Silly_Savage wrote:
I don't think that's the correct path to go down, ol' champ.
I find the players are what draw me to server, not Tactical Gamer itself. No hostile intent intended, I just prefer to play with the regulars I know, rather than with a bunch of randoms. The fact that they play on Tactical Gamer is what pushed me into becoming a supporting member.
I too play solely on TG for its players. However, I have found there has been a rather large influx of relatively new or unknown players who seem to have purchased supporting membership and therefore reserved slots. The ensuing result is that I find many of the regulars, including myself, are being removed merely minutes in. Waiting times to enter the server have now begun to greatly outlast Playing times in-server.
google wrote:The problem is indeed that too many people are buying SMs soley for the purpose of a reserved slot, even if they're not at all interested in the TG community. I've noticed a large increase in SMs who don't even bother posting an introduction in the TG forums yet do a lot of posting in these forums. TG has simply become the place where the cool kids play (this is not necessarily a negative thing). I even witnessed an SM blatantly challenge a basic TG rule ingame earlier today. However, it is the most balanced system and is a necessary evil. Upping the price is turns it into more of a rich vs poor issue and only encourages the 'pay only for the slot' idea... which is really not the type of thinking TG is looking for (as far as I know).
Yes, I too agree that the Sm system should remain, yet the financial premises behind it should change, where the price of a supporting membership would reflect the demand for one:
The Issue
Supporting Membership can be described as a
De-Merit Good, where others (effectively, anyone who has the desire to play on TG at any given time, regular or new) directly or indirectly suffer from an SM being purchased and used. The benefits to the SM far, in fact almost infinitely, outweigh the benefits for the rest of the players; and the cost to the rest of the players far outweigh the cost to the individual.
But SMs
need to exist too keep the server running, so they must stay.
There are too many SMs, if you observe the problems caused:
-Some supporting members cannot connect-at-will, as are there simply no non-SMs left to remove during peak times/special events.
-non supporting members cannot enjoy playing on the server, as playing times become vastly limited, fragmented, sporadic and brief. Under those conditions, there is simply no incentive to play as a non-supporting member.
-All players will suffer from 'natural stacking'. This occours because, as one team will quite likely have more SMs than the other(communities, such as regulars and in-house squads natrually like to play together), the lesser-SM heavy team will suffer from lack of entact command structure; loss and abandonment of assets in the field, as crews disapear; higher ticke-loss, due to -1 ticket for kicks and loss of assets; inconsistent force presence, as players are constantly disappearing and being replaced by those that now have to spawn at an FB or Main.
-Non-SMs actually become a liability too their team, casusing the problems above.
-SMs become a natural advantage, as they lack those negatives above.
-Raging players raging and causing mumble/teamspeak traffic
-The inability to carry-out action plans, as those with set tasks in mind are no longer on the server, replaced by those with little-no knowledge of the plan.
The Overview
So with the recent influx of SMs, there is a larger proportion of "Rich" players, who can play whenever they want, at the expense of everyone else. Now
only those with the power to purchase can play. SM is being provided at the wrong price.
The result is, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
Solutions?
Naturally, a government (you could describe those in charge of TG as the 'TG government', who decide its laws) see this would this is a bad thing and act against it, with tools such as prohibition (getting rid of SMs means server failz, so is out of the question) or taxation (increasing the cost would naturally reduce consumption).
Da Maff
I found and approximated that it would cost around $50-65 for running a minmum spec BF2(PR) server; and that it would cost $80-110 for running a maximum spec BF2(pr) server(including additions such as a full 64 player slot, 100mumble slots with an US-east coast server, montly)
Say a server had 40 SMs paying private membership costs at $8.75 (TG must have over 62 SMs, as there are multiple occasions where SMs could not connect, as there were no more non-SMs left to kick). Do the math and that comes out at $350 a month (
This would mean that the Server makes a net profit of around $4200 per-annum from Supporting Memberships), more than enough to run a server and a training, with an additional $35 for other costs, at a combined cost of $145 (A yearly cost of $1740) server twice over.
TG can afford to shed some of its profits (thought its not impossible for TG to make a further monetary gain) from increasing the SM price.
I advise people to browse basic economic theory on things such as De-merit goods and the likes.
Thats my $8.75 feedback on how TG might be able to improve its server quality.
...mongol...