On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:06 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:09:54 -0000 > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [hlds] How about some server instructions and server.cfg > files? > To: "'Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list'" > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > None of this is about documentation. It's about the server being done in a > certain way, and you wishing it was different. Some of the things you are > talking about make good sense to me (there should be a proper lobby for > direct connect / steam group joins, although this is a client issue not a > server one). Some of them should not imo be possible without a server-side > mod (like changing game behaviour like the amount of zombies; can't > remember > offhand if that exists as a cheat command atm or not). Some of them make > no > sense (like wanting to limit to coop or versus only - what's supposed to > happen after a versus lobby has tried to connect to a server that's > restricted the maps to coop only?) >
[BIG snip] You're looking at it from the wrong point of view. I've been managing all kinds of servers both as a hobby and professionally for about 25 years. Valve's lack of documentation has historically been pretty bad in comparison to the other app- and game- servers that I've run over that time. L4D seems to take that lack of documentation to an entirely new level. In addition, there does seem to have been no thought put into what server admins (you know, the guys who actually own/rent/maintain the boxes that people play on) might want in terms of control. For example, take the lack of documentation (or capability, no way to tell /because/ we don't have any doc) concerning a simple co-op only or versus only option. I may want to set up co-op only because my testing has found that co-op only requires less CPU and/or RAM resources. (That does seem to be the case, btw, based upon what I've seen for load averages when people play different games.) Or, I may want to set up co-op only server(s) and versus only server(s) because I know that I have people who play on my server who happen to prefer one or the other. You make this statement: "Some of them make no sense (like wanting to limit to coop or versus only - what's supposed to happen after a versus lobby has tried to connect to a server that's restricted the maps to coop only?)" To begin with, if there were clear documentation we'd know if it were possible to prevent that from ever happening in the first place. In addition, why would a "lobby" (I'm still unclear what a lobby is supposed to do that a decent server browser can't) want to connect to a server that doesn't want the traffic? Let me restate that a bit... why would any player want to connect to a server that wasn't set up the way that he wanted to play. Further, why should I let a player or any group of players dictate to me how my server will be run? I paid for it, I maintain it. I don't charge anyone for the privilege of playing on it. I do, however, expect that anyone who plays on my server will play by my rules or leave. I've got 4 L4D servers running right now on a dual CPU box. 3 of the servers are public and 1 is limited to members of a single Steam group. I did my best to set them up as co-op only. I even went so far as to delete the versus maps only to see the automatic update process put them back in (I know, stupid sysadmin trick #47! lol). I've found that when players vote two or more of the servers to run versus maps, there's lag that shows up on all servers. I don't like it, but there it is. Now, take my little example and expand it to cover a vendor renting out hundreds or thousands of servers. If they can't restrict the number of players connecting, then they have no control over the level of service that they provide all of their customers. Simply going from all co-op to all versus doubles the amount of bandwidth that they need to budget because it doubles the number of players. That's such a highly variable demand that it essentially blows their capacity planning out of the water. No vendor is going to be happy with that kind of uncertainty, and will have to find other ways to limit what people can do with an L4D server. No, the lack of documentation, as illustrated in this one simple example, has huge implications for every server admin. Personally, I think Valve is being very shortsighted. If they cause server admins enough pain, they simply will find other games to host. _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
