Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Lyrai]

The community was the worst thing to happen to the community of TF2.

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Rowedahelicon <
theoneando...@rowedahelicon.com> wrote:

> "Community servers are not "relics of the past". It is simply a business
> decision and Valve has decided to choose the path of greed, laziness, and
> betrayal. One only needs to look at Minecraft as proof that community
> servers are not outdated."
>
> I want to point out this article along side that :
> http://www.pcgamer.com/gabe-newell-pc-gaming-communities-are-keeping-games-alive/
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Cats From Above  > 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Rowedahelicon <
>> theoneando...@rowedahelicon.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There's no need for negativity, just because server owners now are a
>>> small minority doesn't mean we can't grab people's attention. A lot of the
>>> TF2 community simply may not understand what all is at stake.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
>>> proph...@sticed.org> wrote:
>>>
 Congrats, you managed to exceed the level of pragmatism and transform
 it into a rant. I don't see any reasons for this. If you have doubts about
 Valve caring about community servers, I do too. The situation is quite
 obvious. However I'm not presenting a solution, but a way to make our
 voices count for the last chance we apparently have.
 You also misunderstood my reply entirely.  I never said we would be
 speaking for the entirety of the players. I also don't see a reason why
 Valve would not at least a bit care about community servers (that tiny tiny
 bit), given that they respect minorities like the competitive groups
 (compared to other games like csgo and dota). I also don't see any
 re-playability of small event minigames, some gamemodes that start in a
 pre-alpha state and barely ever get finished (and create situations that
 require weapon balancing for the next 20 years), few maps of the same
 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Robert Paulson]

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 
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 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Cats From Above]

If private server operators are a dying breed due to Quickplay etc. and
they are still needed and valued by the broader Team Fortress 2 community,
then where’s the community outcry? I think most people realise that the
average Team Fortress 2 player doesn’t care about the plight of privately
run servers. Also, I find it a little cute that Robert would cite Minecraft
as being indicative that privately run servers aren’t outdated. Not only is
it a completely different game and genre, but it’s also a game that doesn’t
have official servers. Team Fortress 2 on the other hand does have official
servers, which does change things somewhat, only a fool would suggest
otherwise.


Now, I’m not against community servers, they have added value in the past
by virtue of being the only option for Team Fortress 2 players at the time.
Thankfully, there are more options now, specifically official servers. And
need I remind everyone that it was the behaviour of a number of community
operators that led to Valve setting official servers only as the default
option – A default setting which in line with other Valve games, I might
add, official server defaults are hardly a new thing for Valve or any other
developer with a distinguishment between ranked/unranked or
official/unofficial servers.


Finally, I would note that even if bad servers weren’t a thing in terms of
Quickplay and master server browser abuses, private server operators would
still find themselves being treated like second class citizens because
Valve wants to be in control of their player’s experience from store to
server – Which makes complete business sense. Further, I would suggest that
Valve would still be pushing down the path of contracts, Mann Up and lobby
matchmaking to official servers (Which are the only servers Valve can
guarantee to be mod free) irrespective of the bad eggs within the private
server operator pool. Given, before it was about keeping bad eggs out. Now
it’s about Valve trying to provide players with new content, in the only
secure manner that they can – Hosting the servers by themselves. Some
people seem to forget the value of the Team Fortress 2 economy and as to
why Valve would need to exclude private server operators from economy
affecting actions.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Robert Paulson 
wrote:

> Quickplay was hardly the first or one of the first anti-community changes.
> It is the worst and that is why everyone is fixated on it. Official server
> exclusives like MvM and passtime pale in comparison based on damage done.
> Matchmaking could possibly be just as bad, but only time will tell. And it
> might not even be an issue if community servers got all the unranked
> players in return. Or even whitelisting trusted communities that was
> supposedly the reason for tying servers to player accounts.
>
> Community servers are not "relics of the past". It is simply a business
> decision and Valve has decided to choose the path of greed, laziness, and
> betrayal. One only needs to look at Minecraft as proof that community
> servers are not outdated.
>
> Unless you are biased against them, it is hard to argue that community
> servers haven't added any value. As I have said multiple times, community
> players were by far the majority until they were blocked from quickplay
> over a year ago. And it took massive traffic manipulation to reverse this.
> Just because we are the minority now doesn't mean that's the way it should
> be.
>
> It is sad to see Valve acting more like EA. Instead of dealing with bad
> servers they have decided to chuck all community servers in a ghetto.
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Cats From Above]

My understanding is that Slag servers are dying due to issues at an
administrative level, chiefly I suspect, that the key people behind that
community have other things in their agenda (A hat in time anyone?).
Quickplay has little to do with it I suspect, especially as nearly all of
Slag’s servers were ineligible for Quickplay in the first place due to
their modded nature. Further, I would argue that the stagnation and lack of
creation of game modes is due to the fact that private server operators are
no longer co-operating with one another or sharing content for the benefit
of the broader community – That and a lot of talent has drained out of an 8
year old game. It also seems as if it is more common for private operators
to keep things to themselves now a days instead of letting new game modes
proliferate into something bigger and more well known.


The Microsoft vs Apple analogy is perfectly on cue, only a benighted
individual with no understanding of business would suggest otherwise. I’m
guessing Robert is one of those Vegan types who believes that everyone is
their friend and that the phrase “zero sum game” doesn’t apply to game
servers and their audiences. Dr McKay (I think? Might be misattributing,
someone said it on this mailing list a while ago) had it right when he
suggested that the only reason some private server operators hate on Pinion
and Motdgd so much is because they think that the death of private servers
reliant on that revenue model would somehow help their own servers. Sounds
like a pretty competitive environment to me.


In response to Robert’s suggestion that community servers have done so much
in the past, again, that’s not a point I’m arguing against – Rather I agree
with him, in the past privately run servers did a lot of good. My position
is that the deafening silence from the broader Team Fortress community is
indicative of how they feel about the current state of affairs – And
despite whatever clever features Robert might think he’s added and done in
the past, they don’t care right here and now.


In response to Robert’s 5th Paragraph: He seems to suggest that by
releasing a game Valve somehow owes something to private server operators?
That they have no right to say, “We’ve had enough of players being affected
by shenanigans on private-servers!” – You’re wrong, and it is that
self-entitlement which will no doubt win private operators zero favours
from the folks at Valve.


And I can tell Robert what private server operator wouldn’t care a great
deal about Quickplay: One that was smart enough to see what was coming and
had the intellect to get out of hosting stock servers early, instead
focussing their efforts on custom experiences that Valve doesn’t offer at
this point in time. Those who did this are probably doing quite well
compared to those still hosting stock rotation servers and the like. And
yet Robert would seem to suggest that these Quickplay independent operators
are the "stupid" ones. Funny.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Robert Paulson 
wrote:

> 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 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[rd1981]

Stop That Tank was the newest thing released but most of us server ops havent 
showed much interest in it. I honestly hate quickplay and disable it on all my 
servers whether they do well or not. Multiply a Weapon Stats by 10 was released 
also and has tons more servers now. 


___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Robert Paulson]

Your understanding is flawed then. Everything you've been saying is
logically flawed and it just seems like you are just trying to be as troll
as possible.

If hosting servers was a zero sum game, then why would the would Valve let
people do it? Use your brain and think. They do it because it is NOT a zero
sum game. We get something out of it and they get something out of it.

It doesn't matter if they were on quickplay.I don't know how many times I
have to repeat myself. My point is that even servers that aren't eligible
for quickplay were negatively affected because most players are now never
even aware that community servers exist given the tiny button that browse
servers have. If you ever ran a saxton/ff server you would know what I am
talking about, but you obvious don't have any experience in this matter.
There used to be dozens of custom servers populated 24/7 and now there are
maybe 3-4.

Why is minecraft not a valid argument? You know that there is an official
minecraft host called minecraft realms? And they don't plaster them all
over the top of the main menu. Why does the game mode even matter? Again,
wrong on all points.

And why do the lack of complaints flooding reddit mean that Valve should
ignore the issue? As Henry Ford famously said, "If I had asked people what
they wanted, they would have said faster horses". If people don't know
there's something better, they won't ask for it. The community players
didn't complain about it right away because it was a slow change and it was
hard to figure out that Valve was at fault for killing off their server
because they never use quickplay.

And yes Valve does owe something to communities *who also happen to be
their players and customers* not to break crucial features that were sold
on release such as being able to host the game and have a fair chance to
get players. It doesn't matter if people shuda wuda cuda shifted to custom
game modes which are actually deader than regular tf2.

If you ever release a game or marketplace, please tell everyone you are
going to screw them over as soon as it is more profitable for them. Let's
see how well that works out for you.

@rd, I think someone was complaining here about your stop the tank being on
quickplay several months ago.
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[A Fearts]

I don't know who you are talking to in regards to private custom game mode
servers being 10x less popular. I run a small community with 20 servers in
TF2 and a couple in CS:GO. I don't know if the two are related, however
since the quick play changes my servers have only increased in popularity.
Mostly I think it's because my servers have a lot of custom content and
have been around for 3 years now. My experience maybe different from others
but that's what I'm seeing. Not saying I think anything Valve is doing
regarding quick play and vanilla servers is correct.
On Dec 18, 2015 7:47 AM, "Robert Paulson"  wrote:

> Your understanding is flawed then. Everything you've been saying is
> logically flawed and it just seems like you are just trying to be as troll
> as possible.
>
> If hosting servers was a zero sum game, then why would the would Valve let
> people do it? Use your brain and think. They do it because it is NOT a zero
> sum game. We get something out of it and they get something out of it.
>
> It doesn't matter if they were on quickplay.I don't know how many times I
> have to repeat myself. My point is that even servers that aren't eligible
> for quickplay were negatively affected because most players are now never
> even aware that community servers exist given the tiny button that browse
> servers have. If you ever ran a saxton/ff server you would know what I am
> talking about, but you obvious don't have any experience in this matter.
> There used to be dozens of custom servers populated 24/7 and now there are
> maybe 3-4.
>
> Why is minecraft not a valid argument? You know that there is an official
> minecraft host called minecraft realms? And they don't plaster them all
> over the top of the main menu. Why does the game mode even matter? Again,
> wrong on all points.
>
> And why do the lack of complaints flooding reddit mean that Valve should
> ignore the issue? As Henry Ford famously said, "If I had asked people what
> they wanted, they would have said faster horses". If people don't know
> there's something better, they won't ask for it. The community players
> didn't complain about it right away because it was a slow change and it was
> hard to figure out that Valve was at fault for killing off their server
> because they never use quickplay.
>
> And yes Valve does owe something to communities *who also happen to be
> their players and customers* not to break crucial features that were sold
> on release such as being able to host the game and have a fair chance to
> get players. It doesn't matter if people shuda wuda cuda shifted to custom
> game modes which are actually deader than regular tf2.
>
> If you ever release a game or marketplace, please tell everyone you are
> going to screw them over as soon as it is more profitable for them. Let's
> see how well that works out for you.
>
> @rd, I think someone was complaining here about your stop the tank being
> on quickplay several months ago.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[me]

There is a difference between official servers and officially HOSTED 
servers. Minecraft Realms is still community run and operated. Realms is 
to Minecraft what Multiplay is to TF2 - A hosting provider. It's not 
correct to mix the two.


