OK, I'll bite: *1. How do you propose that Valve deal with operators who split their servers into different Steam IDs and regularly replace the Steam ID of their widely blacklisted server with a new one? Given that Valve can’t/won’t stop 10 year olds creating hundreds of Steam Accounts from the same computer and then using them to run LMAOBox on servers, I’m sceptical that they’d have the fortitude to deal with this issue either. And no, IP/IP:Port bans are not the answer (Too easy to change/Shared hosting considerations) nor is creating a barrier to entry for new server operators.*
There has to be at least a minimum "barrier to entry" for server operators, even if it means they need to have an account that has had some actual purchase activity and/or existed for a minimum amount of time (i.e. new steam accounts are not eligible to register servers for 6 months, etc.) In fact, unless I'm mistaken, it's already impossible for brand new steam accounts with no purchase activity to register servers. At any rate, Valve has seen first hand what removing the barrier to cheating does (i.e. all the hackers that create free account after free account), so putting restrictions in place on accounts that want to register servers seems perfectly valid to me. As to the premise of the question: There will ALWAYS be people who try to game the system, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby our with the bathwater. It means you develop the tools necessary for the players to police the servers themselves. The fact that Counterstrike had it's share of nefarious server operators (as does every game) didn't stop it from becoming the top FPS in the world. Again, there will always be bad guys out there - but that shouldn't mean the good guys get thrown under the bus along with them - ever. *2. How do you propose competitive matchmaking / lobbies etc fit into this new UI? It’s looking rather over-crowded as it is.* A simple button added to the "co-op and more" section wouldn't make the UI "overcrowded (not that I think the existing one it either). *3. Why do you believe that privately-run servers should be given equal preference, when on any other Valve game official is the default option?* The answer to this question could easily run pages, but the short answer is that TF2 is NOT "other games". Diversity and choice are a STRENGTH, not a liability for TF2. TF2 is not an e-sports oriented game, it is a game that is/was built on team-play, and community servers magnify that aspect. Again, even TF2's team members have said on this very list that community servers offer players a better experience. The problem with the "default effect <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_effect_(psychology)>", is that it skews patterns. For example, prior to the way Quickplay was implemented, other game modes (such as control point) were much more popular. With payload always being the first (default) game mode chosen in QP, it received an "unnatural" boost in popularity over other game modes. That naturally trickled down to the mapping scene, causing far more payload maps to be created, as well as decreasing the number of CP servers, etc. The important point here isn't really even "equal treatment", it's actually about player choice. As it stands right now, the player-base is really not determining what content/servers/game modes/maps should "rise to the top", since Valve has skewed the system towards vanilla content, and certain game modes, effectively removing player choice. Again, I think this is more an issue of simply re-designing the UI to present that choice. That way - every type of player would be aware that choice exists (which, believe it or not, most new players are completely unaware of), and might become long-term players EVEN IF they failed to find what they were looking for on Valve's servers. ...and that's really the whole point - giving the power to the players to choose which servers/maps/game modes rise and fall. The fact that just yesterday Valve added a "new" community CTF map that our community has been playing for 5+ years is perfect proof that player choice could be used to improve the game immensely by allowing them to discover new content outside of the limited Valve ecosystem. *4. How does any of what has been suggested negate the rising trend of official server exclusive content, such as contracts etc, that would naturally bias a new player toward Valve servers?* It really doesn't - but again, it's not that content that is really the biggest issue. It's a combination of effectively "hiding" the community server option from players through their choice of UI design, giving Valve server priority treatment by default, and THEN piling on that "Official Only" content. Again - all I'm really asking is that the CHOICES that are available to players be more predominantly displayed in the UI (along with the tools for them to deal with bad servers). I really don't see the downside to that, since every type of player can still get what they want in terms of functionality. *5. Do you believe competitive / matchmaking games will be matched to official servers only to ensure a stock experience and to negate cheating the match/economy? If so, what’s the point of discussing any of this if the biggest player drain from private servers is yet to come and this addresses none of it?* Sure, I think "ranked" competitive matchmaking games should be limited to Valve's servers. Absolutely. For community server operators, I really don't see an upside to hosting those types of servers, unless they offer an option of having some kind of "private" matchmaking server to run unofficial tourny's on or something (which might be a good idea for non-standard games). As far as a "player drain", that's really only speculation at this point. In my opinion, the percentage of players who are even interested in small, competitive matches (6 v 6 or 9 v 9) are likely already playing them, and this new system will simply make it easier to setup/track matches and standings. I think the folks that are saying that this will kill off servers don't really know the player-base all that well. Casual players will stay casual players. Personally, I have zero interest in small 6 v 6 matches, as I like playing the game on a full server, etc...and I there will be plenty of folks that feel the same way in our community. In short - all I really want is for players to be made more aware that our servers exist as an option, and If they choose to never try that option, so be it. The sad truth is that we get half a dozen introduction threads in our forums every week that read along the lines of "I never knew your servers existed, but I'm glad I found you guys"....and that's all I'm really talking about. Shine a little light our way (in terms of UI design), and give the players the tools to decide for themselves. The worst case is that players decide never to try community servers again. The best case is that we do what good communities do best - turn short-term players into long-term players. On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Saint K. <[email protected]> wrote: > With TWI you pre-register your IP’s to be “ranked”. This, imo, would make > the best system for banning unwanted servers from VALVe’s side. > > > > Seems like a perfect solution to me. > > > > Saint K. > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Cats From Above > *Sent:* Friday, December 18, 2015 3:17 PM > *To:* Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming > > > > E. Olsen’s suggestions are all fine and dandy, except for the following > remaining questions: > > 1. How do you propose that Valve deal with operators who split their > servers into different Steam IDs and regularly replace the Steam ID of > their widely blacklisted server with a new one? Given that Valve > can’t/won’t stop 10 year olds creating hundreds of Steam Accounts from the > same computer and then using them to run LMAOBox on servers, I’m sceptical > that they’d have the fortitude to deal with this issue either. And no, > IP/IP:Port bans are not the answer (Too easy to change/Shared hosting > considerations) nor is creating a barrier to entry for new server operators. > > 2. How do you propose competitive matchmaking / lobbies etc fit into this > new UI? It’s looking rather over-crowded as it is. > > 3. Why do you believe that privately-run servers should be given equal > preference, when on any other Valve game official is the default option? > > 4. How does any of what has been suggested negate the rising trend of > official server exclusive content, such as contracts etc, that would > naturally bias a new player toward Valve servers? > > 5. Do you believe competitive / matchmaking games will be matched to > official servers only to ensure a stock experience and to negate cheating > the match/economy? If so, what’s the point of discussing any of this if the > biggest player drain from private servers is yet to come and this addresses > none of it? > > Sorry to be the one to ask the tough questions (not really), but someone > needed to play devil’s advocate. > > > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:10 AM, E. Olsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just FYI, the whole "if players found community servers valuable, they > would be playing on them", isn't even remotely valid. If you owned a > popular restaurant, and the government came in and built an expressway that > bypassed that restaurant completely (and only your existing customers even > knew there was an off ramp somewhere to get to you), eventually you would > close your doors, and through no fault of your own. > > > > Any and all perceived "problems" Valve might have had with community > server could be easily and quickplay fixed, simply by doing the following: > > > > 1. Make the client server-blacklisting system work across the board with > both the server browser AND quickplay. > > > > 2. Allow players to blacklist individual servers and/or whole groups of > servers that belong to a particular Steam ID (which would prevent them from > ever being re-connected to those servers/groups of servers). > > > > 3. After doing the above, default quickplay to "all" when using the "play > multiplayer" button (if they choose to continue to use that horrible design > choice) OR even better - break the buttons up as suggested in THIS > <http://i.imgur.com/tAmWXj6.png> UI design proposal. > > > > That's it - that's all it would take. > > > > Do that, and community servers would be self-policing (bad servers would > naturally be blacklisted over time), and players would be exposed again to > all options they have in terms of diversity and choice (something which is > slowly, but surely, being stamped out of the game). > > > > There can be no question that the game experience is better in the > long-term on good community servers. Skill levels are higher, communication > is better, and teamwork actually exists on a regular basis. Members of the > TF2 team have admitted that themselves on this very mailing list. It > doesn't need to be an "us against them" scenario, as again - all the TF2 > team need do is expand existing tools available to the players to police > their own experience to once again allow equitable treatment to community > servers. > > > > ...but again, this has all been said time and again via this list, and I > doubt anyone on the TF2 team even reads it anymore. I think if they planned > to carry though on "supporting communities passionate about the game" as > they once again mentioned just 5 months ago, then they would have done so > by now. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
