GrogHeads Forum

I used to be really good at multiplayer games.  I could Quake with the best of them, and a master at Descent....but then I got older and had to go to work and raise a family.  As it is, I have an hour a day to play video games.  As such, I'm not good at many of them that are reaction related.  I can hold my own on DCS because it is skill related, but it takes me some time and lots of coffee to ramp up my brain to Battlefield 3 twitch levels.

The thing I'm finding is that it is nolonger ok to be ok at multiplayer games.

I have been reading up on King Arthur's Gold http://www.kag2d.com/en/ (http://www.kag2d.com/en/) and thinking of how much I'd like to play it...but I won't buy it because I know that a few months after release the core players will be so good and so anti-noob I won't have a chance to play anyway.

I guess the fix for this issue is to join a gaming clan or community...but that just sounds grueling.

Several years ago (at a different website) we sponsored a Call of Duty server. It was great because we played the maps we wanted and the style we wanted (hardcore). Griefers got booted quickly. There were about ten of us who got together every weekend and played. It was awesome.

More recently there were about half a dozen guys here playing Warlock. That seems to have faded away, but I am sure that with some effort we can get a couple of groups going from the crowd here. The biggest obstacle is agreeing what game to play. Next thing is to convince some guys to play it (that shouldn't be too difficult).

We've got a dedicated sub forum for folks to find multiplayer partners/opponents, but you're welcome to post in here to get more attention until the group is formed. Then it's probably better moved to the appropriate forum.

Yeah..agrees 100%. I used to love getting home from my midnight shift and firing up COD with some shift mates to blow off steam. Over time though, we began to join more and more open games with "those" guys in it...and you know the ones: the ones that find ways to actually run "under" the map and shoot up at you...or do that thing where they "jump! Jump" like a crazy person so you can't shoot them.

It got to the point that I can't have fun. I run out onto a map, see a guy...and I'm dead. I just don't have the hand/eye coordination anymore for twitch games and I certainly don't have the patience for guys who use whatever glitch or trick they can to win no matter how realistic.

I stick with Sp but would consider MP for "thinking" strategy games"

LT: "what is Kowalski doing??? He's going to get killed!"
Sgt: "He'll be fine sir...the enemy can't hit him out in the open as long as he keeps jumping while he shoots"
LT: "You mean like "Mario Brothers?'

Edit:

how much does it cost for a server if you got a bf4 one or a cod one? surely we could all chip in and contribute

Quote from: undercovergeek on November 11, 2013, 10:22:35 AM
how much does it cost for a server if you got a bf4 one or a cod one? surely we could all chip in and contribute

It's not just the cost, but the control. The cost is pretty minimal. I'm thinking ~ $30/month but it depends on how many slots we open up.

After COD Modern Warfare they tightened up on the server controls. I think it has loosened, but I haven't looked into it. It used to be you could download an rcon that would let me change the server settings. It was really cool - covered everything from bullet damage to gravity. I never messed with either of those settings but I did like how I could manage the map rotation, game play, and easily boot @$$holes who showed up loaded with cheats. I hear things have improved, but I'm not sure they're back to letting the server admin take full control.

Lastly, as far as COD and BF go, I'm not hearing the cheers we used to get for a new release. Jarhead may be one of the few guys to have played both platforms and I'm not hearing him rave about either. As a result I don't have any idea how many guys might be interested. If we can decide one of them is "good enough" then I'm more than happy to take the next step and see what kind of server we can put together.

Or perhaps one of the ARMAs is the way to go?

poll, poll, poll!!!

Quote from: undercovergeek on November 11, 2013, 11:21:10 AM
poll, poll, poll!!!

Poll has been added.

N.B. I am allowing voters to change their votes. That way if we see some momentum swinging toward a different game than you might have originally selected, you can change it. Also, if a significant patch/mod/DLC is released that could change things.

The poll has no close date, but I doubt voting will matter much in a couple of months.

And in the spirit of changing your vote, if there is a game not listed above that we should add, someone is welcome to suggest it.

ArmA III!

I might jump in for Natural Selection 2 (http://store.steampowered.com/app/4920/?snr=1_7_15__13) I tried once but found the hardcore experienced players to be too much to deal with. Learning with fellow newbs, or at least with adults would be cool.

i feel some late nights for the Europeans coming on!

We've already done Left 4 Dead 2 but we never really had a bad time with it. It is only limited to four at a time, though...

im thinking a proper Grogs server with squads and teams could only be a good thing

More likely a bevy of comedic treasure.

Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on November 11, 2013, 11:58:26 AM
ArmA III!

ARMA III! 

Cod UO or COD 2 :)

I've found Red Orchestra 2/Rising Storm has a bit less of the rif-raff than other multiplayer games.

Also, if you wanted to do strictly Grogs, War of the Roses or Chivalry would be fun games.  I can't recommend either of those to play with random people, though, unless you have a high tolerance for buffoonery.

Quote from: Toonces on November 11, 2013, 01:34:45 PM
I've found Red Orchestra 2/Rising Storm has a bit less of the rif-raff than other multiplayer games.

Also, if you wanted to do strictly Grogs, War of the Roses or Chivalry would be fun games.  I can't recommend either of those to play with random people, though, unless you have a high tolerance for buffoonery.

I think all of us on the same server armed with swords and morning stars has a pretty high buffoonery potential

We are the riff-raff of buffoonery. Or vice versa. I forget.

Arma III or Red Orchestra 2/Rising Sun

Though I'll play whatever ends up being the consensus.  The only series I really don't care for is Call of Duty, but I'd play whatever just to have some good folks to play with.

Quote from: Gusington on November 11, 2013, 02:19:39 PM
We are the riff-raff of buffoonery. Or vice versa. I forget.

Can we be both at the same time?

Chose BF4 only because my record for survival in ArmA II/III is counted in seconds instead of minutes or hours.

Yes!*

*maybe

Quote from: Toonces on November 11, 2013, 01:34:45 PM
I've found Red Orchestra 2/Rising Storm has a bit less of the rif-raff than other multiplayer games.

I would probably vote Rising Storm but I think we'd need quite a few more people than we have.  Aren't the typical server pops around forty or fifty?  I suppose leaving it as an open public server is the idea, though, right?

Otherwise I voted ARMA II even though I've got the whole collection and never fired it up.  It may well give me motion sickness as some other first-person shooters do  :( (RO2/Rising Storm does not).

I voted TF2. I kinda miss the late night team fragging sessions. I started with Quake[on dialup, hard to play well with a 500 ping] moved to   TFC and played that for years on a few fun and well run servers where teamwork actually happened. Did the clan thing a couple of times but that just seemed to serious. If  I had to chose another game I'd say DOD:S , played the original for a few years and had fun with the WW2 team setting. I used to play some COD with the kids but who the hell can play with a gamepad when your a mouse guy :D besides i like to play where there's teamwork envolved and i never saw any playing COD with the kids.

I voted ARMA2 because my box won't play ARMA3 and the only other game besides 'Other' that I've played is L4D2.

Server prices are based primarily on two factors.  The number of player slots and the game.  A voice client adds an additional cost.  We talked about this at some length last summer, but I think in the end there are a lot of guys who would like to play but the coordination across time zones, dates, and limiting it to one game proved nigh impossible.  It's why steam server based games have worked well for different groups in the past.  Namely CIV V, Warlock, and L4D2 groups that were meeting fairly regularly for awhile.

Arma with the zombie mod.

I went with Natural Selection 2.  Such a fantastic combo of strategy vs FPS fun.

I picked up BF4 and I must have the uni with the huge bullseye since all I do is die.  I will find myself amassing points from capturing flags but will end up with 3 kills and 20 deaths.  I'm the new class...pacifist!

Not sure if it's my age, lack of upgrades compared to others or just out and out sucking but it does get very frustrating.  I've enjoyed playing for the most part but I need to find a way to improve my game.

Honestly my favorite PvP game to this day remains Day of Defeat.

Quote from: Bison on November 11, 2013, 08:45:44 PM
Honestly my favorite PvP game to this day remains Day of Defeat.

The original or source? I haven't played the source version but played alot of the original.

The thing with some of these newer games are the maps are so big the action isn't contained enough and you need alot of players to make it fun [at least thats what it looks like, only played a little of battlefield, not the new one] Playing DOD i always had good games with as little as 12 players and working as a team was easier and the maps weren't super large so you were always near the action.

Quote from: -budd- on November 11, 2013, 08:54:48 PM

Quote from: Bison on November 11, 2013, 08:45:44 PM
Honestly my favorite PvP game to this day remains Day of Defeat.

The original or source? I haven't played the source version but played alot of the original.

The thing with some of these newer games are the maps are so big the action isn't contained enough and you need alot of players to make it fun [at least thats what it looks like, only played a little of battlefield, not the new one] Playing DOD i always had good games with as little as 12 players and working as a team was easier and the maps weren't super large so you were always near the action.

Source.  The map size is one of the things I really like about Day of Defeat.  They are manageable to learn and even though you know them; you can still surprise the enemy and more easily coordinate attacks with a random group of players.

Agreed, I have the original but maybe ill pick up the source version and get back into it. I'll drop ya a line if i do.