On 2015-12-18 12:45, Robert Paulson wrote:

Your understanding is flawed then. Everything you've been saying is
logically flawed and it just seems like you are just trying to be as
troll as possible.

If hosting servers was a zero sum game, then why would the would Valve
let people do it? Use your brain and think. They do it because it is
NOT a zero sum game. We get something out of it and they get something
out of it.

It doesn't matter if they were on quickplay.I don't know how many
times I have to repeat myself. My point is that even servers that
aren't eligible for quickplay were negatively affected because most
players are now never even aware that community servers exist given
the tiny button that browse servers have. If you ever ran a saxton/ff
server you would know what I am talking about, but you obvious don't
have any experience in this matter. There used to be dozens of custom
servers populated 24/7 and now there are maybe 3-4.

Why is minecraft not a valid argument? You know that there is an
official minecraft host called minecraft realms? And they don't
plaster them all over the top of the main menu. Why does the game mode
even matter? Again, wrong on all points.

And why do the lack of complaints flooding reddit mean that Valve
should ignore the issue? As Henry Ford famously said, "If I had asked
people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses". If
people don't know there's something better, they won't ask for it. The
community players didn't complain about it right away because it was a
slow change and it was hard to figure out that Valve was at fault for
killing off their server because they never use quickplay.

And yes Valve does owe something to communities WHO ALSO HAPPEN TO BE
THEIR PLAYERS AND CUSTOMERS not to break crucial features that were
sold on release such as being able to host the game and have a fair
chance to get players. It doesn't matter if people shuda wuda cuda
shifted to custom game modes which are actually deader than regular
tf2.

If you ever release a game or marketplace, please tell everyone you
are going to screw them over as soon as it is more profitable for
them. Let's see how well that works out for you.

@rd, I think someone was complaining here about your stop the tank
being on quickplay several months ago.


___
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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Robert Paulson]

You run ff? Well that is not surprising, you are probably the only group
who can claim things have gotten better. Your 20 servers are not all doing
that well. I think only 3 or 4 of them are. And they are not really doing
that well compared to what was the norm before quickplay. I would suspect
that other Freak Fortress owners losing interest in the dwindling
population caused by anti-community changes has more to do with your
population increase than the quickplay change itself.

> There is a difference between official servers and officially HOSTED
servers. Minecraft Realms is still community run and operated. Realms is to
Minecraft what Multiplay is to TF2 - A hosting provider. It's not correct
to mix the two.

And you are missing the point. I am saying that they could host their own
servers, years after having community servers only, if they wanted to
because apparently "Cats From Above" somehow thinks it is impossible. But
they don't encroach on the community unlike Valve. And no, it is not like
Multiplay, unless Multiplay is run by Valve which as far as I can, they
don't.
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[rd1981]

I have never ran a stop that tank server that was the official server hosters 
that had it on it.


___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Saint K.]

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: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com 
[mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Cats From Above
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 3:17 PM
To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list 
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  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 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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Cats From Above]

Perfect solution except:

1. What about game server hosts that host multiple customers on the same IP
Address? This is becoming increasingly common due to the exhaustion of IPv4
addresses. Do you suggest whole IP Addresses of shared hosts start getting
banned?

2. What about cloud-based instances that may not spin-up on the same IP
Address each time? The update to the server browser made it possible for
these types of services to be used without losing favourite / history
entries. Requiring preregistration of IP Addresses would essentially break
this hosting scenario.

3. You’re incorrectly assuming that Valve is willing to blacklist servers
on a regular basis. History shows they consider this to be a waste of time.
They've done it a couple of times to make a statement but rarely do so
consistently. Esp. Why would Valve want to waste the time implementing
blacklists when they can just keep private servers excluded from Quickplay?
Far less effort required and the only people crying foul are private server
operators and thier friends.

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Saint K.  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.
>
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Cats From Above]

Actually! My mistake, found the page in question.

Interesting, though again, I imagine it's a bit of an issue when it comes
to the two previous examples. In any case, I doubt Valve want to run a
preregistration program for the tens of thousands of servers across thier
various games.

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Cats From Above 
wrote:

> Oh and also, according to the information I found, TWI does not ask for
> server IP Addresses; They ask for a contact email, something that would be
> easy to bypass.
>
> http://www.twiladder.com/page/twilpcwmut#Registration
>
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Saint K. 
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[E. Olsen]

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
 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.


On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:14 AM,  wrote:

> There is a difference between official servers and officially HOSTED
> servers. Minecraft Realms is still community run and operated. Realms is to
> Minecraft what Multiplay is to TF2 - A hosting provider. It's not correct
> to mix the two.
>
>
> On 2015-12-18 12:45, Robert Paulson wrote:
>
>> Your understanding is flawed then. Everything you've been saying is
>> logically flawed and it just seems like you are just trying to be as
>> troll as possible.
>>
>> If hosting servers was a zero sum game, then why would the would Valve
>> let people do it? Use your brain and think. They do it because it is
>> NOT a zero sum game. We get something out of it and they get something
>> out of it.
>>
>> It doesn't matter if they were on quickplay.I don't know how many
>> times I have to repeat myself. My point is that even servers that
>> aren't eligible for quickplay were negatively affected because most
>> players are now never even aware that community servers exist given
>> the tiny button that browse servers have. If you ever ran a saxton/ff
>> server you would know what I am talking about, but you obvious don't
>> have any experience in this matter. There used to be dozens of custom
>> servers populated 24/7 and now there are maybe 3-4.
>>
>> Why is minecraft not a valid argument? You know that there is an
>> official minecraft host called minecraft realms? And they don't
>> plaster them all over the top of the main menu. Why does the game mode
>> even matter? Again, wrong on all points.
>>
>> And why do the lack of complaints flooding reddit mean that Valve
>> should ignore the issue? As Henry Ford famously said, "If I had asked
>> people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses". If
>> people don't know there's something better, they won't ask for it. The
>> community players didn't complain about it right away because it was a
>> slow change and it was hard to figure out that Valve was at fault for
>> killing off their server because they never use quickplay.
>>
>> And yes Valve does owe something to communities WHO ALSO HAPPEN TO BE
>> THEIR PLAYERS AND CUSTOMERS not to break crucial features that were
>> sold on release such as being able to host the game and have a fair
>> chance to get players. It doesn't matter if people shuda wuda cuda
>> shifted to custom game modes which are actually deader than regular
>> tf2.
>>
>> If you ever release a game or marketplace, please tell everyone you
>> are going to screw them over as soon as it is more profitable for
>> them. Let's see how well that works out for you.
>>
>> @rd, I think someone was complaining here about your stop the 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Cats From Above]

Oh and also, according to the information I found, TWI does not ask for
server IP Addresses; They ask for a contact email, something that would be
easy to bypass.

http://www.twiladder.com/page/twilpcwmut#Registration

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Saint K.  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.
>
>
>
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Adam walker]

I'm sorry but where did I say it entitled anyone to do anything to someone 
else? I know I have glasses, but I think I'm missing it.

> On 18 Dec 2015, at 13:24, Bartek S  wrote:
> 
> It still doesn't excuse Valve from fucking over community servers.
> 
>> On 18 Dec 2015 14:15,  wrote:
>> There is a difference between official servers and officially HOSTED 
>> servers. Minecraft Realms is still community run and operated. Realms is to 
>> Minecraft what Multiplay is to TF2 - A hosting provider. It's not correct to 
>> mix the two.
>> 
>>> On 2015-12-18 12:45, Robert Paulson wrote:
>>> Your understanding is flawed then. Everything you've been saying is
>>> logically flawed and it just seems like you are just trying to be as
>>> troll as possible.
>>> 
>>> If hosting servers was a zero sum game, then why would the would Valve
>>> let people do it? Use your brain and think. They do it because it is
>>> NOT a zero sum game. We get something out of it and they get something
>>> out of it.
>>> 
>>> It doesn't matter if they were on quickplay.I don't know how many
>>> times I have to repeat myself. My point is that even servers that
>>> aren't eligible for quickplay were negatively affected because most
>>> players are now never even aware that community servers exist given
>>> the tiny button that browse servers have. If you ever ran a saxton/ff
>>> server you would know what I am talking about, but you obvious don't
>>> have any experience in this matter. There used to be dozens of custom
>>> servers populated 24/7 and now there are maybe 3-4.
>>> 
>>> Why is minecraft not a valid argument? You know that there is an
>>> official minecraft host called minecraft realms? And they don't
>>> plaster them all over the top of the main menu. Why does the game mode
>>> even matter? Again, wrong on all points.
>>> 
>>> And why do the lack of complaints flooding reddit mean that Valve
>>> should ignore the issue? As Henry Ford famously said, "If I had asked
>>> people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses". If
>>> people don't know there's something better, they won't ask for it. The
>>> community players didn't complain about it right away because it was a
>>> slow change and it was hard to figure out that Valve was at fault for
>>> killing off their server because they never use quickplay.
>>> 
>>> And yes Valve does owe something to communities WHO ALSO HAPPEN TO BE
>>> THEIR PLAYERS AND CUSTOMERS not to break crucial features that were
>>> sold on release such as being able to host the game and have a fair
>>> chance to get players. It doesn't matter if people shuda wuda cuda
>>> shifted to custom game modes which are actually deader than regular
>>> tf2.
>>> 
>>> If you ever release a game or marketplace, please tell everyone you
>>> are going to screw them over as soon as it is more profitable for
>>> them. Let's see how well that works out for you.
>>> 
>>> @rd, I think someone was complaining here about your stop the tank
>>> being on quickplay several months ago.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Saint K.]

It works wonderful, so I don’t see why this should be a problem in srcds based 
games.
 
Sure, there are a few things you need to tackle, but nothing you can’t work out.
 
Saint K.
 
From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com 
[mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Cats From Above
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 3:54 PM
To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list 
Subject: Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming
 
Actually! My mistake, found the page in question. 
Interesting, though again, I imagine it's a bit of an issue when it comes to 
the two previous examples. In any case, I doubt Valve want to run a 
preregistration program for the tens of thousands of servers across thier 
various games.
 
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Cats From Above  
wrote:
Oh and also, according to the information I found, TWI does not ask for server 
IP Addresses; They ask for a contact email, something that would be easy to 
bypass.

http://www.twiladder.com/page/twilpcwmut#Registration
 
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Saint K.  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.___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Bartek S]

It still doesn't excuse Valve from fucking over community servers.
On 18 Dec 2015 14:15,  wrote:

> There is a difference between official servers and officially HOSTED
> servers. Minecraft Realms is still community run and operated. Realms is to
> Minecraft what Multiplay is to TF2 - A hosting provider. It's not correct
> to mix the two.
>
> On 2015-12-18 12:45, Robert Paulson wrote:
>
>> Your understanding is flawed then. Everything you've been saying is
>> logically flawed and it just seems like you are just trying to be as
>> troll as possible.
>>
>> If hosting servers was a zero sum game, then why would the would Valve
>> let people do it? Use your brain and think. They do it because it is
>> NOT a zero sum game. We get something out of it and they get something
>> out of it.
>>
>> It doesn't matter if they were on quickplay.I don't know how many
>> times I have to repeat myself. My point is that even servers that
>> aren't eligible for quickplay were negatively affected because most
>> players are now never even aware that community servers exist given
>> the tiny button that browse servers have. If you ever ran a saxton/ff
>> server you would know what I am talking about, but you obvious don't
>> have any experience in this matter. There used to be dozens of custom
>> servers populated 24/7 and now there are maybe 3-4.
>>
>> Why is minecraft not a valid argument? You know that there is an
>> official minecraft host called minecraft realms? And they don't
>> plaster them all over the top of the main menu. Why does the game mode
>> even matter? Again, wrong on all points.
>>
>> And why do the lack of complaints flooding reddit mean that Valve
>> should ignore the issue? As Henry Ford famously said, "If I had asked
>> people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses". If
>> people don't know there's something better, they won't ask for it. The
>> community players didn't complain about it right away because it was a
>> slow change and it was hard to figure out that Valve was at fault for
>> killing off their server because they never use quickplay.
>>
>> And yes Valve does owe something to communities WHO ALSO HAPPEN TO BE
>> THEIR PLAYERS AND CUSTOMERS not to break crucial features that were
>> sold on release such as being able to host the game and have a fair
>> chance to get players. It doesn't matter if people shuda wuda cuda
>> shifted to custom game modes which are actually deader than regular
>> tf2.
>>
>> If you ever release a game or marketplace, please tell everyone you
>> are going to screw them over as soon as it is more profitable for
>> them. Let's see how well that works out for you.
>>
>> @rd, I think someone was complaining here about your stop the tank
>> being on quickplay several months ago.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Cats From Above]

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  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
>  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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[E. Olsen]

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
", 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 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Cats From Above]

Firstly, Robert, you seem to be confusing the application of zero sum game
and the way it was intended. I refer to it in the context of, “Someone who
prefers and frequents Valve servers, probably won’t play on privately run
servers that often.” And the opposite is also true, “Someone who prefers
and frequents privately run servers, won’t usually go near Valve servers,
though obviously there are incentives for them to do so from time to time.”
And also “If someone has found a community they like, they rarely venture
outside of that community providing the community hosts the types of things
they’re interested in.” The zero-sum-game argument is about where people
play, that is all, and it is reflective of the fact that we are all
creatures of habit.


Secondly, I would surmise that Valve have allowed the continuation
community servers in their diminished form as they don’t consider it a
threat to the enjoyment of their product or revenue model and that the
removal of said servers would only serve to create PR issues – whereas
relegating them to the background is far easier and has far less
consequences. The fact is, players by default are steered to official
servers, which protects them from the shenanigans exclusive to privately
run servers and ensures that players are exposed to things like contracts
etc. (Campaign coins of which are paid). Ergo, Valve gets their money


Thirdly, it would behove of Robert not to guestimate the experience of
other contributors to this mailing list when he does not know to whom he
speaks. My experience is that custom game modes are doing just fine and I’m
not alone in this regard. Perhaps some introspection might reveal why
Robert has a different experience?


Fourthly, the Minecraft argument is not a valid argument due to the fact
that Mojang, despite offering server hosting services via Minecraft Realms,
is not directly involved in hosting and managing “Official Servers” – That
is servers run and managed by Mojang, for Mojang, under the Mojang name.
There is a world of difference between Mojang providing server hosting to
third-parties and Valve hosting servers for themselves – including a
difference of motives. I think everyone on this mailing list understands
the difference and what it means from a business perspective even if that
is beyond Robert‘s comprehension. The distinction is who's managing the
resultant game server and whether or not one is hoping to simply host
privately-managed servers or replace the importance of privately-managed
servers.


Fifthly, I don’t recall Valve ever marketing Team Fortress 2 as a game
where private server operators were guaranteed a “level” environment or
that private servers were guaranteed. Dedicated servers, maybe.
Privately-managed servers, no. The fact that it had the latter feature at
release is, in my view, incidental. Furthermore, I would note that Valve’s
EULA reserves it the right to make changes to the product however they
wish. So perhaps it would be prudent for Robert to take out the emotive
entitlement argument.


Sixthly, screwing over players the second it becomes profitable seemed to
work well for Overkill, who recently exited its own micro-transaction
scandal mostly unscathed. Hell! It even worked well for Valve with the
conversion to free-to-play and the implementation of Mannconomy so long
ago. And let us not forget the screwing over of attachments all in the name
of securing Valve’s monopoly and profit on hats. Perhaps you should brush
up on your history before commenting further, Robert?

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Robert Paulson 
wrote:

> Your understanding is flawed then. Everything you've been saying is
> logically flawed and it just seems like you are just trying to be as troll
> as possible.
>
> If hosting servers was a zero sum game, then why would the would Valve let
> people do it? Use your brain and think. They do it because it is NOT a zero
> sum game. We get something out of it and they get something out of it.
>
> It doesn't matter if they were on quickplay.I don't know how many times I
> have to repeat myself. My point is that even servers that aren't eligible
> for quickplay were negatively affected because most players are now never
> even aware that community servers exist given the tiny button that browse
> servers have. If you ever ran a saxton/ff server you would know what I am
> talking about, but you obvious don't have any experience in this matter.
> There used to be dozens of custom servers populated 24/7 and now there are
> maybe 3-4.
>
> Why is minecraft not a valid argument? You know that there is an official
> minecraft host called minecraft realms? And they don't plaster them all
> over the top of the main menu. Why does the game mode even matter? Again,
> wrong on all points.
>
> And why do the lack of complaints flooding reddit mean that Valve should
> ignore the issue? As Henry Ford famously said, "If I had asked people what
> they wanted, they 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[N-Gon]

Hey so Chewbacca died in this new movie.
Let us have a moment of silence to mourn our old friend instead of arguing
over Quickplay

8)

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
proph...@sticed.org> wrote:

> There is no community outcry, because this is the outcry. You're expecting
> an outcry from people who are barely able to adjust their game's settings,
> let alone disable the motd in their configs to get rid of annoying ads.
> I also don't know why you're bringing up Slag's servers. I've heard a few
> stories about him. I know some model designers who he ripped off, he stole
> their content without giving two fucks. It is also not quite white-knighty
> of a community to sell unmutes and unbans. I wouldn't pick him as the
> poster boy for well-run community servers or better phrased "friendly".
> If you're questioning the talent that is left in the modding community,
> feel free to ask this question again in the next two months.
> Honestly, I think you're trying to troll on a high level here. "One of
> those vegan types", yeah sure. "Funny"
>
> On 18.12.2015 12:35, Cats From Above wrote:
>
> My understanding is that Slag servers are dying due to issues at an
> administrative level, chiefly I suspect, that the key people behind that
> community have other things in their agenda (A hat in time anyone?).
> Quickplay has little to do with it I suspect, especially as nearly all of
> Slag’s servers were ineligible for Quickplay in the first place due to
> their modded nature. Further, I would argue that the stagnation and lack of
> creation of game modes is due to the fact that private server operators are
> no longer co-operating with one another or sharing content for the benefit
> of the broader community – That and a lot of talent has drained out of an 8
> year old game. It also seems as if it is more common for private operators
> to keep things to themselves now a days instead of letting new game modes
> proliferate into something bigger and more well known.
>
>
> The Microsoft vs Apple analogy is perfectly on cue, only a benighted
> individual with no understanding of business would suggest otherwise. I’m
> guessing Robert is one of those Vegan types who believes that everyone is
> their friend and that the phrase “zero sum game” doesn’t apply to game
> servers and their audiences. Dr McKay (I think? Might be misattributing,
> someone said it on this mailing list a while ago) had it right when he
> suggested that the only reason some private server operators hate on Pinion
> and Motdgd so much is because they think that the death of private servers
> reliant on that revenue model would somehow help their own servers. Sounds
> like a pretty competitive environment to me.
>
>
> In response to Robert’s suggestion that community servers have done so
> much in the past, again, that’s not a point I’m arguing against – Rather I
> agree with him, in the past privately run servers did a lot of good. My
> position is that the deafening silence from the broader Team Fortress
> community is indicative of how they feel about the current state of affairs
> – And despite whatever clever features Robert might think he’s added and
> done in the past, they don’t care right here and now.
>
>
> In response to Robert’s 5th Paragraph: He seems to suggest that by
> releasing a game Valve somehow owes something to private server operators?
> That they have no right to say, “We’ve had enough of players being
> affected by shenanigans on private-servers!” – You’re wrong, and it is
> that self-entitlement which will no doubt win private operators zero
> favours from the folks at Valve.
>
>
> And I can tell Robert what private server operator wouldn’t care a great
> deal about Quickplay: One that was smart enough to see what was coming and
> had the intellect to get out of hosting stock servers early, instead
> focussing their efforts on custom experiences that Valve doesn’t offer at
> this point in time. Those who did this are probably doing quite well
> compared to those still hosting stock rotation servers and the like. And
> yet Robert would seem to suggest that these Quickplay independent operators
> are the "stupid" ones. Funny.
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Robert Paulson < 
> thepauls...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

The term "community servers" is accurate as a) this is the term Valve 
uses and b) "private servers" means "password-protected".
And no, servers with custom gamemodes aren't necessarily doing well 
apart from quickplay. Those servers took a big hit if you happen to have 
crawled stats of various servers during the last years (which I did).
You also seem to purposefully misunderstand the meaning of my idea, 
while you fully acknowledge a huge diversity and therefore a problematic 
signal-to-noise-ratio. Therefore the idea of said group. Those few 
selected would not represent the ideas of all server operators, but 
would function as moderators (what I have said). I think this was pretty 
obvious.


On 18.12.2015 07:43, Cats From Above 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.




On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Rowedahelicon 
> wrote:


There's no need for negativity, just because server owners now are
a small minority doesn't mean we can't grab people's attention. A
lot of the TF2 community simply may not understand what all is at
stake.

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek
> wrote:

Congrats, you managed to exceed the level of pragmatism and
transform it into a rant. I don't see any reasons for this. If
you have doubts about Valve caring about community servers, I
do too. The situation is quite obvious. However I'm not
presenting a solution, but a way to make our voices count for
the last chance we apparently have.
You also misunderstood my reply entirely.  I never said we
would be speaking for the entirety of the players. I also
don't see a reason why Valve would not at least a bit care
about community servers (that tiny tiny bit), given that they
respect minorities like the competitive groups (compared to
other games like csgo and dota). I also don't see any
re-playability of small event minigames, some gamemodes that
start in a pre-alpha state and barely ever get 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Ross Bemrose]

For 1, Valve could make make Game Server Login Tokens (GSLTs) mandatory
like they did in CSGO.

GSLTs are the new name for the server tokens used by sv_setsteamaccount.
Valve set up a new page to register these a few months ago and the
requirements are a bit stricter than they used to be.

Specifically:

* Your Steam account can't be banned/locked.
* Your Steam account can't be limited, meaning that you must spend at least
$5 in the Steam store (or add $5 to the account's Steam wallet).  CD Keys,
retail purchases, and gifts don't count toward this.
* Your Steam account must have an SMS-capable phone registered to it.
* You must own the game that the GSLT is for.  Not really applicable for
TF2.

Note: You're now allowed to register up to 1000 game servers to an account
instead of the old limit of 50.

This is the registration page for GSLT:
https://steamcommunity.com/dev/managegameservers (you can see the HTTPS
certficate belongs to Valve to verify this is an actual Valve site instead
of steamcornmunity or something)

Side note: If you try going to my old temporary sign up page for accounts,
it does a permanent redirect to Valve's Game Server Account Management
page, just like I promised it would once they created it.  I just didn't
expect it to take a year and a half to create it.

So I don't double post, I noticed someone earlier mentioning that Payload
has an unfair boost because it's the first game mode listed in QuickPlay.

Even before QuickPlay, Payload was the game's most popular mode, with
pl_badwater being the game's most popular map.  I'm not sure how things
have changed since then (Valve no longer publishes these stats), but
pl_badwater or pl_upward are likely still in the number one spot when
events aren't running. Even on community servers.


On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Cats From Above 
wrote:

> 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  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
>>  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 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

There is no community outcry, because this is the outcry. You're 
expecting an outcry from people who are barely able to adjust their 
game's settings, let alone disable the motd in their configs to get rid 
of annoying ads.
I also don't know why you're bringing up Slag's servers. I've heard a 
few stories about him. I know some model designers who he ripped off, he 
stole their content without giving two fucks. It is also not quite 
white-knighty of a community to sell unmutes and unbans. I wouldn't pick 
him as the poster boy for well-run community servers or better phrased 
"friendly".
If you're questioning the talent that is left in the modding community, 
feel free to ask this question again in the next two months.
Honestly, I think you're trying to troll on a high level here. "One of 
those vegan types", yeah sure. "Funny"


On 18.12.2015 12:35, Cats From Above wrote:


My understanding is that Slag servers are dying due to issues at an 
administrative level, chiefly I suspect, that the key people behind 
that community have other things in their agenda (A hat in time 
anyone?). Quickplay has little to do with it I suspect, especially as 
nearly all of Slag’s servers were ineligible for Quickplay in the 
first place due to their modded nature. Further, I would argue that 
the stagnation and lack of creation of game modes is due to the fact 
that private server operators are no longer co-operating with one 
another or sharing content for the benefit of the broader community – 
That and a lot of talent has drained out of an 8 year old game. It 
also seems as if it is more common for private operators to keep 
things to themselves now a days instead of letting new game modes 
proliferate into something bigger and more well known.



The Microsoft vs Apple analogy is perfectly on cue, only a benighted 
individual with no understanding of business would suggest otherwise. 
I’m guessing Robert is one of those Vegan types who believes that 
everyone is their friend and that the phrase “zero sum game” doesn’t 
apply to game servers and their audiences. Dr McKay (I think? Might be 
misattributing, someone said it on this mailing list a while ago) had 
it right when he suggested that the only reason some private server 
operators hate on Pinion and Motdgd so much is because they think that 
the death of private servers reliant on that revenue model would 
somehow help their own servers. Sounds like a pretty competitive 
environment to me.



In response to Robert’s suggestion that community servers have done so 
much in the past, again, that’s not a point I’m arguing against – 
Rather I agree with him, in the past privately run servers did a lot 
of good. My position is that the deafening silence from the broader 
Team Fortress community is indicative of how they feel about the 
current state of affairs – And despite whatever clever features Robert 
might think he’s added and done in the past, they don’t care right 
here and now.



In response to Robert’s 5^th Paragraph: He seems to suggest that by 
releasing a game Valve somehow owes something to private server 
operators? That they have no right to say, “We’ve had enough of 
players being affected by shenanigans on private-servers!” – You’re 
wrong, and it is that self-entitlement which will no doubt win private 
operators zero favours from the folks at Valve.



And I can tell Robert what private server operator wouldn’t care a 
great deal about Quickplay: One that was smart enough to see what was 
coming and had the intellect to get out of hosting stock servers 
early, instead focussing their efforts on custom experiences that 
Valve doesn’t offer at this point in time. Those who did this are 
probably doing quite well compared to those still hosting stock 
rotation servers and the like. And yet Robert would seem to suggest 
that these Quickplay independent operators are the "stupid" ones. Funny.



On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Robert Paulson > wrote:


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 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

wat, he died too?
Too many spoilers for me...

On 18.12.2015 18:55, N-Gon wrote:

Hey so Chewbacca died in this new movie.
Let us have a moment of silence to mourn our old friend instead of 
arguing over Quickplay


8)

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek 
> wrote:


There is no community outcry, because this is the outcry. You're
expecting an outcry from people who are barely able to adjust
their game's settings, let alone disable the motd in their configs
to get rid of annoying ads.
I also don't know why you're bringing up Slag's servers. I've
heard a few stories about him. I know some model designers who he
ripped off, he stole their content without giving two fucks. It is
also not quite white-knighty of a community to sell unmutes and
unbans. I wouldn't pick him as the poster boy for well-run
community servers or better phrased "friendly".
If you're questioning the talent that is left in the modding
community, feel free to ask this question again in the next two
months.
Honestly, I think you're trying to troll on a high level here.
"One of those vegan types", yeah sure. "Funny"

On 18.12.2015 12:35, Cats From Above wrote:


My understanding is that Slag servers are dying due to issues at
an administrative level, chiefly I suspect, that the key people
behind that community have other things in their agenda (A hat in
time anyone?). Quickplay has little to do with it I suspect,
especially as nearly all of Slag’s servers were ineligible for
Quickplay in the first place due to their modded nature. Further,
I would argue that the stagnation and lack of creation of game
modes is due to the fact that private server operators are no
longer co-operating with one another or sharing content for the
benefit of the broader community – That and a lot of talent has
drained out of an 8 year old game. It also seems as if it is more
common for private operators to keep things to themselves now a
days instead of letting new game modes proliferate into something
bigger and more well known.


The Microsoft vs Apple analogy is perfectly on cue, only a
benighted individual with no understanding of business would
suggest otherwise. I’m guessing Robert is one of those Vegan
types who believes that everyone is their friend and that the
phrase “zero sum game” doesn’t apply to game servers and their
audiences. Dr McKay (I think? Might be misattributing, someone
said it on this mailing list a while ago) had it right when he
suggested that the only reason some private server operators hate
on Pinion and Motdgd so much is because they think that the death
of private servers reliant on that revenue model would somehow
help their own servers. Sounds like a pretty competitive
environment to me.


In response to Robert’s suggestion that community servers have
done so much in the past, again, that’s not a point I’m arguing
against – Rather I agree with him, in the past privately run
servers did a lot of good. My position is that the deafening
silence from the broader Team Fortress community is indicative of
how they feel about the current state of affairs – And despite
whatever clever features Robert might think he’s added and done
in the past, they don’t care right here and now.


In response to Robert’s 5^th Paragraph: He seems to suggest that
by releasing a game Valve somehow owes something to private
server operators? That they have no right to say, “We’ve had
enough of players being affected by shenanigans on
private-servers!” – You’re wrong, and it is that self-entitlement
which will no doubt win private operators zero favours from the
folks at Valve.


And I can tell Robert what private server operator wouldn’t care
a great deal about Quickplay: One that was smart enough to see
what was coming and had the intellect to get out of hosting stock
servers early, instead focussing their efforts on custom
experiences that Valve doesn’t offer at this point in time. Those
who did this are probably doing quite well compared to those
still hosting stock rotation servers and the like. And yet Robert
would seem to suggest that these Quickplay independent operators
are the "stupid" ones. Funny.


On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Robert Paulson
> wrote:

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 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

Yep, trolling.
Thanks for making it obvious.

Anyone with an actual constructive interest wants to way in?

On 19.12.2015 00:47, Cats From Above wrote:


Firstly, if the group was to be an official channel (which will never 
happen) then there is good reason why someone without vested interests 
in server hosting should be channeling the discussion back to Valve. 
I'll use Mathias as an example. Matthias is very clearly 
anti-advertising and believes that communities using such should be 
sv_tagged accordingly, if it is allowed at all. I have no doubt that 
if Matthias was in a moderating position, he would abuse said position 
to surreptitiously advance that agenda irrespective of the official 
stance of the collective he is supposed to be representing. I note 
that rules do not require communities to use sv_tags for their MOTD 
content at this point in time – Yet Matthias clearly believes that 
anyone who uses advertising as a revenue model is committing some 
great moral evil, thus undermining his ability to work with others.


Secondly, I wasn't aware Ross's response required any further debate 
or discussion or that I was required to respond to every post made. 
However, since Matthias seems to think that I robbed Ross of a 
response, yes, there is a game server token system, obviously; No, 
Valve have not been using it to ban servers within Team Fortress 2 and 
I suspect that they don't really use it as a banning mechanism in 
CS:GO on regular basis aside from the occasional knife plugin related 
ban (Ergo: To protect the item economy and the profits associated 
thereof) - Though others are better able to comment on the happenings 
of GLST in CS:GO servers hence why I initially did not. Perhaps others 
on this mailing list could show that same type of restraint 
henceforth, Matthias?


Thirdly, there is nothing ironic about my post, perhaps Matthias needs 
to revise the definition of the word irony. Moving onto the context in 
which he used it, my stance is not as he presented it, but rather my 
stance is that A) Valve won't be interested in pedestaling anyone 
within the realm of "community" hosting as a source of feedback on 
this matter. B) Valve won't be interested in limiting sources of 
feedback or what feedback they receive, all feedback is valuable. C) 
That any such group will not represent the various views of all 
operators and that operators are better off making mature, private and 
direct contact with Valve instead of pushing an agenda through a 
single channel that may not always be representative of their 
community's stance on various matters. Matthias seems to completely 
ignore that it is he, via pushing this suggestion of an official, 
filtered, channel, that would seek to rob server operators with 
minority opinions of a voice – That is an example irony.


And lastly, the reason I don't care about the troll badge that 
Matthias is so desperately trying to staple to my forehead is that it 
was given to me by someone who doesn't even know Godwin's law – hardly 
a respectable individual. For the uninitiated, Matthias, ye who casts 
the first Nazi analogy loses the debate and thier credibility.Google 
it and bring a more intelligent analogy in future.



On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek 
> wrote:


GSPs have definitively established the meaning of what a "private
server" is and so has Valve in the quickplay menu with "community
servers". I see no need for further debate here. You can use
whatever term you want, but it's ridiculous to say others official
terminology is the wrong one to use - and furthermore, not helping
the discussion.
You still haven't fully understood the "voice concept" I guess.
There is no reason why this group should be moderated by
non-serverops. That is ridiculous. You might as well demand that
the democrats should be represented by a Nazi.
Also, it seems you have completely ignored Powerlord's (Ross)
point, which is introducing tokens to properly identify, report
and remove servers. I also don't care who brought up the slag's
servers. It is neither me, nor Robert saying which community
servers are bad (or rather, how abusive specific servers are to
their players), as you noticed in your enumeration, it is the
representative opinion of SPUF players.
Now where lies the issue? In servers not being properly tagged
(ads, p2w) and banned (fake players, p2w), therefore giving decent
community servers the taint that comes with the baddies they're
not related to. This is what the GSLT token system is for, and
this is what Valve is already using in CSGO.
It is ironic that you are against an organized group that moves
this OT discussion into a constructive and moderated forum so
Valve can hear us, while you are against Valve ignoring groups. So
you're finally right. Valve is not 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Andrew T .]

 I agree with Rowaldhelicon.

For me, as a serverop that runs ads(on a server in the top 30), it is extremely 
hard to be unbiased about the thing.
From one point, yes, the ads annoy a few people, and some have expressed 
concern - for whom I have disabled them.
From the other side, however, there's the finite wallet issue, and only ads are 
capable of supporting a disorganised community like mine without making me run 
a loss, even though getting people entertained and having a community is 
rewarding.

Back in the day(say, 2012), there were tons of regulars and donators. Now, 
people just don't.
That's what makes me very biased towards this specific question of 
advertisments on servers.

I think Matthias is also biased from his point of view, being on the receiving 
end of the advertisements.

I would love to support the idea of polls - if anyone actually decides to 
spread it massively, I will follow suit with my community, and see what the 
people decide.

>Суббота, 19 декабря 2015, 1:29 +01:00 от "Matthias \"InstantMuffin\" Kollek" 
>:
>
>A non server op also wouldn't care about servers. Simple as that.
Yes, you should pick multiple people, and the right ones. But yes,
you should at least pick someone who represents your party. Not only
in terms of having an actual representative, but someone who shares
the expertise and point of view. Come on guys.
>
>On 19.12.2015 01:17, Rowedahelicon
  wrote:
>>I think a non serverop would be great.
>>
>>The personal investments are what drives everyone the way it
does I imagine, but a non server op wouldn't need to care about
a particular server, just the game itself. I think finding a
candidate though would be difficult, unless we put together some
input polls and gave it to our respective communities? 
>>
>>-- 
>>*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
>
>___
>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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

I would like to note that ads could possibly result in bad rep and less 
intent to donate, resulting in a vicious circle where people think "why 
should I donate to crappy servers? they have ads and p2w".
I believe that there is simply a lack of transparency. You join a server 
and don't know what awaits you. You don't know if there are any ads. You 
don't know if servers will force you to enable motds in order to join a 
team.
Do me a favor. Use a script and join every non-valve server. Keep the 
sound on and have that running in the background. Takes about 24 hours. 
You'd be surprised how quickly you will get upset by the amount of loud 
ads bursting through your speakers. How do I know this? Because that's 
what I did.


On 19.12.2015 01:33, Andrew T. wrote:

I agree with Rowaldhelicon.

For me, as a serverop that runs ads(on a server in the top 30), it is 
extremely hard to be unbiased about the thing.
From one point, yes, the ads annoy a few people, and some have 
expressed concern - for whom I have disabled them.
From the other side, however, there's the finite wallet issue, and 
only ads are capable of supporting a disorganised community like mine 
without making me run a loss, even though getting people entertained 
and having a community is rewarding.


Back in the day(say, 2012), there were tons of regulars and donators. 
Now, people just don't.
That's what makes me very biased towards this specific question of 
advertisments on servers.


I think Matthias is also biased from his point of view, being on the 
receiving end of the advertisements.


I would love to support the idea of polls - if anyone actually decides 
to spread it massively, I will follow suit with my community, and see 
what the people decide.


Суббота, 19 декабря 2015, 1:29 +01:00 от "Matthias
\"InstantMuffin\" Kollek" :

A non server op also wouldn't care about servers. Simple as that.
Yes, you should pick multiple people, and the right ones. But yes,
you should at least pick someone who represents your party. Not
only in terms of having an actual representative, but someone who
shares the expertise and point of view. Come on guys.

On 19.12.2015 01:17, Rowedahelicon wrote:

I think a non serverop would be great.

The personal investments are what drives everyone the way it does
I imagine, but a non server op wouldn't need to care about a
particular server, just the game itself. I think finding a
candidate though would be difficult, unless we put together some
input polls and gave it to our respective communities?

-- 
*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


___
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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[E. Olsen]

Yeah, I really don't know how a non-server operator would make a strong
advocate for community servers.

There are perspectives and insight that can only be gained as someone who
operates game servers, plain and simple. That should be plain enough from
the few people who always weigh in on these issues who clearly have no idea
the work and dedication it takes to build a server community around a game,
nor do they understand the impact of Valve directing all traffic away from
community servers by default.

I also think you're going to run into alot of problems in terms of
"ideology" (for lack of a better word). For example, I know full well by
now on this list who is "pro" MOTD/Pinion ads and who is against it (full
transparency - I think they're a cancer that needed to go a long time ago),
but for you guys that love those things, I doubt you'd find a single "non
server operator" who would ever think plastering your server with ads was a
good idea, since you're basically turning players into ad impressions, and
trying to monetize them before you've provided any actual value.

At any rate - have at it. I'd probably just be happy if you guys got Valve
to actually say a single thing on the record about the issue, since they've
been in "communication blackout mode" about anything substantive to do with
community servers for over two years now.



On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
proph...@sticed.org> wrote:

> A non server op also wouldn't care about servers. Simple as that. Yes, you
> should pick multiple people, and the right ones. But yes, you should at
> least pick someone who represents your party. Not only in terms of having
> an actual representative, but someone who shares the expertise and point of
> view. Come on guys.
>
> On 19.12.2015 01:17, Rowedahelicon wrote:
>
> I think a non serverop would be great.
>
> The personal investments are what drives everyone the way it does I
> imagine, but a non server op wouldn't need to care about a particular
> server, just the game itself. I think finding a candidate though would be
> difficult, unless we put together some input polls and gave it to our
> respective communities?
>
> --
> *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
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

I think so yes.
So based on that it makes sense to focus on interfaces and channels that 
allow management and efficiency.


-The token change to ban servers
-The group
-More transparency for the player

On 19.12.2015 01:48, Rowedahelicon 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 
> 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.


On 19.12.2015 01:34, Rowedahelicon wrote:

Not necessarily, I've had people from my group tell me about how
great it is and how annoying it's been what Valve has done.
Though I feel maybe that would be more of someone wanting to see
*my* community do good and less interested in the how / why. But
I dunno, it's hard to say.

And hey no need for "come on guys" , any idea is worth while and
there is no need to bash anything

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek
> wrote:

A non server op also wouldn't care about servers. Simple as
that. Yes, you should pick multiple people, and the right
ones. But yes, you should at least pick someone who
represents your party. Not only in terms of having an actual
representative, but someone who shares the expertise and
point of view. Come on guys.

On 19.12.2015 01:17, Rowedahelicon wrote:

I think a non serverop would be great.

The personal investments are what drives everyone the way it
does I imagine, but a non server op wouldn't need to care
about a particular server, just the game itself. I think
finding a candidate though would be difficult, unless we put
together some input polls and gave it to our respective
communities?

-- 
*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



___
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



___
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


___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Cats From Above]

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> 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> 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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Rowedahelicon]

Hey Eric hows it going?

And @Matthias & Robert : The only thing that should remain to be said about
ads is to anyone who wants to blame them for Quickplay getting started in
the first place. I only even say that from me experiences on Reddit trying
to talk about this before, there are people who believe that Quickplay was
a gift from god in retaliation from advertising. Otherwise, if a server op
chooses to have ads on his or her server then it really shouldn't be of any
concern to us here, only to the players who choose to interact with that
community specifically.

As we have seen with Quickplay, some server groups still find ways to get
around limits that were put in place anyway. The more difficult of a
process this will be for Valve, the less they will be interested in
changing anything. TF2 and by extension a lot of multiplayer games went on
fine for many years before any form of hand holding took place, that is
something to consider.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Eric Smith  wrote:

> We're working on a mandatory update for TF2. We should have it ready soon.
> Apologies for releasing so late on a Friday, but there are a few fixes we
> need to get released before the weekend.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Eric
>
>
> ___
> 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

[hlds] Mandatory TF2 update released

[Eric Smith]

We've released a mandatory update for TF2. The update notes are below. The new 
version is  3195453.

-Eric



- Fixed a client crash related to the HUD
- Fixed a client crash related to picking up weapons
- Fixed some Mac client crashes related to being out of memory
- Fixed a bug with removing the Gifter's Name on gift-wrapped items
- Fixed paint cans from the stocking stuffer being always tradeable
- Fixed an issue with knives not animating correctly
- Fixed a bug related to the Loose Cannon and bots in Mann vs. Machine mode
- Fixed Engineer's Wrangler contract updating points for players other than the 
Engineer doing the contract
- Fixed a bug where the Sapper preview would disable buildings when removed
- Fixed a bug with Sentry Guns being disabled for 5 seconds instead of the 
desired 0.5 seconds after a Sapper is removed
- Fixed an issue with The Concheror regen not being 4 health per second as 
intended
- Fixed the Half-Zatoichi giving more overheal then intended. Max overheal is 
1.5x base health.
- Added the EdgeGamers UltiDuo Participant 2015 tournament medal
- Added an option to the Adv. Options menu to disable teammate glow effects 
after respawn
- Updated the equip_region for the Chicago Overcoat
- Updated the models/materials for The Chill Chullo

Notes missed from the previous update:

- Huntsman
- Can be fired while off the ground
- Updated pass_pinewood
- Fixed lighting/shadow issues
- Increased size of water tower goals

___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Rowedahelicon]

With QP as it is now, people can still get away with breaking some of the
rules. Will Valve be willing to police trouble makers when it is so easy to
fire up a new server on a new account?

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
proph...@sticed.org> wrote:

> Switch to the token system from csgo, include all servers in the quickplay
> pool (sole exception might be servers that offer reserved slots for cash)
> but give the players more options. Tag servers properly so quickplayers can
> decide for themselves if they want to join a server that runs ads or not,
> or try out a community mod, or custom maps.
>
> Make some of the quickplay offenses ban-able:
> https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=2825-AFGJ-3513
>
> i.e.
> Opening a MOTD window (hidden or visible) that is not requested
> Forcing clients to view the MOTD until a timer has expired
> Giving or selling gameplay advantage to players
> Granting or modifying economy items, or taking actions that devalue
> players' items, or interfering with the TF2 economy
> Browser popups
>
> By default do not show official servers in the server browser (add that
> checkbox back).
>
>
> On 19.12.2015 02:41, Rowedahelicon wrote:
>
> 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> 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 <
>>> 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Rowedahelicon]

I don't know much about CS:GO server ownership so I don't know how well the
token system works so if someone wants to chip in that would be handy

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
proph...@sticed.org> wrote:

> With the token system it won't be as easy.
>
>
> On 19.12.2015 02:54, Rowedahelicon wrote:
>
> With QP as it is now, people can still get away with breaking some of the
> rules. Will Valve be willing to police trouble makers when it is so easy to
> fire up a new server on a new account?
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
> proph...@sticed.org> wrote:
>
>> Switch to the token system from csgo, include all servers in the
>> quickplay pool (sole exception might be servers that offer reserved slots
>> for cash) but give the players more options. Tag servers properly so
>> quickplayers can decide for themselves if they want to join a server that
>> runs ads or not, or try out a community mod, or custom maps.
>>
>> Make some of the quickplay offenses ban-able:
>> 
>> https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=2825-AFGJ-3513
>>
>> i.e.
>> Opening a MOTD window (hidden or visible) that is not requested
>> Forcing clients to view the MOTD until a timer has expired
>> Giving or selling gameplay advantage to players
>> Granting or modifying economy items, or taking actions that devalue
>> players' items, or interfering with the TF2 economy
>> Browser popups
>>
>> By default do not show official servers in the server browser (add that
>> checkbox back).
>>
>>
>> On 19.12.2015 02:41, Rowedahelicon wrote:
>>
>> 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> 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 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Rowedahelicon]

See we got this~

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
proph...@sticed.org> wrote:

> I second this.
> I'd also like to add that the purpose of this group would be more a
> reduction of noise than anything.
>
> Thank you for your statement.
>
>
> On 19.12.2015 01:43, E. Olsen wrote:
>
> Yeah, I really don't know how a non-server operator would make a strong
> advocate for community servers.
>
> There are perspectives and insight that can only be gained as someone who
> operates game servers, plain and simple. That should be plain enough from
> the few people who always weigh in on these issues who clearly have no idea
> the work and dedication it takes to build a server community around a game,
> nor do they understand the impact of Valve directing all traffic away from
> community servers by default.
>
> I also think you're going to run into alot of problems in terms of
> "ideology" (for lack of a better word). For example, I know full well by
> now on this list who is "pro" MOTD/Pinion ads and who is against it (full
> transparency - I think they're a cancer that needed to go a long time ago),
> but for you guys that love those things, I doubt you'd find a single "non
> server operator" who would ever think plastering your server with ads was a
> good idea, since you're basically turning players into ad impressions, and
> trying to monetize them before you've provided any actual value.
>
> At any rate - have at it. I'd probably just be happy if you guys got Valve
> to actually say a single thing on the record about the issue, since they've
> been in "communication blackout mode" about anything substantive to do with
> community servers for over two years now.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
> proph...@sticed.org> wrote:
>
>> A non server op also wouldn't care about servers. Simple as that. Yes,
>> you should pick multiple people, and the right ones. But yes, you should at
>> least pick someone who represents your party. Not only in terms of having
>> an actual representative, but someone who shares the expertise and point of
>> view. Come on guys.
>>
>> On 19.12.2015 01:17, Rowedahelicon wrote:
>>
>> I think a non serverop would be great.
>>
>> The personal investments are what drives everyone the way it does I
>> imagine, but a non server op wouldn't need to care about a particular
>> server, just the game itself. I think finding a candidate though would be
>> difficult, unless we put together some input polls and gave it to our
>> respective communities?
>>
>> --
>> *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
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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

[hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Eric Smith]

We're working on a mandatory update for TF2. We should have it ready soon. 
Apologies for releasing so late on a Friday, but there are a few fixes we need 
to get released before the weekend.

Thanks.

-Eric


___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

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 
> 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
> 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 > 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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Rowedahelicon]

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> 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> 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> 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,
>> 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

Switch to the token system from csgo, include all servers in the 
quickplay pool (sole exception might be servers that offer reserved 
slots for cash) but give the players more options. Tag servers properly 
so quickplayers can decide for themselves if they want to join a server 
that runs ads or not, or try out a community mod, or custom maps.


Make some of the quickplay offenses ban-able: 
https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=2825-AFGJ-3513


i.e.
Opening a MOTD window (hidden or visible) that is not requested
Forcing clients to view the MOTD until a timer has expired
Giving or selling gameplay advantage to players
Granting or modifying economy items, or taking actions that devalue 
players' items, or interfering with the TF2 economy

Browser popups

By default do not show official servers in the server browser (add that 
checkbox back).


On 19.12.2015 02:41, Rowedahelicon wrote:

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 
> 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
> 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
> wrote:

I'm open to either idea, but I think the bottom line
should that we strive for an outcome both preferable to

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Robert Paulson]

Before quickplay there used to be 20+ custom game mode servers filled 24/7
and now you think it is acceptable that only 4 of them can be popular now?
And most of them succeeding only by ripping models from gmod and changing a
few numbers on a plugin? Most good custom servers are dead and the ones
left are appealing to 10 years olds who only entertained by a new skin on
the same Freak Fortress bosses.

Slag servers did not die from "administration" issues. If it was ever an
issue then they would never have been full 24/7. They are a prime example
of even non-quickplay full conversion mods that were overwhelmingly
successful before the quickplay change and are now practically dead.

> Firstly, Robert, you seem to be confusing the application of zero sum
game and the way it was intended. I refer to it in the context of, “Someone
who prefers and frequents Valve servers, probably won’t play on privately
run servers that often.” And the opposite is also true, “Someone who
prefers and frequents privately run servers, won’t usually go near Valve
servers, though obviously there are incentives for them to do so from time
to time.” And also “If someone has found a community they like, they rarely
venture outside of that community providing the community hosts the types
of things they’re interested in.” The zero-sum-game argument is about where
people play, that is all, and it is reflective of the fact that we are all
creatures of habit.

I didn't confuse anything. Your arguments are all logically flawed and
rather nonsensical. I don't know why you are even bringing up that playtime
is "zero-sum" (which it isn't, players can be stimulated to play 1 hour on
community servers and 1 hour on official ones). If Valve thought it was a
zero-sum game and didn't get anything out of it, then why would they have
let people host servers? Therefore whatever you have to say about this is
irrelevant.

> Thirdly, it would behove of Robert not to guestimate the experience of
other contributors to this mailing list when he does not know to whom he
speaks. My experience is that custom game modes are doing just fine and I’m
not alone in this regard. Perhaps some introspection might reveal why
Robert has a different experience?

It is very easy to tell that you have no experience hosting servers. The
only person who can support your argument is Fearts, who is the only person
who could make such a claim. And even his servers have fewer players than
the historical norm.

> Fifthly, I don’t recall Valve ever marketing Team Fortress 2 as a game
where private server operators were guaranteed a “level” environment or
that private servers were guaranteed. Dedicated servers, maybe.
Privately-managed servers, no. The fact that it had the latter feature at
release is, in my view, incidental. Furthermore, I would note that Valve’s
EULA reserves it the right to make changes to the product however they
wish. So perhaps it would be prudent for Robert to take out the emotive
entitlement argument.

It wasn't ever written in stone, but it is an implicit understanding. Many
of us probably wouldn't be here if Valve said they planned to eventually
kill off all community servers in the future once they started making more
money that way. Valve could make TF2 pay-to-win if they wanted to, but they
don't. And people buy their stuff because there is an implicit
understanding that Valve would never do something like that. But for some
reason they have no qualms about screwing over their communities.

There is also an clause in the EULA that allows them to terminate your
account for any reason. Yet there is an implicit understanding that Valve
would never close it for a "dumb" reason such as allowing them to make more
money at your expense. Yet this is exactly what they are doing to TF2
community servers.

I don't know anything about overkill, and I don't care about the Mannconomy
or attachments. It is irrelevant much like most of your arguments.
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Cats From Above]

Firstly, if the group was to be an official channel (which will never
happen) then there is good reason why someone without vested interests in
server hosting should be channeling the discussion back to Valve. I'll use
Mathias as an example. Matthias is very clearly anti-advertising and
believes that communities using such should be sv_tagged accordingly, if it
is allowed at all. I have no doubt that if Matthias was in a moderating
position, he would abuse said position to surreptitiously advance that
agenda irrespective of the official stance of the collective he is supposed
to be representing. I note that rules do not require communities to use
sv_tags for their MOTD content at this point in time – Yet Matthias clearly
believes that anyone who uses advertising as a revenue model is committing
some great moral evil, thus undermining his ability to work with others.



