A Proposal for a new group Alt.Games.Battlefield2

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Dear A.G.B

I'm going to propose/create a new usenet group Alt.Games.Battlefield2

The proposed charter will be similar to that for A.G.B.

The reasons for proposing this group now are twofold:

1. To split the impending influx of BF2 posts and new posters away from
A.G.B. The use of A.G.B for the new game would we be off-topic,
anachronistic and confusing.

2. To make sure AGB2 is propagated and (hopefully) archived at google before
we lose too much conversation history (unlike when this group was created).

Lorian.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Lorian" <nospam@lorian.nod> wrote in message
news:1107608464.5214.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
> Dear A.G.B
>
> I'm going to propose/create a new usenet group
> Alt.Games.Battlefield2

Definitely no need, IMO. Granted, you're talking about creating an
alt.newsgroup, but I'm of the opinion that it's stupid to start a
group that isn't going to get traffic. BF1942 and the expansion
packs were huge and traffic here was never great. BFV came out,
flopped, and the traffic here didn't change. What makes you think
BF2 is going to be any different?

I'd rather see a single newsgroup that actually gets traffic...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CingularDuality
http://www.TacticalGamer.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

> I'm going to propose/create a new usenet group Alt.Games.Battlefield2

No need. There's hardly any traffic on this group now.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Allan" @zen.co.uk> wrote in message

> No need. There's hardly any traffic on this group now.

Sure, the traffic has died off, but this is still an active group, and BF2
is technically off-topic here. It was confusing enough when BFV was
released.

Without a new group you will have new players to BF2 not knowing where to
post about BF2.

Battlfield2 is a whole new game, it should have it's own group, Just like
Halflife2 does, for example.

IMHO, of course.

L.

 

[bug]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 13:01:07 -0000, "Lorian" <nospam@lorian.nod> wrote:

>Dear A.G.B
>
>I'm going to propose/create a new usenet group Alt.Games.Battlefield2

Works for me.

 

[marc]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

I wouldn't call BF2 offtopic in AGB. That's splitting hairs. One group is
enough.

Luger

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

> 1. To split the impending influx of BF2 posts and new posters away from A.G.B. The use of A.G.B for the new game would we be
> off-topic, anachronistic and confusing.

This group is dying along with BF1 anyway.

> 2. To make sure AGB2 is propagated and (hopefully) archived at google before we lose too much conversation history (unlike when
> this group was created).

Oh! Heaven forfend!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Lorian wrote
>Dear A.G.B
>
>I'm going to propose/create a new usenet group Alt.Games.Battlefield2
>
>The proposed charter will be similar to that for A.G.B.
>
>The reasons for proposing this group now are twofold:
>
>1. To split the impending influx of BF2 posts and new posters away from
>A.G.B. The use of A.G.B for the new game would we be off-topic,
>anachronistic and confusing.
>
>2. To make sure AGB2 is propagated and (hopefully) archived at google before
>we lose too much conversation history (unlike when this group was created).
>
>Lorian.

Some good points by all. I'm in two minds about a new group for BF2.
Although, as you point out, this newsgroup was pretty active from its
inception for around a year while the game remained very popular.

Traffic has tailed off of late, many of the posts here are related to
BF2, and to be honest that's welcome in my mind because most of us here
are likely to buy BF2. It would be almost dead if BF2 weren't on the
horizon. Strictly speaking, in accordance with the charter, BF2 posts
are off topic. However, BFV posts were always off topic too, but nobody
really complained because by that time traffic was never really an
issue.

However, I can see the benefit of a Battlefield group without "1942" in
its title. People who buy BF2 might be led to believe that no group
exists where they can discuss the game, and might not be aware that such
discussions are welcome here.

With hindsight, if this group was named alt.games.battlefield or
alt.games.ea-battlefield, then there would be no need for a new group.
Content about BF1942, BFV, BF2 and any future games in the Battlefield
series would all belong here, and that would be evident to anyone
looking for a group. A pity its not possible to rename a newsgroup.

So ideally, and IMHO, the best thing would be to have a single group.
That isn't going to be practical, with the BF1942 group already in
existence. However, I'd suggest that if a new group were created it
should be for all battlefield games, including BF2 and any future games
in the series. That way we won't be having the same discussion in 12-18
months. As I said, alt.games.battlefield or alt.games.ea-battlefield
might work.

Now what I want to know is, why are they calling it BF2? Surely with
BF1942 and BFV, it should be BF3? Or are they acknowledging that BFV
was a bit of a flop and trying to "sweep it under the carpet"?

--
[AGB]Villy Vonka
Sheffield, UK
http://www.villyvonka.co.uk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

One point I forgot to make.

Do you *really* want to take on those megalomaniac muppets at
alt.config? Good luck..

--
[AGB]Villy Vonka
Sheffield, UK
http://www.villyvonka.co.uk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Villy Vonka" <Villy@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message

> Do you *really* want to take on those megalomaniac muppets at alt.config?
> Good luck..

I'm sure their hearts are in the right place, but if it's for the good of
the game.

> People who buy BF2 might be led to believe that no group exists where they
> can discuss the game, and might not be aware that such discussions are
> welcome here

Indeed, thats is certainly a prime motive for doing something.

> As I said, alt.games.battlefield or alt.games.ea-battlefield might work

Yes, one of those might be better. I just wanted to start some debate...

L.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Sounds OK to me Lorian.
BF2 is as it seems going to be a hole new thing but with the fundamental
stuff from BF1942.
So do make a new newsgroup for BF2 only.

[AGB]Fireonhigh
"Lorian" <nospam@lorian.nod> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1107608464.5214.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
> Dear A.G.B
>
> I'm going to propose/create a new usenet group Alt.Games.Battlefield2
>
> The proposed charter will be similar to that for A.G.B.
>
> The reasons for proposing this group now are twofold:
>
> 1. To split the impending influx of BF2 posts and new posters away from
> A.G.B. The use of A.G.B for the new game would we be off-topic,
> anachronistic and confusing.
>
> 2. To make sure AGB2 is propagated and (hopefully) archived at google
> before we lose too much conversation history (unlike when this group was
> created).
>
> Lorian.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Lorian" <nospam@lorian.nod> wrote in message
news:1107627292.96596.0@iris.uk.clara.net...
> Traffic was never great? You must have been reading a different
> group!
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?L3E75486A

Never more than 2000 posts a week? I rest my case...

>> BFV came out, flopped, and the traffic here didn't change. What
>> makes you think BF2 is going to be any different?
>
> You didn't seem to think BF2 was going to flop 5 days ago when you
> said "Our community is really excited about BF2, too! In fact,
> that's the lead news item on our website right now...".
>
> If you still have BFV, do check out POE, its pretty good.

Sorry, I didn't mean I thought BF2 was going to flop. I meant that I
didn't think the traffic here would increase because of it... USENET
just isn't used as much as it was in the past. Everyone's moving to
web-based forums.

And we tried POE for a while. It was MUCH better than BFV, but I
still hate the way they "dumbed down" the helos (so any idiot can fly
them well) and I disliked the overall feel of the game.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CingularDuality
TacticalGamer.com Administration
http://www.TacticalGamer.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Villy Vonka" <Villy@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:HSB+x8CtVRBCFwLf@srobertson.net...
> With hindsight, if this group was named alt.games.battlefield or
> alt.games.ea-battlefield, then there would be no need for a new
> group. Content about BF1942, BFV, BF2 and any future games in the
> Battlefield series would all belong here, and that would be evident
> to anyone looking for a group. A pity its not possible to rename a
> newsgroup.

Now this is something I would fully support. Create a group called
alt.games.battlefield and I'll do my best to post something in this
group every week redirecting people to the new newsgroup. If the new
group is propogated, I see no reason why we can't shift all traffic
over to the new group.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CingularDuality
http://www.TacticalGamer.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Villy V" wrote in message

> With hindsight, if this group was named alt.games.battlefield or
> alt.games.ea-battlefield, then there would be no need for a new group.

I think the choice would be:

alt.games.battlefield OR
alt.games.ea.battlefield

The alt.games.ea hierarchy already exists, and the latter might be the best
choice?

L.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Lorian wrote:
> "Allan" @zen.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>
>>No need. There's hardly any traffic on this group now.
>
>
> Sure, the traffic has died off, but this is still an active group, and BF2
> is technically off-topic here. It was confusing enough when BFV was
> released.
>
> Without a new group you will have new players to BF2 not knowing where to
> post about BF2.
>
> Battlfield2 is a whole new game, it should have it's own group, Just like
> Halflife2 does, for example.
>
> IMHO, of course.
>
> L.
>
>

But no one uses the a.g.hl2 group that I know of. I have been in a.g.h-l
for 5 years and we have no need to move to a new one. In ours,
*anything* Half-Life related is all good. Whether it's maps, mods or new
versions.

--
Jethro[AGHL] aka Phat_Pinger
Reply Email: jeff (at) tibben (dot) ca

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Jethro[AGHL]" <me@work.no> wrote in message
news:36p8lrF54jlb7U1@individual.net...
> Lorian wrote:
>> "Allan" @zen.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>No need. There's hardly any traffic on this group now.
>>
>>
>> Sure, the traffic has died off, but this is still an active group, and
>> BF2 is technically off-topic here. It was confusing enough when BFV was
>> released.
>>
>> Without a new group you will have new players to BF2 not knowing where to
>> post about BF2.
>>
>> Battlfield2 is a whole new game, it should have it's own group, Just like
>> Halflife2 does, for example.
>>
>> IMHO, of course.
>>
>> L.
>
> But no one uses the a.g.hl2 group that I know of. I have been in a.g.h-l
> for 5 years and we have no need to move to a new one. In ours, *anything*
> Half-Life related is all good. Whether it's maps, mods or new versions.
>
> --
> Jethro[AGHL] aka Phat_Pinger
> Reply Email: jeff (at) tibben (dot) ca

