xGj Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Perhaps something to look at for future releases. It isnt really needed but It would be a little cool option. If people dont know what I'm talking about, ill explain. In Battlefield 2 you've got servers being ranked by EA, they give those ranks to real good servers with known good software/hosting. It would help people finding good servers. Im pretty sure that if you'd like the idea it wont be in r1, but yeh for the future it would be cool. All I gotta say now. Link to comment
[XII]Fexsi0n Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Would rather see them sync some more, tbh. Not saying the idea is useless, but imo (if they take this serious) it should have a low priority... Link to comment
So'lide Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Beef2 is too score-based game, it has lost its meaning. Everyone's just doing whatever they can to get scroes, never obeying the commander. So IMO this idea sucks. Link to comment
erorr404 Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 It's not necessary since MTA won't have as many servers as BF2 so they'll be much easier to find. Link to comment
By-Stander Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Who would judge this though, and how exactly? I mean you'd have to specify particular achievements and targets and allocate a score for each otherwise it would be a rather wishy-washy 'thats a good server'. Seems a little rigid. Maybe an offsite (i.e. not official) recommendation site where users can (automatically?) rate a server. A little like an ebay user gets a feedback rating depending on how many good or bad reports he recieves, giving an overall score for that server. Link to comment
xGj Posted January 7, 2006 Author Share Posted January 7, 2006 Beef2 is too score-based game, it has lost its meaning. Everyone's just doing whatever they can to get scroes, never obeying the commander. So IMO this idea sucks. So the idea sucks because bf2 is a bad game in your opinion? I only meant such a system and was only refering to bf2 because its the only game which has something like that. Would rather see them sync some more, tbh. Well I said for future releases and it isnt really necessarily but "a little cool option". It's not necessary since MTA won't have as many servers as BF2 so they'll be much easier to find. How can you know already? And you could see quality servers so they will be played more. Quality servers deserve to be played on by many players, right now, you can see all good servers hosted by gamefuel and gservers and more companies with 0 people playing in it. Who would judge this though, and how exactly? I mean you'd have to specify particular achievements and targets and allocate a score for each otherwise it would be a rather wishy-washy 'thats a good server'. Seems a little rigid.Maybe an offsite (i.e. not official) recommendation site where users can (automatically?) rate a server. A little like an ebay user gets a feedback rating depending on how many good or bad reports he recieves, giving an overall score for that server. possible.. and for who would judge this: I suggest the QA team or the team itself. Or based on ratings yeh.. enough options. Link to comment
erorr404 Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 It's not necessary since MTA won't have as many servers as BF2 so they'll be much easier to find. How can you know already? And you could see quality servers so they will be played more. Quality servers deserve to be played on by many players, right now, you can see all good servers hosted by gamefuel and gservers and more companies with 0 people playing in it. Lol, wild guess. The quality servers are usually the ones with people playing on them. And I see people in Gamefuel and gservers all the time.. Link to comment
xGj Posted January 7, 2006 Author Share Posted January 7, 2006 It's not necessary since MTA won't have as many servers as BF2 so they'll be much easier to find. How can you know already? And you could see quality servers so they will be played more. Quality servers deserve to be played on by many players, right now, you can see all good servers hosted by gamefuel and gservers and more companies with 0 people playing in it. Lol, wild guess. The quality servers are usually the ones with people playing on them. And I see people in Gamefuel and gservers all the time.. Well in some servers indeed. It's just something good for starting quality servers, they will not get known if 0 players are in it, no-one joins a 0 player server, neither do I. So if the good servers would be ranked, people would get to know them. Im not saying quality servers get no attention but imo too less, and perhaps it would help you by searching less laggy servers. I personally hate laggy servers Link to comment
[UVA]BuLLiT Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 well the ranks r their when ppl come in to the server u can type in !top kills or ratio and u can see whos the best. and if u wanna check my rank in BF2 its in my sig Link to comment
xGj Posted January 8, 2006 Author Share Posted January 8, 2006 well the ranks r their when ppl come in to the server u can type in !top kills or ratio and u can see whos the best.and if u wanna check my rank in BF2 its in my sig Bullit, this is about the rank of the server quality shown in the server browser. Not about player stats. Read the first post. Link to comment
Recommended Posts