[bf1942] Anyone have a popular non-ranked server?

Rayne rayne at bf2-maps.com
Tue Aug 16 12:03:54 EDT 2005


The bottom line is that EA has stated that they are not enforcing the
64-slot requirement. Due to that many providers have dropped their required
servers to the lower levels. Maybe that is the confusion on the subject.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rayne [mailto:rayne at bf2-maps.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:59 AM
To: bf1942 at icculus.org
Subject: RE: [bf1942] Anyone have a popular non-ranked server?

I get them from EA directly sir. There is not slot requirement on the
requirement in forfilling your obligation to EA. It only states that you
must run those amounts per clients, etc. Ranked servers must be at least
16-slots but are not required to be higher. If you are a 'trusted provider'
then I suggest you read what they sent you carefully as you would be hosting
much more than what they detail you to do. If you choose to make them bigger
then nobody is stopping you. But the minimum requirements is what I stated
and those are indeed facts.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Wolberg [mailto:jon at defenderhosting.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:57 AM
To: bf1942 at icculus.org
Subject: Re: [bf1942] Anyone have a popular non-ranked server?

I dont know where you got your requirements, but they are wrong.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rayne" <rayne at bf2-maps.com>
To: <bf1942 at icculus.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:48 AM
Subject: RE: [bf1942] Anyone have a popular non-ranked server?


>I quoted their base requirements. There is no requirement to run a 64-slot
> server in the "trusted provider" rules.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Wolberg [mailto:jon at defenderhosting.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:21 AM
> To: bf1942 at icculus.org
> Subject: Re: [bf1942] Anyone have a popular non-ranked server?
>
> 16 slot?  Try 64 slot.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Rayne" <rayne at bf2-maps.com>
> To: <bf1942 at icculus.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:17 AM
> Subject: RE: [bf1942] Anyone have a popular non-ranked server?
>
>
>> [rant]
>>
>> Are you blind or just drunk? To become a "trusted provider" you have to
>> fire
>> up 10 16-slot servers for the gaming community. Then for every 10 servers
>> you sell you have to fire up another one. ALL to the benefit of EA's
>> ranked
>> server system. Personally, I think that having individual stats in a
>> team-based game is completely destructive to the environment of the game.
>> We've got snipers sitting outside of spawn, chopper pilots hovering over
>> spawns and nobody is trying to take a flag to win the map. You call that
>> good gameplay? How about the beautiful little mod that DC had that would
>> kill you if you entered the opponent's main base for more than 5-10
>> seconds?
>> How about make the ranked servers have their own little world and let the
>> modding communities and custom maps be run ONLY on unranked servers where
>> players want to WIN and not just pad their "ranked" scores.
>>
>> [/rant]
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ScratchMonkey [mailto:ScratchMonkey at MatureAsskickers.net]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:10 AM
>> To: bf1942 at icculus.org
>> Subject: Re: [bf1942] Anyone have a popular non-ranked server?
>>
>> --On Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:42 AM -0400 Dave Snodgrass
>> <packtloss at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> They didnt invest all this time/effort into mods and stats, if they dont
>>> plan to profit from them.
>>
>> Wait a minute. Didn't somebody say EA doesn't profit from the ranked
>> server
>> program?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> 













More information about the Bf1942 mailing list