The HTML MOTD was already entirely disabled for Quickplay joins. Disabling JS/HTML5/Flash is irrelevant. Some servers were able to use configurations to bypass the restriction, but that should be fixed anyway.
Dr. McKay www.doctormckay.com On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:09 PM, E. Olsen <ceo.eol...@gmail.com> wrote: > I suppose (after reading Fletcher's response) the question I have to ask > then is: Why is the server scoring system not working? I had always > understood that server scores were used to determine quickplay eligibility > as well (?). If that was the case, then those servers providing negative > experiences would have (presumably) had very low server scores? > > Perhaps what we need to know is what the TF2 team considers to be a bad > experience? If I had to guess, I would think they were talking about: > > 1. Fake clients/bots (of course) > > 2. MOTD advertisements (no matter how you spin this, it detracts from the > game) > > 3. Server re-directing (this is an old problem dating back to CS) > > I'm sure there are a few other factors Valve would consider to be a > "negative" experience as well (the "pay to win" premium stuff is probably > not what they want either for quickplay). > > SO - what we need here is a solution to get rid of the negative stuff, > while not killing off every non-valve vanilla server. Off the top of my > head, I would suggest: > > - A more robust server-scoring system: > > Give a new server 45-60 days to prove itself via server score, then if > that score drops low enough, simply remove it from the quickplay pool. > > - If quickplay is enabled on a server. then remove the ability for > javascript, flash, and html5 ads to even function. (or remove it all > together and allow server operators to fund their servers the old-fashioned > way - through member donations, etc.) I think this is necessary anyway for > both security, AND the fact that the "bad actors" already by-passed the > previous changes by coding around them. > > - Stricter rules about quickplay eligibility: > > - If there are aspects that Valve doesn't want on a quickplay-eligible > server (i.e. changing default weapon values, health, or any other of that > "premium" stuff), then they should publish that, and servers that fail to > comply would simply get dropped from quickplay permanently. > > Honestly, a more elegant solution (but much more time consuming, I'm sure) > to this would have been to simply & quietly start dropping the > servers/server groups that were causing the negative player experiences > from quickplay eligibility. It would have taken more time, but it would > have been much more "surgical" in implementation, and it would have had the > same long-term result: killing off the bad servers. > > Valve's got so many great minds working for them, it just seems that this > kind of "blunt" approach to the problem isn't worthy of them, and I hope it > doesn't set a precedent for the future. With this, they've killed a > mosquito with a sledgehammer, and I think they can do better. Community > server operators were the ones providing the infrastructure for the game > years before Valve was able to afford it, and throwing the baby out with > the bathwater is an approach they should never take. > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Paul <ubyu....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> At least Fletcher has provided a response to someone in the community, >> fingers crossed they can come up with a fairer and less 'nuclear like' >> solution, or to possibly consider some of the suggestions posted on the >> mailing list. Personally I can only see the answer so far being to either >> change the default for official servers; or to have a dialog offering a >> short side-by-side summarised comparison of the positive and negative >> points and giving them the choice of which type of server (either official >> or unofficial) the player would like to join; or last of all to improve the >> description of what an official server means (e.g. again to summarise on >> the advantages and disadvantages so the player, such as a new person to the >> game, fully understands). While the RO2 idea is interesting, it looks to be >> pretty much how Valve intend to run their servers (entirely vanilla, strict >> configuration) which I doubt some communities would favor, unless I'm >> mistaken. >> >> >> On 26 January 2014 11:30, Saint K. <sai...@specialattack.net> wrote: >> >>> They should have a look at the people of RO2. >>> >>> >>> >>> We have to whitelist our servers there in order to be “ranked”. If we >>> screw up the servers, they’ll easily unrank us. Works like a charm. >>> >>> >>> >>> Saint K. >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: >>> hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] *On Behalf Of *Doctor McKay >>> *Sent:* Sunday, January 26, 2014 11:43 AM >>> *To:* Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list >>> *Subject:* Re: [hlds] Mediated Discussion about Quick play change >>> >>> >>> >>> A member of my community received a response from Fletcher in reply to >>> an email: >>> >>> >>> >>> We’re hoping the nuclear option isn’t permanent, because it isn’t >>> ideal. I cannot promise anything in particular or any time frame, but I >>> can say that we are looking for better solutions to this problem. We >>> understand that we are basically using radiation to kill cancer. But the >>> player experience was really bad and we felt it called for some immediate >>> action. We hope it is not the long term solution. >>> >>> >>> >>> - Fletch >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dr. McKay >>> >>> www.doctormckay.com >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:01 AM, ics <i...@ics-base.net> wrote: >>> >>> They are not going to kill TF2. It still brings them money and while >>> people make contributions to workshop and new content, they can just pack >>> it in and use that in the game. People buy keys and they get money that way. >>> >>> But i don't think we get a reply, they have become too big to answer us >>> little folks. >>> >>> -ics >>> >>> Paul kirjoitti: >>> >>> They're obviously content with the idea they wish to slowly kill Team >>> Fortress 2, or at the very least try to. They seem to be happy to ignore >>> our complaints as always :x. I agree that the option to make official >>> servers not default would be somewhat the answer, but getting Valve to do >>> that or someone at Valve to answer our concerns is probably going to be a >>> miracle. Perhaps if we keep up with the complaints on the mailing list they >>> will eventually respond and agree. >>> >>> On 26 January 2014 05:57, ics <i...@ics-base.net <mailto:i...@ics-base.net>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Yes lets think about the end user that has been enjoying community >>> servers and the care we take of our players, keeping cheaters out >>> and other troublemaking trollers and especially offering a place >>> to play on. For over 6 years our communities have helped TF2 grow. >>> Only after game went Free to Play, Valve added their own servers. >>> Do you even know where the players played before that? On our >>> community servers only. It was decided that when game goes free to >>> play, they will add extra servers to get new players to get on and >>> get familiar to the game. Thats what they have been doing all >>> along and they did thought the end user. Now grip tightens for >>> unknown reason. >>> >>> The existing players will keep playing on our servers but due to >>> severe lack of new ones ever finding our servers, it will get our >>> servers emptied. The decision that was made is absolutely horrible >>> and one sided. Yes, it's their game and they can do whatever they >>> want but simply forgetting every server owner contribution to this >>> game in the past, especially the ones that have been here since >>> TF2 release and before, it's really sad to see it was made without >>> atleast warning us ahead of the change and telling why it has to >>> be like this. >>> >>> -ics >>> >>> Jon Just kirjoitti: >>> >>> Until valve can get rid of premium servers, ad farms, and >>> server chains that monopolize the quick play system, I think >>> that this change should stay. I feel bad that community >>> servers have to be punished as well, but you need to think of >>> the average tf2 player before the server owner. >>> >>> Sent from my iPod >>> >>> On Jan 25, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Supreet <coachcrock...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:coachcrock...@gmail.com> >>> >>> <mailto:coachcrock...@gmail.com >>> >>> >>> <mailto:coachcrock...@gmail.com>>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I think it is very wrong to accuse certain communities and >>> players who may or may not be exploiting the quick play >>> system. >>> >>> Saigns or NightTeam is famous because there's a >>> considerable amount of population that loves the >>> customized gameplay. On the other hand, Skial I believe >>> runs the best vanilla servers along with Lotus being one >>> of the first largest TF2 communities who is still alive. >>> >>> You have to be understanding and give every community >>> member credit and a pat on the back for their hard work. >>> If it weren't for them, a lot of the TF2 population would >>> be undecided in terms of their server preference. >>> >>> The problem at hand: >>> New players are uneducated or lazy about unchecking a box >>> that might be irrelevant to them. >>> >>> We cannot do much to fix it. By bickering and repeatedly >>> complaining, Valve will not be interested in reading our >>> comments. Let's keep our thoughts and ideas organized in a >>> thread and make a kind request for Valve to tweak the >>> change they have made. >>> >>> Someone mentioned an excellent point here about being able >>> to create a new quick play account to quickly regain >>> traffic. That is correct. That is also however part of the >>> problem. A server should be able to build a score and >>> reputation upon how long its been up. New servers should >>> not get the same advantage as the servers that have been >>> up for months or years. >>> >>> It is not the community's fault that Valve is making this >>> change. The problem is the fact that Valve doesn't care >>> much or supports about user made communities. If they do >>> not want to aid us, we will have to help ourselves. There >>> are a lot of communities who relied on quick play and >>> quick play ALONE to fill their servers. That whole idea is >>> wrong and biased towards communities that work really hard >>> to organize giveaways, contests, make their own plugins to >>> enhance the user experience. >>> >>> Valve - we understand you would like to keep a controlled >>> population of TF2 going to your vanilla no plugins, no ad >>> mins servers. Either you should remove all non valve >>> servers from quick play and give all server ops the fair >>> advantage or not pool us in the same system as your >>> official servers and get rid of them or completely remove >>> them from quick play. >>> >>> The idea of Valve servers are nice, but they seem to be >>> the culprit of all problems. >>> >>> I kindly request a Valve employee to please provide some >>> feedback and let us know if you are thinking about making >>> any changes or keeping it then way it is. >>> >>> If you don't plan on making any changes, then please: we >>> kindly request you to add another check box saying >>> "Community Servers" and keep it unchecked by default - >>> that shall make you happy and give users some insight and >>> choice as well. >>> >>> Thanks for reading. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds
