This is why I am confused. Where does it say modded servers are delisted? Where does it even _IMPLY_ that? It says servers will be delisted if they have a very high number of connections twinned with a very low average player time spent on the server, which is characteristic of people joining a server, going "this isn't what I wanted", and leaving again. Servers which advertise fast respawn don't meet that criteria, as people who don't like fast respawn simply won't connect.
This isn't about vanilla or modded servers, this isn't about popular or quiet servers. This is about a certain inexplicable urge for some server admins to want to get lots of people to connect to their servers even if they are disappointed and immediately leave again. A server that is "honestly" modded, or "honestly" quiet, or "honestly" anything, isn't going to be affected by this. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:hlds- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark Edwards > Sent: 15 March 2009 18:47 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [hlds] hlds Digest, Vol 13, Issue 111 > > > Yup fair points, I agree. But I would say that there are a fair number > (though I assume them to be the minority) that do enjoy servers with > non-stock settings. No RPG in HL2DM and faster respawn times in TF2, > are > both things I personally prefer. I don't see how it is right to judge > (read: > delist) servers because they offer something slightly different. I > could > understand if I were running > no-grav-insta-spawn-max-health-all-crit-birthday-madness-fake-clients- > redirect > servers, but shorter spawn times and sounds? C'mon...its in the name > and the > tags, how can that be dishonest? To have IPs delisted because of a > difference in taste to the developers seems a bit much > > As for L4D, four servers with no mods (bar SM for admin) stand empty, > that I > really don't understand the benefit of. To me as a server operator or > as a > player. Seems there are reports of UK players (of which I am one) being > connected to foreign servers with unplayable pings, perhaps because of > a > shortage of local official servers? I understand the desire for a > uniform > playing experience, but to make a game mod'able, then deny access to > mod'ed > servers seems somewhat perverse to me. Especially if it then stops > players > playing on vanilla servers... > -------------------------------------------------- > > > Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:50:33 -0400 > > From: Richard Eid <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [hlds] Server Scoring - an open letter to Valve :) > > To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list > > <[email protected]> > > Message-ID: > > <[email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > > Bad servers aren't the problem, I agree. Bad servers are a symptom. > The > > problem is bad server operators. And this solution does a lot to > give > > server operators incentive to run better servers...honest servers. > > Servers > > that players want to play on, not servers that the operator wants to > play > > on. Yeah, yeah, you pay for the server so you'll run it however you > want. > > Fine, play by yourself. But be honest about what's going on or pay > the > > price(read: be delisted). With the way the ranking system has been > > described, it seems to me that it is the players who are deciding > what the > > players want, not Valve...and thankfully now, not server operators. > Read > > that blog post back over. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
