So how do you combat against it then? QP isn't as much of a problem as Valve servers are, Valve servers don't show you what all you can do with the game, provide poor moderation, are easily susceptible to hackers. The biggest issue is with players, players who are new to the game do not learn on Valve servers for the most part, being the way they are. Comp TF2 is having problems getting new people in because there are simply not enough people around interested anymore. Your first impression of a game is what makes or breaks it.
Fletcher Dunn of Valve even said this system would be bad for new players, and they went with it anyway. QP on the other hand is just unfair, the convenience sacrifices a lot of what the game has to offer, and puts more powers in the hands of mega communities who know how to cheat the system. On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek < proph...@sticed.org> wrote: > Because MOTDs are actually useful for things other than ads. And I'm > wondering what happens if you join a server which forces you to have motds > activated. > Furthermore quickplay is not the issue. The issue (the reason behind > everything) is traffic. Why even bother and open up the server browser, > trying to find an ad-free server when the result is a game of minesweeper > you will always lose? The average player Joe then uses quickplay. > Also quickplay does not allow actual gamemods which are the potential that > makes community servers great (besides the ability to have proper > moderation). > You want to limit the amount of snipers? You're not allowed to enter > quickplay anymore. > Have a non-default map? May it be something new and exciting, or an > official map with some needed fixes? No quickplay for you. > > > On 19.12.2015 02:08, Cats From Above wrote: > > And what has this got to do with getting servers back onto the default > Quickplay pool, Matthias? It is my belief that Valve will always keep HTML > MOTDs disabled for Quickplay joins...and that we need to fight the battles > we can win. Hence, getting servers back onto the default Quickplay pool > needs to come before your personal vendetta against advertising, sorry, but > that's what it looks like. If, in the course of achieving the goal of > Quickplay reform, adverts need to be discussed, then I'm sure we can > discuss it. But given the current configuration of Quickplay and the > intended goal, it does not. > > I also note that more server ops would be inclined to engage in this > conversation if they felt it wasn't going to damage thier community whilst > doing so - We need thier combined input. > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek < > <proph...@sticed.org>proph...@sticed.org> wrote: > >> I think if a player wants to play on a community server without ads, he >> should be able to get a list of servers meeting the criteria. MOTDs >> actually have a lot of other uses. >> At the moment if I join a random community server from within the >> browser, I have to assume the worst. How can we fix this? Transparency and >> moderation. >> >> >> On 19.12.2015 01:53, Cats From Above wrote: >> >> Well, quite frankly, we could avoid a whole lot of bias issues if the >> topic of adverts and internal server policy was ruled entirely out of >> scope. This shouldn't be about telling sever ops how they should run and >> fund thier servers. Adverts and Quickplay are two different issues in my >> view – especially as HTML motds are disabled on Quickplay connects and will >> likely remain so regardless of whatever outcomes are achieved. >> >> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Rowedahelicon < >> <theoneando...@rowedahelicon.com>theoneando...@rowedahelicon.com> wrote: >> >>> I'm open to either idea, but I think the bottom line should that we >>> strive for an outcome both preferable to us and the TF2 player base as >>> well, so as long as we're doing that then we're doing good? >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek < >>> <proph...@sticed.org>proph...@sticed.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I don't see any reason why someone needs to be a non-server op to >>>> represent the interests of server ops. The idea is to pick decent >>>> representatives that are server ops, and are willing to represent a >>>> consensus, with the added experience and expertise they have to properly >>>> recognize and understand point of views. The politics analogy isn't >>>> misplaced. You don't have a member of another party representing the other. >>>> Why? Conflict of interest. (How absurd I know) >>>> Maybe pick one non op and 5 server ops. It's still ridiculous. >>>> >>>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- *Matthew (Rowedahelicon) Robinson* Web Designer / Artist / Writer Website - http://www.rowedahelicon.com/
_______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds
