I suppose my disappointment with the quickplay system simply lies in the fact that it is a left-handed way of adding the "custom server" tab back onto the server browser (I'm sure every server operator out there remembers the effect that had on traffic - if your server was anything but 100% vanilla, than the custom server tab killed it on the spot).
Further - the fact that the choices for quickplay are limited to vanilla only seemingly runs contrary to the direction Valve has pursued with TF2 for year - that of strong community-oriented server operation and customization. There can be no doubt that - while quickplay connections may only account for less than 20% of overall traffic, that's nearly 1/5th of (mostly new) TF2 users that may never get to experience a "non-vanilla"server (to include the plethora of awesome custom maps out there). Heck - we run a custom payload server that stays full to the rafters for 16-18 hours a day, and runs 26 (at last count) high-quality custom payload maps. The server is hugely popular, but rarely sees any of these newer players, simply because they are being "trained"not to seek out such servers, and quickplay lacks any options for them to do so. I personally think a better solution would be to add a set of checkboxes to the quickplay system that would give the player the CHOICE to be connected to a modded server. To insure newer players would know the difference between vanilla and modded, you could simply leave those choice disabled until the player has X amount of hours in the game, or has played at least one of each official map type, etc. I full understand that Valve and the TF2 team have a specific idea about what kind of settings they think their game should run at...but for every player screaming on SPUF about hating this or that non-vanilla feature, I can show you a dozen players that scream anytime I try to move their favorite custom server settings (respawn times, class balance, etc) closer to Vanilla. I really don't see the reason for any animosity from either the Vanilla OR the custom server camp - there is plenty of choices out there no matter what kind of server you want to play on. Having said that, turning custom server operators into second-class citizens this late into TF2's life cycle by effectively insuring 15-20% of overall REAL (i.e. non idling) TF2 traffic (which is in decline) never even have the option of connecting to one of those servers really (IMHO) devalues all the work we've put into building communities around TF2. I'm not asking that quickplay players get randomly sent to a custom server against their will...I'm just asking that they be given the OPTION of connecting to one. Quickplay could be the "StumbleUpon" button for the server browser, but if it continues to force the players into vanilla-only servers, all they get every single time is "random sameness". Again, I have nothing against "vanilla" servers - I run 5 of them myself. I simply think that TF2's real strength (and the reason for its longevity) lies in the variety that community-driven servers bring to the table. I fully agree with any and all actions that have been taken against those operators that were "cheating" the system....but the traffic penalty that custom server operators have effectively received, after hosting servers for years, is undeserved at best. All I ask is that ALL players be given the *option* of connecting to a modded server, to include those that use quickplay. It should always be (IMHO) be about player choice, not player control. Once you start prioritizing "controlling the experience" over "maximizing player choice", then I think the mindset has fundamentally changed. On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Fletcher Dunn <[email protected]>wrote: > Except for newer players, there is no scoring bonus to Valve servers *in > aggregate*. We are currently introducing bias on an individual basis. > Some users get a score boost for Valve servers, but a group of players of > equal size gets a score boost of equal size towards community servers. > (Basically we double the ping score for either Valve or community servers, > depending on which group the player is in.) The majority of players are in > a control group with no bias. We have said publicly that we removed the > scoring bonus to Valve servers so that quickplay would treat Valve servers > and community servers equally, because we did not think we fully understood > the tradeoffs between having more control over the player experience (Valve > servers), and allowing customization and moderation (community servers). > This experiment is an attempt by us to be even more explicit in measuring > the effects. > > I do not think that this experiment is the cause of anybody's trouble > populating their server, for the following reasons: First, the experiment > has a symmetric effect on Valve servers and community servers. Second, the > control group, which receives no bias either way, is larger than either > experimental group. Finally, the majority of server connections these days > are still made through the server browser. (Somewhere around 65%.) > Quickplay accounts for less than 20% of all server connections. (The > other 15-20% or so are direct connections, friends accepting invites, > launching with "connect" on the command line, etc.) > > If you want to know what scoring adjustment is applied to you personally, > based on your playtime, just look at the console output during quickplay. > If you want a detailed server-by-server breakdown to understand exactly > how it's making its decisions, set > > tf_matchmaking_spew_level 4 > > and it will show you exactly how it works. > > The "noob map" bonus adjusts the score for new players only, depending on > what map is currently run. It applies the same for Valve and community > servers. > > - Fletch > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Paulson > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 9:30 AM > To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Suddenly very low server population > > > You know this because every post on spuf has the hours people play > > next to it? > > You didn't know people put their profiles on SPUF? Shows how much you know. > > > Do you think the country would be better if someone decided that meant > > they should accommodate every whinge and that would make a better > > country? If not, why do you think that approach would make a better > > game or a better server? > > This is the reason why CS and CSS both have more players than TF2 if you > don't include the idlers which you can estimate by peak players. > And Valve did accommodate people who wanted to play on modded servers > before. > > Just because you are happy playing default TF2 doesn't mean everyone else > is. I prefer more variety of maps and gameplay instead of deathmatch with a > single control point (koth), control points, moving control point > (payload), capture the flag, reskinned weapons, and waiting 20 seconds to > respawn. I have seen a lot of regulars on my friends list stop TF2 and > playing COD, Tribes, Dota 2, and SMNC instead because Valve depopulated > modded servers. > > > But I don't see any reason at all for anyone to run lots of servers > > and then, once in debt, to worry about how they are going to pay for > them. > > Not sure why you think I am saying there needs to be a business model for > the server hosters. I'm saying why Valve won't do anything about it. It > isn't immoral for server to at least break even. And you get discounts for > running more servers. > > You have been trolling this mailing list hard. > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:20 AM, dan <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 26/04/2012 22:00, Robert Paulson wrote: > >> > >> I warned about this trend back in December and no one listened. Now > >> that the Christmas and Policy of Truth honeymoon is over, you are all > >> coming out of the woodwork. > > > > > > What trend? That people are happily playing TF2? > > > > As I said, the complaint seems to be "my server is empty ergo people > > must be too dumb to know my server is better or how to join it, or > > valve must be stealing all the people onto their dumbed down servers > > or quickplay must be broken" > > > > The truth seems far removed from that, even if a bug does exist in > > quickplay. > > > > And this "coming out the woodwork" is about 3 or 4 people making lots > > of posts. Some of which don't necessarily agree with the conspiratorial > theory. > > > > > >> Though I guess it only makes sense to complain out of desperation now > >> that Lotus and others are dropping heavily in popularity. > > > > > > I'm not surprised they dropped. Their servers don't even seem to have > any of > > the redeeming features that some of you think matter. > > > > As I said before, people deciding to make a quick buck from running > servers > > put themselves into a position where they decided they had to cheat to > try > > and get players and / or via some silly plugins try and scam a few people > > into parting with cash. If they couldn't get players except via cheating > the > > system, it stands to reason their servers will be less popular when the > > cheating stops. > > > > When you add livenudes to your tag, even if it's in jest, you're > answering > > your own question about popularity. > > > > But who are they? Why should their servers be full? Is the modern trend > of > > entitlement raising its head? > > > > "I'm running servers ergo valve should send me people" > > > > As I said in another post, I think having a full server is a happy bonus, > > it's not something I expect to have. Since a shaved monkey could run a > > server, anyone could rent and run 500 TF2 servers tomorrow - call > themselves > > something "UberGameProTF2clanEU.de" would follow canonical guidelines. > Knock > > up a webpage and forum so they can be derisory to their players, and then > > they should expect Valve to direct traffic to their servers so the money > > starts rolling in? Right? Err...why? > > > > Those 500 servers weren't there the day before and, if they go, there are > > plenty of shaved chimps waiting in the wings for this > > 'insta-business-just-run-servers' > > > > One problem perhaps they will find though is, there's no 'things are ok > now > > we're playing by the rules' button. So if their servers were blacklisted > by > > someone prior to them removing the junk plugins, then they probably still > > will be. > > > > Why would anyone remove them? There are plenty of full servers to play > on. I > > used to play on lotusclan's UK 2fort server over night and any time when > it > > didn't have 32 players on it. I used their server mostly because they had > > respawn timers enabled and you could actually play the game. For a while > it > > was great. They ruined their own servers by adding bots and by not > realising > > the 32 slot thing was a dumb idea and instead deciding the way to get > > players was to copy what saigns et al were doing. > > > > They even have a plugin that continually pastes "if you have clue about > how > > to run this server, please tell us" on their servers. > > > > > >> The fact is, Valve will not do anything about it. > >> > >> 1. People that barely played the game complained endlessly on the SPUF > >> forums about faster respawn and 33 slot servers. And now that > >> quickplay has screwed those servers over, no one seems to be > >> complaining there, even though plenty of people complain to us about > >> having to wait 20 seconds to respawn. > > > > > > You know this because every post on spuf has the hours people play next > to > > it? > > > > People complain about the weather, paying tax, the price of fish and > repeats > > on TV. > > Do you think the country would be better if someone decided that meant > they > > should accommodate every whinge and that would make a better country? If > > not, why do you think that approach would make a better game or a better > > server? > > > > > >> 4. The F2P business model is fundamentally at odds with 3rd party > >> servers. Money that is donated to a server is lost to the Mann Co > >> store. Valve has to pay for servers too, but they get a huge bulk > >> discount. > > > > > > I can see some people who try to make money by selling servers, to clans > and > > so on, and they run servers too. There might be a business model there. > They > > buy a server and then add value by turning something that's easy to do, > into > > something that's easy enough for tweedledum and tweedledee posting here > to > > do. > > > > But I don't see any reason at all for anyone to run lots of servers and > > then, once in debt, to worry about how they are going to pay for them. > Nor > > for them expecting there to be a business model supporting that. To the > > point where they decide they can create a business model by giving people > > different coloured text chat or 100% crits or hats and so on...or worse > to > > try and scam and cheat players onto their servers. > > > > If it works or worked in the past, good luck to them, but if it stops > > working, they can't moan at Valve that a dumb business model no longer > works > > - especially not the one that relied on scamming players. > > > > -- > > Dan. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > > please visit: > > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds >
_______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds
