember, squads do not dictate the assignment of an asset, the CO does.

When there is no commander, or the CO has not designated a squad for a particular asset, assets are distributed on a first-come, first-serve basis. Players are to act maturely and take turns with assets. Fighting over assets could result in both parties being removed from the server.
What probably happened is that there was a CO that round that allocated the Littlebird to another squad other than yours. Normally to be fair COs will allocate an asset to the first squad that requests it, or a squad that will not waste the asset (in case the first one did waste it). Anyways, like Bosco said, like it or leave it.
Image
[PR Forums] [Contact an Admin] [Kicked/Banned from TG?]

PR Testing Team: Serious Business

Waiting for Reapar to become a DEV before I can quote him.
DeltaFart
Posts: 2409
Joined: 2008-02-12 20:36

Re: |TG| TacticalGamer.com (USA)

Post by DeltaFart »

creepinshadow24/7 wrote:we discussed this quite thoroughly and came to the conclusion that the community would just be torn apart. aka. lower teamplay.
how the hell would that happen creeps? Theres 128 players on 2 TG servers theres no way there'd be a break down
waldo_ii
Posts: 961
Joined: 2008-04-30 22:58

Re: |TG| TacticalGamer.com (USA)

Post by waldo_ii »

In in interest of a quick message, it would easily tear apart the PR section of the TG community due to the impossibility of handling server costs.

Right now, our server costs thousands, if not in the ten thousands of dollars per year in bandwidth. It is full practically all the time. The only way we get money for the server is by people buying supporting memberships to get a slot in, which they do because they have such a hard time getting in. If there was a second server, fewer supporting memberships would be bought than now, and it is likely that both would be over half-way full most of the time, meaning even higher bandwidth costs. Higher cost + less money to pay for it = no servers.


There are people who buy supporting memberships just for that slot, not purely because they support the community. That is perfectly fine with us, we thank anyone who is willing to donate anything to our community.
|TGXV| Waldo_II

Image
DeltaFart
Posts: 2409
Joined: 2008-02-12 20:36

Re: |TG| TacticalGamer.com (USA)

Post by DeltaFart »

I would, but my parents would just say one word, and the conversation would be over.
"Why?"
They wouldn't understand at all
Guybrush
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-08-07 05:37

Re: |TG| TacticalGamer.com (USA)

Post by Guybrush »

waldo_ii wrote:
There are people who buy supporting memberships just for that slot, not purely because they support the community. That is perfectly fine with us, we thank anyone who is willing to donate anything to our community.

Thanks for making this clear, I'm buying one right now. ;)
ImageImage
Superfast
Posts: 7
Joined: 2008-03-25 11:40

Re: |TG| TacticalGamer.com (USA)

Post by Superfast »

Having two servers would also demand even more hard admin-work.
|PRTA|Super_7
Cassius
Posts: 3958
Joined: 2008-04-14 17:37

Re: |TG| TacticalGamer.com (USA)

Post by Cassius »

I feel that despite the avaiability of TS Teamplay is lacking oftentimes on the server. If Teamspeak would be used much more that would help and if the in house squads would make their way in the team coordination channels. I mean they are usually all in the same squad anyway, locking other players out, no need to be in the in house channels, switch to the team coordination channels.

When teamplay happens its awesome, but its getting kind of rare. The password events however are quite nice.

By comparison I saw much more coordinated games on other servers without the use of aides like Teamspeak. You type in chat where you want a strafing run and you get a strafing run, you put the marker down for apc support and an apc pulls up next to you blasting away. Tacticalgamers used to be that way. When the servers were kind of full I was really considering getting a supportive membership, despite my 140+ Euro ping, but having been forced on other servers because the server was regularly at 64/64 I really do not see that much of a need anymore because of the above + I also get to play with a decent ping.

Yah used to be awesome, is occasionally still awesome, but by no means bad. I just do not consider it the best server for PR anymore, at least not right now, that does not mean it is not a good server.

