Custom game-mode servers are all suffering. They do well compared to every other community server but they used to be 10x more populated. Since official server quickplay happened, a lot of players don't even know that community servers exist. All you have to do is look at how dead Slag servers are. Where are the fortwars servers? Why has there not been any new popular mods like Saxton Hale anymore?
I also find it strange that it is ok for Valve to lock mods behind a paywall that used to be free on gamebanana while it is as offensive as Hitler to let Skyrim do the same.or as someone here whined, making as little as a cup of coffee through ads. This Microsoft vs Apple analogy is also way off base. We are not Valve's competitors. We do not host TF2 servers because we want to be billionaires and want to take 100% of Valve's profit. They allow people to host servers because we bring in additional value, which was proven by the fact that the majority of players were on community servers prior to the quickplay change. A more apt analogy would be if Apple decided to clone the most popular apps and stop new users from seeing any others in the app store unless they click a tiny button hidden at the bottom of the page. We pay for the servers, moderate them, and even improve them by fixing bugs they haven't fixed for years or add features such as intelligent autobalance. We have a reasonable expectation that Valve will not to take advantage of us by throwing all our servers in a ghetto and keeping all the new players to themselves... as was the case for every game they've released between tf2 and half-life. We should not have to resort to paying for ads on Facebook just to get any players at all. The game was released with the capability to host "vanilla" servers and now you are suggesting that only total mods should be able to exist? Only the next CS or Dota are allowed to host TF2 servers? If this was the case then Valve should've said so from the beginning. Most of us wouldn't be here if we knew this would happen. When you tell people you can host a server for the game, it doesn't include being shoved into a ghetto where the new players have a hard time finding. Maybe this is not true for you, but we are a "community" not a "private" organization. We are funded by players. Players become admins, and these admin make major decisions. And I believe most of the major communities still around are also run in this manner. Not that this lessens Valve's obligations not to screw us over. Which "private" server owner is stupid enough to not want quickplay back? Probably someone who doesn't actually have a server. On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Cats From Above <[email protected]> wrote: > Matthias seems to be confusing two separate issues, deliberately so I > suspect. It is, in my view, the height of intellectual dishonesty to > confuse the creation of custom content with the existence of privately-run > servers; it is possible to have a strong custom-content community without > the need for privately-run servers and I suspect Valve has been posturing > Team Fortress 2 toward such a reality for some time. For example: Workshop > map integration inside the server. If I was a betting person I would > preempt that the true reason for Valve implementing this feature is to > allow their soon-to-be-implemented lobby system to assign a lobby to an > official server, with a stock map or a custom map selected from the > workshop. Such would completely negate the need for custom map servers run > by private operators. > > > As for custom game-modes, which presently do require privately-run > servers, last time I checked private operators with servers featuring > custom game-modes, who put effort into social networking and publicity etc. > are doing quite well irrespective of the existence of Quickplay. > > > The servers struggling the most as a result of Quickplay are privately run > servers which are directly competing with official servers whilst only > holding half the cards. Ergo: Stock-map servers, which miss out on things > that official servers get. Even if the default option was addressed, those > servers would still be holding half the cards. Hence a lesson of history > relevant to privately run stock servers: Steve Jobs was smart enough to > realise that if Apple was in a zero sum game with Microsoft, Apple would > lose. He was also smart enough to realise that he didn’t need to play that > game – That Apple could do something that Microsoft wasn’t doing. Perhaps > stock server operators could come to that same enlightenment in terms of > private servers and Valve. > > > Finally, I would note that the misunderstanding of Matthias’es use of the > term “community” was deliberate as a means of pointing out the > inappropriateness of the term. I personally dislike the term “community > servers” and much prefer the more accurate term “private servers” and > “private server operators”… and I would again express my awe at the fact > that some elements of this mailing list would seem to think that they could > represent other private server operators – Despite the diverse range of > views and gross amount of hyperbole that infests every debate like a bad > stench (Case and point: Just bring up Pinion or Motdgd) I can only imagine > that such representation would be a lot like herding cats. Whilst cats can > make a lot of noise, getting them to go in one direction is impossible… > and it’s not the first time that someone had attempted to establish a > coalition of Team Fortress 2 servers …just look at the failed TF2 Alliance. > >
_______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds
