NS Combat

[Lightning Blue]

The current incarnation of NS:Combat is not very enjoyable I have found, and I am considering not running it.

However, I'd like Lunixmonster to be fun for all, so we are going to try this vote.

Please vote, and explain why you voted.

Note there is not a I don't Care option, if you don't care don't bother to post! You have been warned!

Of course, my view on this is subject to get more positive (or negative) as we move towards release, so stay tuned! ^^

[JHunz]

Remember not to judge a final product by it's beta builds...that said, it depends on whether the stalemate problem can be fixed somehow.  Assuming it is, I'd prefer a seperate NS:C server, because IMO combat gets more and more fun as the number of players goes up, and having the map change to regular NS just when you've got enough players for a really good game of combat would be a little frustrating.

[Edit]: Actually, I don't really mind the map switching to NS, I mind it doing it automatically based on number of players.  Therefore I'm going to vote for the option he added when I was making this post :p

[esuna]

I think it should be left with all maps in cycle. With 3.0's ability to votemap, if everyone on the server gets fed up with playing NS:C, they can just vote to a normal NS map, and vice versa.

Oh yeah, add co_dawn to the cycle.

[DruBo]

I wish there were an 'other' button so I could post my earlier suggestion, where admins can turn ns:c on and off with a command, like admin_nsc.

All it would have to do is switch the mapcycle files.

That, in combination with the player limit, would be the best solution imo.

[BOZO]

Well I dont like the idea of having a seperate Comabt only server because I dont want to draw people away from the original LM, even if it is LM: Combat  . So I would put them in the mapsycle but can only be changed by Admins or votes.

[Elven_Thief]

I would personally love to see both modes played alternatively on the same server. It's a refreshing break and it gives everybody a "guaranteed" knowledge of map cycle.
If joe pubber is playing NS classic and after a round gets sick of it, you can play a map of ns combat easily. Same goes visa-versa.
Having 2 servers would be a seperate option, but then you'd get the problem of splitting the playerbase of the server. If Player A says "Let's play combat. I'm going to the combat server" and half the people go, but half remain, you end up in getting some pretty unenjoyable games. I have to say combat is quite fun with large player groups, as is NS.
That being said, my vote is cast for mapcycling running both types of game alternatively. Once 3.0 is public, people are going to come to Lunixmonster for the name and for the playerbase. But they're also going to want to play Combat probably more than anything. I say if you give them even doses of each game before making a set decision, you're good to go.

[Wither]

I voted to leave all maps in the mapcycle. I don't like the idea of having to switch between servers, it's the same game nonetheless. I have faith that the stalemates will be fixed by the time it gets released.

[Gunner2k]

Well, I would say leave all the maps in the same cycle because I would think everyone would want to play Combat mode also, and I don't think that they would really like to go to another server just to play Combat mode. If you do run all maps on the same server, you should do it NS mode, then Combat mode, then NS mode, and so forth, so everyone can get a taste of Combat, then NS and see how it goes from there. Those are just my thoughts anyways.  o_O

[Leaderz0rz]

Combat is kinda fun, I like the fast pace it is, it is a nice change from NS:C despite all the obvious problems with it that can make it unfun fast ;p my vote stands with keep them in the mapcycle

[Seth]

yes keep them in map cycle with a nice mix maybe 2 combat maps then 2 regular ones blah blah blah......

but i think the biggest thing will be a auto vote that pops up 5mins to the map finish giving 2 combat maps and 2 reg maps to pick from. seems like a happy medium to me.

[Malevolent]

I think that we should first test it out to see how much we even like it and if it has a lasting quality. If not, well that problem is solved.  If we like it, then there should be two servers (if it's feasible) or just have the over 6v6, regular NS and under, NS: Combat.

[lolfighter]

#2 gets my vote. This way we get to try out a diverse mix of Combat and Standard NS. In any case, after having played Combat for a little while (a week or two maybe?), we should have this discussion again, to see how our views have changed.

[Smoke Nova]

I like the idea of switching maps so that you can play NS:C with large amounts or small amounts.

[Grimm]

I agree that we should test it out first, and test it a little while after all the hyperness and commotion of a new release. For the moment, however, I am voting on running all maps together on the same cycle. I like the idea of having separate servers to go to to play Combat or normal NS, depending on my mood, but there is a chance that that might cause one of the servers to be less populated than usual. I am still leaning to that idea however, as being able to stay with regulars on an LM server, either in a game of NS or C, is more appealing.

[Fewlio]

Well I wouldnt want it to be based on players, because I have had fun games of ns that were 3v3, infact many many fun games. I myself cannot stick to a decision 100% because I havent even played ns:c yet, and we will just have to test it . My vote was two servers though.

[Diablus]

i say try 2 servers and if the community gets annoyed from server switching (dont see why they would tho) then scratch it, im pretty sure itll go well tho

[Satanic Monkey]

I think we shoudl test it out , but i will like the mapcycle option and not 2 seperate servers

[Paranoia-2MB]

My vote: Run all maps in the mapcycle at all times.

No need to spend extra bucks on an extra server that you don't need.  That's just my opinion.  Let it run by how the default/map cycle settings are.  

Play standard NS and then off to some Combat to let off some steam and do whatever.  Or do more so of whatever in Combat than in NS :p

[Dirty Harry Potter]

Im standing somewhere between "2 servers" and "every map in the map cycle". Both is goodie, But the first option i think i would dislike.

Note: i didnt vote in the poll, since im split between 2 of the options.

[Guspaz]

I would have voted for one of the first two options if I hadn't accidentally voted null.

I love Combat and don't want to see it gone, and I also don't want a second server for it dividing the playerbase.

NS's default method might work, though I think it was more complicated than LB said above. This is how I thought it worked:

1) Time for map change
2) Is there a Combat map next?
3) If yes to 2, check if the playercount is right for combat
4) If yes to 3, change to scheduled combat map
5) If no to 3, skip combat map until next non-combat map in rotation
6) If no to 2, continue normally.

But if it's merely a simple play-combat-only-if-playercount-under-12, I'd vote for keep normal map rotation.