I must say though the comunication even if not game related is quite nice ^^. Playing with zhe Germans makes for organized coordinated games, but, well, lets just say they are not big talkers :p .
Last edited by Cassius on 2009-02-03 13:59, edited 1 time in total.
|TG|cap_Kilgore
Image
random pants
Posts: 205
Joined: 2007-04-21 21:48

Re: |TG| TacticalGamer.com (USA)

Post by random pants »

d1sp0sabl3H3r0 wrote:You're right, rules are for sissys.

Just remember that next time someone tk's you for that jet you've been standing around the last 20 minutes for and scream for the admin.

This is exactly what we mean when we say the admins have a bunch of sticks up their asses....

I hardly play this server anymore...

1. Bitchy admins who over-administrate and kick/ban too much.... even going as far as pausing the server to tell people to stop "spamming the chat" when all we're doing is joking around.

2. Elitist-******* players who think that if you're not rocking some sort of lame clan tag you're a noob. Seriously, Fuck the {TG} tag.

3. Teamwork on this server is largely overrated, its good, but it's not anything amazing, except on PW nights, which are done too infrequently IMO.


TG is gay, and is always full, I get a ping of 10 there and don't even care, ill play on HOG, VIRGINIA, battlearena, texas, anyday over that super-anal server.

-User infracted for abusive language
Last edited by bosco_ on 2009-02-04 17:43, edited 3 times in total.
-=TB=-Tobakfromcuba
Posts: 526
Joined: 2007-02-25 15:06

Re: |TG| TacticalGamer.com (USA)

Post by -=TB=-Tobakfromcuba »

[TG] has the most organized teamplay i ever saw on a PR server, not even on our very own and beloved clanserver. and i play pr long enough having an opinion on the aspect.

and you..random pants...might think about using another language?
d1sp0sabl3H3r0
Posts: 439
Joined: 2007-07-03 20:57

Re: |TG| TacticalGamer.com (USA)

Post by d1sp0sabl3H3r0 »

random pants wrote:This is exactly what we mean when we say the admins have a bunch of sticks up their asses....

I hardly play this server anymore...

1. Bitchy admins who over-administrate and kick/ban too much.... even going as far as pausing the server to tell people to stop "spamming the chat" when all we're doing is joking around.

2. Elitist-******* players who think that if you're not rocking some sort of lame clan tag you're a noob. Seriously, Fuck the {TG} tag.

3. Teamwork on this server is largely overrated, its good, but it's not anything amazing, except on PW nights, which are done too infrequently IMO.


TG is gay, and is always full, I get a ping of 10 there and don't even care, ill play on HOG, VIRGINIA, battlearena, texas, anyday over that super-anal server.
You hardly ever play there, which implies that you still do, but you'd rather play on a number of other servers because we're "gay"? This makes no sense. If you don't like the server population or the admins, why are you wasting your time playing there?

Do yourself a favor and don't try to join the TG server any more. You'll be happier, and I bet we will be, too.

There. Problem solved.
Cassius
Posts: 3958
Joined: 2008-04-14 17:37

Re: |TG| TacticalGamer.com (USA)

Post by Cassius »

d1sp0sabl3H3r0 wrote:You hardly ever play there, which implies that you still do, but you'd rather play on a number of other servers because we're "gay"? This makes no sense. If you don't like the server population or the admins, why are you wasting your time playing there?

Do yourself a favor and don't try to join the TG server any more. You'll be happier, and I bet we will be, too.

There. Problem solved.
The man said the server is analgay, you just got pown0rdz, face it. Seriously though why do you give him any attention, he could just be a 13 year old trolling.

I really do not get people who play PR although they do not enjoy taking orders or teamplay, with the grafik engine limiting it. Its like having the awesome taste of spinach with none of the vitamins.
PR is a game for people who want to take a game somewhat serious, that means coordination teamplay and keeping the chat free for important stuff and of course pracicing so you have reliable skills at a decent level.
There are plenty of games to just have fun where such a degree of discipline or commitment is neither required not wanted for everyone to enjoy them game, which iam sure many who play PR play as well. It is just not what we are looking for when we fire up PR. Its more a simulation than a game and simulations are serious buisness to those who play them :p .
Last edited by Cassius on 2009-02-04 15:58, edited 1 time in total.
|TG|cap_Kilgore
Image
gazzthompson
Posts: 8012
Joined: 2007-01-12 19:05

Re: |TG| TacticalGamer.com (USA)

Post by gazzthompson »

random pants wrote:This is exactly what we mean when we say the admins have a bunch of sticks up their asses....

