Can you help me by posting your opinion on what worked and what didn't?
63e did a fairly good job of maintaining their siege server. A large part of their success in keeping it active was forcing members to play 20-30 minutes on siege after their normal training or event. Not allowing other regiments to recruit there worked in the server's favor, too. Nothing against it personally, but successful recruiting takes players away from the pub server scene and places them in the regiment clique. The 63e had a decent map selection as well, not the best, not the worst. Every map needed to be fun to play on whether there were 10 players on the server or 200. There were a couple maps that were abysmal, but they weren't selected too often. They also attempted to make admin selection a privilege, but anyone who had a bit of potential could become one. Admins had to put in a certain amount of time on the server per week or be removed, and applicants who could admin during odd times were prioritized. There was also a fairly strict review process where senior admins had to go through logs and review the merits of the other admins bans/kicks/etc. Where the 63e server failed was where it was a bit exclusive. The list of banned regiments was pretty extensive for a community of only a few thousand players at most. Some players got around the ban by playing on siege without regimental tags, or by changing their name/appearance, but most people who were banned opted to play on other servers like Minisiege.
What type of extra features or map types or rotation would you like to see if you are one of the people that are interested?
Unless you can offer NeoGK levels of "extra features", I wouldn't worry about that too much. As far as map rotation goes, there should be a fairly natural progression. You don't want to play the same map 4 times in an hour and a half. Focus on maps that are fun to play on whether there are 8 people on the server or 200. And make decent spawns please.
I'm already thinking, as a public server, as I would probably name it BBG_PublicSiege_NA, I would make it more community oriented than focused on my BBG group.
Name it whatever the fuck you want, nobody cares about that crap (see: suieiissiieieisiieeiei duel). Your concern for the server is going to be spreading word of mouth and generating a good reputation and high levels of activity in the long term.
I would probably already start of by allowing regiment heads/COs of major NA regiments to be admins, as I want people to be motivated to play and bring others.
You want admins who are going to be invested in the success of the server and have the time to perform admin duties. Whether regiment heads, who have a whole list of other responsibilities, would be the best option or not, I can't say. I know I'd be interested in being an admin, if you do end up bringing a siege server back.
My concerns are, are people even interested, at least here on the forums, in playing this game mode still? As I don't see, obviously, any other siege servers up and running NA.
You have no idea how many NA's are currently stuck playing Minisiege and want another 63e_NA_Siege type server. The hard part is just getting the word out to everyone.
What about recruiting? Allow it or now allow it? I would be open to just allowing it, within reason of course, but I know the sponsor said he hated regiments recruiting on public servers. He said he thinks it ruined servers and old official servers. But I would like opinions.
Recruiting does ruin public servers. Do what you want, though.
That's my two cents on it. I was just one of many 63e siege admins back when the server was up. Good luck to you