I could not agree with you more. I see AGB much in the same vein as AGHL.
The old timers will always be around. I am sure a new newsgroup will sprout
up, much like it did for HL2, but I still only lurk in the original. Who
knows, maybe an obligatory drunken post may even piss someone off here
eventually

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Lorian wrote
>I think the choice would be:
>
>alt.games.battlefield OR
>alt.games.ea.battlefield
>
>The alt.games.ea hierarchy already exists, and the latter might be the best
>choice?

That sounds good, unless anyone can think of a more appropriate name.

Cheers

--
[AGB]Villy Vonka
Sheffield, UK
http://www.villyvonka.co.uk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Lorian wrote:
> Dear A.G.B
>
> I'm going to propose/create a new usenet group Alt.Games.Battlefield2
>
> The proposed charter will be similar to that for A.G.B.
>
> The reasons for proposing this group now are twofold:
>
> 1. To split the impending influx of BF2 posts and new posters away from
> A.G.B. The use of A.G.B for the new game would we be off-topic,
> anachronistic and confusing.
>
> 2. To make sure AGB2 is propagated and (hopefully) archived at google before
> we lose too much conversation history (unlike when this group was created).
>
> Lorian.

The current newsgroup doesn't get a huge amount of traffic anymore, but
BF2 should cure that.

However, I think that having a group for each game divides the users
over a wider area and means that help and advice might be available in
one group that is also applicable for the other games.

In light of that, might I suggest a new group simply called
alt.games.battlefield

This would cover every battlefield game released so far, and cover any
future ones... along with all mods for all games. Surely this would
maximise the possible flow of traffic and provide maximum support for
everyone needing it.


H

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

In article <1107764360.70759.0@doris.uk.clara.net>, nospam@lorian.nod
says...



> alt.games.ea.battlefield
>


my choice would be the above.




/CF

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c70f3675b4170a09896dc@nntp.charter.net>,
colonel_flagg@_NOSOUPFORJ00_internetwarzone.org says...
> > alt.games.ea.battlefield
> >
>
>
> my choice would be the above.

Mine 2
--
Best regards, flyace
Thou infectious beetle-headed death-token!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

malcolm wrote:
> Lorian wrote:

>>> BFV came out, flopped, and the traffic here didn't change. What
>>> makes you think BF2 is going to be any different?

BFV didn't live as long as Battlefield 1942 did, but it sold quite well
and compares nicely to other hit games.

regards,

Achtung Ecco

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Villy Vonka <Villy@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message news:<HSB+x8CtVRBCFwLf@srobertson.net>...

> Now what I want to know is, why are they calling it BF2? Surely with
> BF1942 and BFV, it should be BF3? Or are they acknowledging that BFV
> was a bit of a flop and trying to "sweep it under the carpet"?

The BFV engine was also more of a tuned BF42 engine, rather than a new
one. There is no doubt that the BF2 engine is new and offers some
completely new features.

regards,

Achtung Ecco

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

"Lorian" <nospam@lorian.nod> wrote in message
news:1107608464.5214.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
> Dear A.G.B
>
> I'm going to propose/create a new usenet group
> Alt.Games.Battlefield2

Did this ever get settled? I think most people here indicated that
they would prefer alt.games.battlefield and for the one group to
cover the entire BF family of games. Others thought
alt.games.battlefield2 sounded like a good idea. Although I think
that alt.games.battlefield makes more sense, I don't really care that
much. Just let me know when it's created and I'll start bugging my
ISP to help prop it...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CingularDuality
TacticalGamer.com Administration
http://www.TacticalGamer.com
CS:Source server: 67.19.132.154:27015
CS:Source server#2: 67.19.132.155:27015
Battlefield 1942 Server IP: 67.19.26.150 (DC Final)
Battlefield Vietnam Server IP: 67.19.26.147

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

I don't know either, but let me know when it is up.


--
Skclown

'' (http://www.tdgamers.com/)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Dave Engle wrote
>Did this ever get settled? I think most people here indicated that
>they would prefer alt.games.battlefield and for the one group to
>cover the entire BF family of games. Others thought
>alt.games.battlefield2 sounded like a good idea. Although I think
>that alt.games.battlefield makes more sense, I don't really care that
>much. Just let me know when it's created and I'll start bugging my
>ISP to help prop it...

Yes it would be good to see the new group set up in time for the demo,
and would give us time to get it propagated before the full game is
released.

I think we settled on alt.games.ea.battlefield didn't we?

Are you still taking this on Lorian?

Cheers

--
[AGB]Villy Vonka
Sheffield, UK
http://www.villyvonka.co.uk