How about a forum night?

[MASTAKILLA 0]

i had several ctd tonight - till wednesday i reinstall ofp/fdf etc. and join you again hopfully more stable  

greetz

[llauma 0]

The co-op's dont work that good with too many players. Maybe we need to put a limit but that would be a shame. The other option is to keep it disciplined. When you play you should always know what the mission is about it wont work otherwise.

We need to write down a small co-op guide book so all know what to do.

[raedor 8]

just kick all none-ts players...

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

No, that is no solution (sorry for disagreeing dear Sir Raedor). The problem with so many people is indeed communication. I mean even I got confused this time and I usually strive to follow the footsteps of the officer. They played all the 130 missions in and out so sticking to team leaders is a good way to stay alive. Also, whit less people and more coordination I noticed that the game is more fun, why? Because everyone gets his part in which he has the chance to KILL some soldiers. I know it is not the aim to increase your own body count but that is what the game is for, isnt it. But with so many players it happens too often that we die without having shot a single bullet. Some people start to shoot without orders. They do so because they have found a good hideout. They know where the enemy is and feel safe to engage. But what about the team-mates. They might not have settled in a bush. They might be on the plain field and once the enemy is alerted they have no chance to escape or defend themselves. Too many people, too much pressure to get a piece of the pie. It turns into a race: who is the first to engage the enemy? If you come to late you wont fire a bullet till the end of the mission. That is what people believe but of course the opposite is the case. The first one arriving at the enemy camp is the first one to find a good bush and kill some soldiers. The people that come late run right into enemy fire. So actually the wrong get punished and the ones ignoring orders have a better chance of survival.

This is in the nature of playing with so many team-mates and nothing is gonna change that. The only medicin to restrict that is to lower the amount of players. Sad but true. OR... to make it fair... CIA finally decides to immediately kick a player if he does not follow the teamleader or the orders. I wouldnt mind being kicked myself if I am stupid enough to break the rules. I could then join the next game and hopefully behave better. The only tiny problem is that the player then is substituted by AI. But that is definetly better than wasting a evening like today. It wasnt CIAs fault but tonight was realy no fun, at least not compared to the awesome evenings I had with a few players (CIA, Raedor, winters, burns, hellfish, gollum...) during the out-of schedule session like yesterday.

Cause today, it was realy tough to follow orders in that confusion. Sorry Bals, I didnt even notice you were getting the Mörser out the boat!)

[hellfish6 7]

I had to step out of the games after a while tonite, unfortunately, so I don't really know what happened that I missed.

For a little while, though, it was nice to play missions with full rosters. Was the problem undisciplined players?

Also, has CiA thought about using the WGL mod as an alternate server option? It might be fun to try something new. I'm not saying that I'm tired of FDF or anything, but I'm merely putting it forth as an option. I've played coop in WGL before and it was a whole lot of fun.

[Postduifje 0]

Some kind of guidebook can be usefull for some players, as then you'll have solid ground to punish the wicked and refer them to the rulenumber they just broke.

For me, I always try to follow the leader, unless offcourse he orders me not to. But the problem is I don't know many of the missions too well. That offcourse would be an extra reason to follow the ones who do, but it gets confusing when the server is crowded and the communication is lacking.

[Lobanak 0]

Okay, "some" screnies from jesterday. I hope I am not screwing up my hosting site with that!

Upload your pics to our gallery on our site and you don't have problems with your provider. All pics from our coop-nights then accessible in one place. You also can link them into forums.

[Lobanak 0]

Some kind of guidebook can be usefull for some players, as then you'll have solid ground to punish the wicked and refer them to the rulenumber they just broke.

We just set up our server rules and playing rules. Not finished yet, but soon they come.

If you then wanna play on our server, you have to follow the rules. If not, we will kick people who don't follow them.

There will be rules for client-setup, gameplay, communication and so on.

Greets

[CiA]Lobanak

[raedor 8]

No, that is no solution (sorry for disagreeing dear Sir Raedor). The problem with so many people is indeed communication. I mean even I got confused this time and I usually strive to follow the footsteps of the officer. They played all the 130 missions in and out so sticking to team leaders is a good way to stay alive. Also, whit less people and more coordination I noticed that the game is more fun, why? Because everyone gets his part in which he has the chance to KILL some soldiers. I know it is not the aim to increase your own body count but that is what the game is for, isnt it. But with so many players it happens too often that we die without having shot a single bullet. Some people start to shoot without orders. They do so because they have found a good hideout. They know where the enemy is and feel safe to engage. But what about the team-mates. They might not have settled in a bush. They might be on the plain field and once the enemy is alerted they have no chance to escape or defend themselves. Too many people, too much pressure to get a piece of the pie. It turns into a race: who is the first to engage the enemy? If you come to late you wont fire a bullet till the end of the mission. That is what people believe but of course the opposite is the case. The first one arriving at the enemy camp is the first one to find a good bush and kill some soldiers. The people that come late run right into enemy fire. So actually the wrong get punished and the ones ignoring orders have a better chance of survival.