I hardly play this server anymore...

1. Bitchy admins who over-administrate and kick/ban too much.... even going as far as pausing the server to tell people to stop "spamming the chat" when all we're doing is joking around.

2. Elitist-******* players who think that if you're not rocking some sort of lame clan tag you're a noob. Seriously, Fuck the {TG} tag.

3. Teamwork on this server is largely overrated, its good, but it's not anything amazing, except on PW nights, which are done too infrequently IMO.


TG is gay, and is always full, I get a ping of 10 there and don't even care, ill play on HOG, VIRGINIA, battlearena, texas, anyday over that super-anal server.
why is every other post you make so aggresive and abusive?

good server BTW always a pleasure.
CodeRedFox
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 5919
Joined: 2005-11-08 00:47

Re: |TG| TacticalGamer.com (USA)

Post by CodeRedFox »

random pants has been taken care of by the Mod's so please drop it.

My experience is I've only really played with the DEV's on the server as I dont get a great ping for you guys (distance) but the admins are always present and the gameplay normally lives up to the server name.

The hard stance on asshats is appreciated and very understandable when little shits are ruining a game. Seems like a growing trend on all servers to take a hard stance again those that ruin games like "spamming the chat" for instance.
Image
"apcs, like dogs can't look up" - Dr2B Rudd
LeadMagnet
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 1372
Joined: 2007-02-09 20:11

Re: |TG| TacticalGamer.com (USA)

Post by LeadMagnet »

All credit to the server. It's one of the best admin'd North American servers going. Always has players (even if it's tough to get in sometimes) and whenever there's a problem you can always find someone to deal with it. Case in point; the other day I formed a supply squad on Bi-Ming. When I came back to refill crates some idiot tk'd my squad member and myself and drove off in the truck directly to the enemy main almost. Disposable was there to get rid of the little shit quickly even though this occurred during business/school hours (which is rare in other servers).

“Without Warning, Sans Remorse”
Roborob
Posts: 132
Joined: 2009-01-06 15:18

Re: |TG| TacticalGamer.com (USA)

Post by Roborob »

I've always want to play on this server as I've heard good things about it but I can never give get in for some reason. Any idea what the problem is? The message says: You have been kicked from the server by the game, an admin, for excessive team killing or because of a successful kick vote. Does this mean I am banned? Because I don't think i've ever played on this server before?
waldo_ii
Posts: 961
Joined: 2008-04-30 22:58

Re: |TG| TacticalGamer.com (USA)

Post by waldo_ii »

Perhaps you should take a peek over at our "BANNED? KICKED? Read this!" sticky on our forums.

BANNED? KICKED? Read this! - Tactical Gamer
|TGXV| Waldo_II

Image
Roborob
Posts: 132
Joined: 2009-01-06 15:18

Re: |TG| TacticalGamer.com (USA)

Post by Roborob »

Two player slots are reserved to allow the script to process joining players. As shown on the server-loading page, our server
is FULL at 62/64 players:
Ah-Ah! Thanks for the link that helped alot :-o
Cassius
Posts: 3958
Joined: 2008-04-14 17:37

Re: |TG| TacticalGamer.com (USA)

Post by Cassius »

DeltaFart wrote:how the hell would that happen creeps? Theres 128 players on 2 TG servers theres no way there'd be a break down
I think what he means is it would be one more server to pay for and the incentive to buy supporting membership drops.
I guess what he is saying is they would set up a second server if the space gets cramped for supporting members, but not to accomodate people who want to play for free.
|TG|cap_Kilgore
Image
Locked

Return to “PR:BF2 Server Feedback”