This is in the nature of playing with so many team-mates and nothing is gonna change that. The only medicin to restrict that is to lower the amount of players. Sad but true. OR... to make it fair... CIA finally decides to immediately kick a player if he does not follow the teamleader or the orders. I wouldnt mind being kicked myself if I am stupid enough to break the rules. I could then join the next game and hopefully behave better. The only tiny problem is that the player then is substituted by AI. But that is definetly better than wasting a evening like today. It wasnt CIAs fault but tonight was realy no fun, at least not compared to the awesome evenings I had with a few players (CIA, Raedor, winters, burns, hellfish, gollum...) during the out-of schedule session like yesterday.

Cause today, it was realy tough to follow orders in that confusion. Sorry Bals, I didnt even notice you were getting the Mörser out the boat!)

hm that's true. there's only one solution: kick all guys who brak the rules. especially those who open fire too early. but the main problem - the missing communication - remains when so many players are up.

so what can we do? make stricter rules? missions with more enemys? i just don't know it.

i'll do it as i did before: cos i have never time on sun- and wednesdays i'll join on out-of-schedule-days...

[hellfish6 7]

But the problem is I don't know many of the missions too well. That offcourse would be an extra reason to follow the ones who do, but it gets confusing when the server is crowded and the communication is lacking.

I don't like knowing what the mission is. It bothers me when somebody says "save your mine for the T-72 that will be here in 5 minutes." I didn't know a T-72 was going to be here and I didn't want to know - let me live with the consequences of my action. If somebody tells me exactly what to expect in the mission, it loses some of it's fun.

[Postduifje 0]

This one time I played on CiA we splitted into 2 teams, that seemed to work rather well. And demanding the use of teamspeak might help too. I've played with it once, although I wasn't able to speak thrue it (no mic), just hearing the leader would be atleast something.

[Postduifje 0]

I don't like knowing what the mission is. It bothers me when somebody says "save your mine for the T-72 that will be here in 5 minutes." I didn't know a T-72 was going to be here and I didn't want to know - let me live with the consequences of my action. If somebody tells me exactly what to expect in the mission, it loses some of it's fun.  

I agree, but what I ment was that if you've once played a mission you're more aware of the objectives and how to accomplish them. You don't have to know all the exact movements and location of the enemy, but sometimes the briefing doesn't quite inform you what the leader will be doing.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Some screens from jesterday.

Fly and tell them you are not the last one to arrive.

Yes, you can go it is free! Just watch the mortar-fire!

Far Cry engine?

Plane coming???

Jesus, that is a gay sky isnt it? But for LLauma it is just fine ;)

[llauma 0]

The main problem is that some players do not listen to the leader. A mission just needs one guy going his own way and it's fucked. I have started to shoot those who opens fire when the team isn't set, sure you can open fire when it's really needed but many runs straight to a good position and opens fire. Often the battle begins before the team even knows what the mission is about. This wont be tolerated!

We try to play real co-op's so all those who thinks they can play like on some public servers should perhaps consider not joining. As albert said this isn't a race!

This game is really old so there are some basic things people should know about the game. I guess all of you have been playing this for years so we don't want noob behaviour on the server.

But the most important thing is that all listens to what is said. Always make clear you know who leads, where he is and what the mission is about. We won't tolerate any solo runs! If all did that the mission would turn into chaos.

Big co-op's are possible but that requires that all behaves. I know Kyllikki has good guide book but it's in finnish. I will translate it into english. It would be nice if someone else could help me with that. As it's quite big I will try to cut it down to the essential.

[EiZei 0]

The main problem is that some players do not listen to the leader. A mission just needs one guy going his own way and it's fucked. I have started to shoot those who opens fire when the team isn't set, sure you can open fire when it's really needed but many runs straight to a good position and opens fire. Often the battle begins before the team even knows what the mission is about. This wont be tolerated!

Just a matter of admin willpower, couple of executions with the officers pistol, kicks and even some bans usually make sure the worst cases stay out.. at least at LDD Kyllikki's server.

[llauma 0]

The main problem is that some players do not listen to the leader. A mission just needs one guy going his own way and it's fucked. I have started to shoot those who opens fire when the team isn't set, sure you can open fire when it's really needed but many runs straight to a good position and opens fire. Often the battle begins before the team even knows what the mission is about. This wont be tolerated!

Just a matter of admin willpower, couple of executions with the officers pistol, kicks and even some bans usually make sure the worst cases stay out.. at least at LDD Kyllikki's server.

I was so determind to shoot the one who opened fire that I would have shot him even if it had been Marek visiting the server.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

The main problem is that some players do not listen to the leader. A mission just needs one guy going his own way and it's fucked. I have started to shoot those who opens fire when the team isn't set, sure you can open fire when it's really needed but many runs straight to a good position and opens fire. Often the battle begins before the team even knows what the mission is about. This wont be tolerated!

Just a matter of admin willpower, couple of executions with the officers pistol, kicks and even some bans usually make sure the worst cases stay out.. at least at LDD Kyllikki's server.

Fully agree. This is not iraq. If you shoot someone in the game he is just out of the mission for 20 minutes. So he has time to think again how he should behave. But seriously. I have hardly seen you kicking someone!

[Skul 0]

That's 'cause he's really just a big softy at heart! Awwww...

[Gareth Gates must die]

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I havent met a single scandinavian softy so far. Actually the opposite is the problem!

[raedor 8]

The main problem is that some players do not listen to the leader. A mission just needs one guy going his own way and it's fucked. I have started to shoot those who opens fire when the team isn't set, sure you can open fire when it's really needed but many runs straight to a good position and opens fire. Often the battle begins before the team even knows what the mission is about. This wont be tolerated!

Just a matter of admin willpower, couple of executions with the officers pistol, kicks and even some bans usually make sure the worst cases stay out.. at least at LDD Kyllikki's server.

Fully agree. This is not iraq. If you shoot someone in the game he is just out of the mission for 20 minutes. So he has time to think again how he should behave. But seriously. I have hardly seen you kicking someone!

yes, there were 1-2 cases since i'm playing on cia when you could have kicked someone...

but not one game which i joined was really messed up.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Yesterday, as I recall it, Llauma killed someone who started to shoot without order. I heard the other guy firing too so I thought I missed an order and opened fire as well. But lucky me, I was behind a bush and Llauma only shot the other guy, but couldnt locate the other moron (me) who wasted bullets simultaneously. Oh, and I played innocent "who shot? who shot?"

[raedor 8]

Yesterday, as I recall it, Llauma killed someone who started to shoot without order. I heard the other guy firing too so I thought I missed an order and opened fire as well. But lucky me, I was behind a bush and Llauma only shot the other guy, but couldnt locate the other moron (me) who wasted bullets simultaneously. Oh, and I played innocent "who shot? who shot?"

haha, a new form of coop: kill the deserteur! one guy is officer and tries to kill all guys who opened fire too early

j/k

[bn880 5]

Sometimes you have to open fire alone when you're clearly going to die, enemy sees you and aims, close. SO, this don't open fire unless you set up thing is not ideal.

You have to give orders like stealth, which means don't get spotted and don't open fire unless told to, but if life is in danger the person should still open fire. Second type of order could be don't fire, or hold fire. Meaning no firing at all no matter what. Third is fire at will... we know that one.

What I'm saying is,the CO has to make it clear what the rules of engagement are.

EDIT: so there are different reasons for opening fire early, 1) rambo style, no team cooperation 2) time to save your ass NOW

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

yeah, but often the officer is then fine with it. But if you have to shoot because you crawled away from the team up to the boots of the enemy well then they have a reason to go Beserk on you

(remember "Beserk" from Doom?)

[raedor 8]

Sometimes you have to open fire alone when you're clearly going to die, enemy sees you and aims, close. SO, this don't open fire unless you set up thing is not ideal.

You have to give orders like stealth, which means don't get spotted and don't open fire unless told to, but if life is in danger the person should still open fire. Second type of order could be don't fire, or hold fire. Meaning no firing at all no matter what. Third is fire at will... we know that one.

What I'm saying is,the CO has to make it clear what the rules of engagement are.

EDIT: so there are different reasons for opening fire early, 1) rambo style, no team cooperation 2) time to save your ass NOW

we're not discussing about cases like 2) here. if you had shot down the russian (who was like 5 meter from you) in the heli mission some days ago, nobody would have shot you, cos you would have killed him to stay alive.

that's not the problem.

when everybody looks for a good place to hide for an assault/ambush whatever and somebody shoots before the "FIRE AT WILL" comand came, that's what we're discussing about.