Secondly, I wasn't aware Ross's response required any further debate or
discussion or that I was required to respond to every post made. However,
since Matthias seems to think that I robbed Ross of a response, yes, there
is a game server token system, obviously; No, Valve have not been using it
to ban servers within Team Fortress 2 and I suspect that they don't really
use it as a banning mechanism in CS:GO on regular basis aside from the
occasional knife plugin related ban (Ergo: To protect the item economy and
the profits associated thereof) - Though others are better able to comment
on the happenings of GLST in CS:GO servers hence why I initially did not.
Perhaps others on this mailing list could show that same type of restraint
henceforth, Matthias?

Thirdly, there is nothing ironic about my post, perhaps Matthias needs to
revise the definition of the word irony. Moving onto the context in which
he used it, my stance is not as he presented it, but rather my stance is
that A) Valve won't be interested in pedestaling anyone within the realm of
"community" hosting as a source of feedback on this matter. B) Valve won't
be interested in limiting sources of feedback or what feedback they
receive, all feedback is valuable. C) That any such group will not
represent the various views of all operators and that operators are better
off making mature, private and direct contact with Valve instead of pushing
an agenda through a single channel that may not always be representative of
their community's stance on various matters. Matthias seems to completely
ignore that it is he, via pushing this suggestion of an official, filtered,
channel, that would seek to rob server operators with minority opinions of
a voice – That is an example irony.

And lastly, the reason I don't care about the troll badge that Matthias is
so desperately trying to staple to my forehead is that it was given to me
by someone who doesn't even know Godwin's law – hardly a respectable
individual. For the uninitiated, Matthias, ye who casts the first Nazi
analogy loses the debate and thier credibility. Google it and bring a more
intelligent analogy in future.

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
proph...@sticed.org> wrote:

> GSPs have definitively established the meaning of what a "private server"
> is and so has Valve in the quickplay menu with "community servers". I see
> no need for further debate here. You can use whatever term you want, but
> it's ridiculous to say others official terminology is the wrong one to use
> - and furthermore, not helping the discussion.
> You still haven't fully understood the "voice concept" I guess. There is
> no reason why this group should be moderated by non-serverops. That is
> ridiculous. You might as well demand that the democrats should be
> represented by a Nazi.
> Also, it seems you have completely ignored Powerlord's (Ross) point, which
> is introducing tokens to properly identify, report and remove servers. I
> also don't care who brought up the slag's servers. It is neither me, nor
> Robert saying which community servers are bad (or rather, how abusive
> specific servers are to their players), as you noticed in your enumeration,
> it is the representative opinion of SPUF players.
> Now where lies the issue? In servers not being properly tagged (ads, p2w)
> and banned (fake players, p2w), therefore giving decent community servers
> the taint that comes with the baddies they're not related to. This is what
> the GSLT token system is for, and this is what Valve is already using in
> CSGO.
> It is ironic that you are against an organized group that moves this OT
> discussion into a constructive and moderated forum so Valve can hear us,
> while you are against Valve ignoring groups. So you're finally right. Valve
> is not interested in limiting itself to who or what it listens to. So why
> not let the server-ops have a voice as well, among other preexisting groups?
> Yes, I am interested in community servers thriving. But I am not
> interested in abusive, ad-infested, p2w communities that give honest and
> 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Adam walker]

Actually, that seemed fairly heated on both sides. But using an outside 
perspective, e.g. A "non-serverops", as your moderating ground is not a bad 
idea.

Someone without a vested interest and therefore not subject to the bias that 
server operators would naturally have would be able to weigh up your arguments 
and come to a rational conclusion. You can have a constructive debate on both 
sides, if it got to that point, without it being skewed in favour of one 
particular side. 

Clearly, if it was a server operator moderating the debate, they would have a 
prejudice towards a particular argument and the opposing side may as well not 
even raise their point.

Or am I to believe that the idea of bias limiting in debates is a complete 
fallacy in this day and age?

> On 18 Dec 2015, at 23:52, Matthias InstantMuffin Kollek  
> wrote:
> 
> Yep, trolling.
> Thanks for making it obvious.
> 
> Anyone with an actual constructive interest wants to way in?
> 
>> On 19.12.2015 00:47, Cats From Above wrote:
>> Firstly, if the group was to be an official channel (which will never 
>> happen) then there is good reason why someone without vested interests in 
>> server hosting should be channeling the discussion back to Valve. I'll use 
>> Mathias as an example. Matthias is very clearly anti-advertising and 
>> believes that communities using such should be sv_tagged accordingly, if it 
>> is allowed at all. I have no doubt that if Matthias was in a moderating 
>> position, he would abuse said position to surreptitiously advance that 
>> agenda irrespective of the official stance of the collective he is supposed 
>> to be representing. I note that rules do not require communities to use 
>> sv_tags for their MOTD content at this point in time – Yet Matthias clearly 
>> believes that anyone who uses advertising as a revenue model is committing 
>> some great moral evil, thus undermining his ability to work with others.
>>  
>> Secondly, I wasn't aware Ross's response required any further debate or 
>> discussion or that I was required to respond to every post made. However, 
>> since Matthias seems to think that I robbed Ross of a response, yes, there 
>> is a game server token system, obviously; No, Valve have not been using it 
>> to ban servers within Team Fortress 2 and I suspect that they don't really 
>> use it as a banning mechanism in CS:GO on regular basis aside from the 
>> occasional knife plugin related ban (Ergo: To protect the item economy and 
>> the profits associated thereof) - Though others are better able to comment 
>> on the happenings of GLST in CS:GO servers hence why I initially did not. 
>> Perhaps others on this mailing list could show that same type
>>of restraint henceforth, Matthias?
>> 
>> Thirdly, there is nothing ironic about my post, perhaps Matthias needs to 
>> revise the definition of the word irony. Moving onto the context in which he 
>> used it, my stance is not as he presented it, but rather my stance is that 
>> A) Valve won't be interested in pedestaling anyone within the realm of 
>> "community" hosting as a source of feedback on this matter. B) Valve won't 
>> be interested in limiting sources of feedback or what feedback they receive, 
>> all feedback is valuable. C) That any such group will not represent the 
>> various views of all operators and that operators are better off making 
>> mature, private and direct contact with Valve instead of pushing an agenda 
>> through a single channel that may not always be representative of their 
>> community's stance on various matters. Matthias seems to completely ignore 
>> that it is he, via pushing this suggestion of an official, filtered, 
>> channel, that would seek to rob server operators with minority opinions of a 
>> voice – That is an example irony.
>> 
>> And lastly, the reason I don't care about the troll badge that Matthias is 
>> so desperately trying to staple to my forehead is that it was given to me by 
>> someone who doesn't even know Godwin's law – hardly a respectable 
>> individual. For the uninitiated, Matthias, ye who casts the first Nazi 
>> analogy loses the debate and thier credibility. Google it and bring a more 
>> intelligent analogy in future.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek 
>>>  wrote:
>>> GSPs have definitively established the meaning of what a "private server" 
>>> is and so has Valve in the quickplay menu with "community servers". I see 
>>> no need for further debate here. You can use whatever term you want, but 
>>> it's ridiculous to say others official terminology is the wrong one to use 
>>> - and furthermore, not helping the discussion.
>>> You still haven't fully understood the "voice concept" I guess. There is no 
>>> reason why this group should be moderated by non-serverops. That is 
>>> ridiculous. You might as well demand that the democrats should be 
>>> represented by 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

A non server op also wouldn't care about servers. Simple as that. Yes, 
you should pick multiple people, and the right ones. But yes, you should 
at least pick someone who represents your party. Not only in terms of 
having an actual representative, but someone who shares the expertise 
and point of view. Come on guys.


On 19.12.2015 01:17, Rowedahelicon wrote:

I think a non serverop would be great.

The personal investments are what drives everyone the way it does I 
imagine, but a non server op wouldn't need to care about a particular 
server, just the game itself. I think finding a candidate though would 
be difficult, unless we put together some input polls and gave it to 
our respective communities?


--
*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


___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Cats From Above]

Glad the general consensus is that a person who lacks vested interests in
the outcome of discussions is probably best. And curse list moderation
gobling up one of my responses.

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Andrew T.  wrote:

> I agree with Rowaldhelicon.
>
> For me, as a serverop that runs ads(on a server in the top 30), it is
> extremely hard to be unbiased about the thing.
> From one point, yes, the ads annoy a few people, and some have expressed
> concern - for whom I have disabled them.
> From the other side, however, there's the finite wallet issue, and only
> ads are capable of supporting a disorganised community like mine without
> making me run a loss, even though getting people entertained and having a
> community is rewarding.
>
> Back in the day(say, 2012), there were tons of regulars and donators. Now,
> people just don't.
> That's what makes me very biased towards this specific question of
> advertisments on servers.
>
> I think Matthias is also biased from his point of view, being on the
> receiving end of the advertisements.
>
> I would love to support the idea of polls - if anyone actually decides to
> spread it massively, I will follow suit with my community, and see what the
> people decide.
>
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Rowedahelicon]

In regards to ads, are we referring to Pinion and that sort or is there
something else I may not be aware of? I ask because I've brought up in here
before that Valve has used Pinion / Pinion ads to host their own officials
servers in the past. Those sneaky ad plugins put a lot of flak towards us
server ops (I've never used them before just to note) and I've seen people
blame said ads on why this mess is even here. Which is why I so desperately
try and mention that Valve has done the same thing in the past.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Andrew T.  wrote:

> I agree with Rowaldhelicon.
>
> For me, as a serverop that runs ads(on a server in the top 30), it is
> extremely hard to be unbiased about the thing.
> From one point, yes, the ads annoy a few people, and some have expressed
> concern - for whom I have disabled them.
> From the other side, however, there's the finite wallet issue, and only
> ads are capable of supporting a disorganised community like mine without
> making me run a loss, even though getting people entertained and having a
> community is rewarding.
>
> Back in the day(say, 2012), there were tons of regulars and donators. Now,
> people just don't.
> That's what makes me very biased towards this specific question of
> advertisments on servers.
>
> I think Matthias is also biased from his point of view, being on the
> receiving end of the advertisements.
>
> I would love to support the idea of polls - if anyone actually decides to
> spread it massively, I will follow suit with my community, and see what the
> people decide.
>
> Суббота, 19 декабря 2015, 1:29 +01:00 от "Matthias \"InstantMuffin\"
> Kollek" :
>
>
> A non server op also wouldn't care about servers. Simple as that. Yes, you
> should pick multiple people, and the right ones. But yes, you should at
> least pick someone who represents your party. Not only in terms of having
> an actual representative, but someone who shares the expertise and point of
> view. Come on guys.
>
> On 19.12.2015 01:17, Rowedahelicon wrote:
>
> I think a non serverop would be great.
>
> The personal investments are what drives everyone the way it does I
> imagine, but a non server op wouldn't need to care about a particular
> server, just the game itself. I think finding a candidate though would be
> difficult, unless we put together some input polls and gave it to our
> respective communities?
>
> --
> *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
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Rowedahelicon]

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> 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.
>
>
> On 19.12.2015 01:34, Rowedahelicon wrote:
>
> Not necessarily, I've had people from my group tell me about how great it
> is and how annoying it's been what Valve has done. Though I feel maybe that
> would be more of someone wanting to see *my* community do good and less
> interested in the how / why. But I dunno, it's hard to say.
>
> And hey no need for "come on guys" , any idea is worth while and there is
> no need to bash anything
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
> proph...@sticed.org> wrote:
>
>> A non server op also wouldn't care about servers. Simple as that. Yes,
>> you should pick multiple people, and the right ones. But yes, you should at
>> least pick someone who represents your party. Not only in terms of having
>> an actual representative, but someone who shares the expertise and point of
>> view. Come on guys.
>>
>> On 19.12.2015 01:17, Rowedahelicon wrote:
>>
>> I think a non serverop would be great.
>>
>> The personal investments are what drives everyone the way it does I
>> imagine, but a non server op wouldn't need to care about a particular
>> server, just the game itself. I think finding a candidate though would be
>> difficult, unless we put together some input polls and gave it to our
>> respective communities?
>>
>> --
>> *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
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Rowedahelicon]

@Matthias, oh yes, Ads are a pain the ass to some, but some people have
either found ways around it or have learned to ignore it. Something like
that though in the old times, a player could just find it and go oh wow
this sucks, and will leave to join a new server. See that's another reason
here why I defend this topic as it isn't just a Valve thing, this bleeds
into gaming in general. Community driven games / servers have been a staple
in multiplayer games for a long time.

If you didn't like what you were offered, you would go elsewhere, then
found something you liked and would stay. There are a lot of reasons to
stay in a community, and one thing I enjoy as a runner of one is how often
people say they love the atmosphere / friends they've made, that sort of
thing.

Bearing that in mind, that is a reason why people would side with Valve
servers, you get a guarenteeded experience, however the trade off is that
Valve servers are baron, stock, easily hack able, no quality control on
players, so on and so forth.

@ E.Olsen unless if I'm mistaken here I think the idea was that a non-op
would be a moderator to any wacky discussions / ideas we had? So it's not
just a bias circle jerk sort of thing.
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

I second this.
I'd also like to add that the purpose of this group would be more a 
reduction of noise than anything.


Thank you for your statement.

On 19.12.2015 01:43, E. Olsen wrote:
Yeah, I really don't know how a non-server operator would make a 
strong advocate for community servers.


There are perspectives and insight that can only be gained as someone 
who operates game servers, plain and simple. That should be plain 
enough from the few people who always weigh in on these issues who 
clearly have no idea the work and dedication it takes to build a 
server community around a game, nor do they understand the impact of 
Valve directing all traffic away from community servers by default.


I also think you're going to run into alot of problems in terms of 
"ideology" (for lack of a better word). For example, I know full well 
by now on this list who is "pro" MOTD/Pinion ads and who is against it 
(full transparency - I think they're a cancer that needed to go a long 
time ago), but for you guys that love those things, I doubt you'd find 
a single "non server operator" who would ever think plastering your 
server with ads was a good idea, since you're basically turning 
players into ad impressions, and trying to monetize them before you've 
provided any actual value.


At any rate - have at it. I'd probably just be happy if you guys got 
Valve to actually say a single thing on the record about the issue, 
since they've been in "communication blackout mode" about anything 
substantive to do with community servers for over two years now.




On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek 
> wrote:


A non server op also wouldn't care about servers. Simple as that.
Yes, you should pick multiple people, and the right ones. But yes,
you should at least pick someone who represents your party. Not
only in terms of having an actual representative, but someone who
shares the expertise and point of view. Come on guys.

On 19.12.2015 01:17, Rowedahelicon wrote:

I think a non serverop would be great.

The personal investments are what drives everyone the way it does
I imagine, but a non server op wouldn't need to care about a
particular server, just the game itself. I think finding a
candidate though would be difficult, unless we put together some
input polls and gave it to our respective communities?

-- 
*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



___
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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

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 
> 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
> 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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Rowedahelicon]

Transparency from whom though in this case?

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
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> 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> 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
>
>


-- 
*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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

With the token system it won't be as easy.

On 19.12.2015 02:54, Rowedahelicon wrote:
With QP as it is now, people can still get away with breaking some of 
the rules. Will Valve be willing to police trouble makers when it is 
so easy to fire up a new server on a new account?


On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek 
> wrote:


Switch to the token system from csgo, include all servers in the
quickplay pool (sole exception might be servers that offer
reserved slots for cash) but give the players more options. Tag
servers properly so quickplayers can decide for themselves if they
want to join a server that runs ads or not, or try out a community
mod, or custom maps.

Make some of the quickplay offenses ban-able:
https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=2825-AFGJ-3513

i.e.
Opening a MOTD window (hidden or visible) that is not requested
Forcing clients to view the MOTD until a timer has expired
Giving or selling gameplay advantage to players
Granting or modifying economy items, or taking actions that
devalue players' items, or interfering with the TF2 economy
Browser popups

By default do not show official servers in the server browser (add
that checkbox back).


On 19.12.2015 02:41, Rowedahelicon wrote:

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
> 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 > 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 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Cats From Above]

Matthias, I cannot help but disagree with the scope you’re proposing.
Getting stock servers back into Quickplay with HTML MOTDs disabled will be
a tough enough sell let alone accommodating HTML MOTDs, custom game modes,
custom maps and non-default configurations.

I believe it would behove of us to collectively take one hurdle at a time.
Getting genuine stock servers back in is the first step. In this step Valve
would have to implement a policy framework that ensures compliance with the
rules – which will inconvenience them enough I’m sure. To complicate that
issue with things like adding support for custom game-modes is to risk
Valve turning around and saying, “This is more trouble than we’re willing
to take on at this time. Sorry guys, thank you but no thank you.”

If we can collectively win a small victory in terms of stock servers and
ensuring stock server compliance with Valve’s rulkes, then that opens the
door to requesting and proposing other changes such as those which you
would desire. But to smother Valve with a myriad of changes right from the
beginning is to simply beg them to put us in the too hard pile and I fear
that would be an unrecoverable position.


Further, it would benefit us to realise that Valve does not wish to play
the role of babysitter all the time. In the past they have threatened to
ban server operators, have done so here and there across a period of a
couple of weeks, and then found better uses of their time. That's fair
call. Whatever system we devise needs to be set and forget.


Though I do concede one benefit of what Matthias is proposing. By going to
Valve with a holistic (albeit far more complicated) initial step, one can
possibly remove the incentive for server operators to pass off thier
servers as something they are not by virtue of the fact that Quickplay will
accommodate servers that it previous didn't. Though again, it would be
prudant of Matthias to drop his incessant mentioning of advertising in this
context, since it is at best premature.

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Rowedahelicon <
theoneando...@rowedahelicon.com> wrote:

> With QP as it is now, people can still get away with breaking some of the
> rules. Will Valve be willing to police trouble makers when it is so easy to
> fire up a new server on a new account?
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
> proph...@sticed.org> wrote:
>
>> Switch to the token system from csgo, include all servers in the
>> quickplay pool (sole exception might be servers that offer reserved slots
>> for cash) but give the players more options. Tag servers properly so
>> quickplayers can decide for themselves if they want to join a server that
>> runs ads or not, or try out a community mod, or custom maps.
>>
>> Make some of the quickplay offenses ban-able:
>> https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=2825-AFGJ-3513
>>
>> i.e.
>> Opening a MOTD window (hidden or visible) that is not requested
>> Forcing clients to view the MOTD until a timer has expired
>> Giving or selling gameplay advantage to players
>> Granting or modifying economy items, or taking actions that devalue
>> players' items, or interfering with the TF2 economy
>> Browser popups
>>
>> By default do not show official servers in the server browser (add that
>> checkbox back).
>> 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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Rowedahelicon]

Isn't it weigh in*?

Anyway, jeez this blew up fast. We're not going to get anywhere if we
bicker back and forth though. No one is trolling anyone, we're all just
from different perspectives and offer different viewpoints. This is the
sort of thing why a discussion needs to take place, we are not the only
problem Valve has, or the only group of people they ignore.

And this group doesn't have to be an "official channel" , I'm not
suggesting we be a circle-jerk of ideas that only affect us, but we all
need to come up with something fair to everyone here. This mailing list is
still an awful place for this discussion to go down, there is too much
cross talk and it's super easy to get annoyed at each other.


On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
proph...@sticed.org> wrote:

> Yep, trolling.
> Thanks for making it obvious.
>
> Anyone with an actual constructive interest wants to way in?
>
>
> On 19.12.2015 00:47, Cats From Above wrote:
>
> Firstly, if the group was to be an official channel (which will never
> happen) then there is good reason why someone without vested interests in
> server hosting should be channeling the discussion back to Valve. I'll use
> Mathias as an example. Matthias is very clearly anti-advertising and
> believes that communities using such should be sv_tagged accordingly, if it
> is allowed at all. I have no doubt that if Matthias was in a moderating
> position, he would abuse said position to surreptitiously advance that
> agenda irrespective of the official stance of the collective he is supposed
> to be representing. I note that rules do not require communities to use
> sv_tags for their MOTD content at this point in time – Yet Matthias clearly
> believes that anyone who uses advertising as a revenue model is committing
> some great moral evil, thus undermining his ability to work with others.
>
>
>
> Secondly, I wasn't aware Ross's response required any further debate or
> discussion or that I was required to respond to every post made. However,
> since Matthias seems to think that I robbed Ross of a response, yes, there
> is a game server token system, obviously; No, Valve have not been using it
> to ban servers within Team Fortress 2 and I suspect that they don't really
> use it as a banning mechanism in CS:GO on regular basis aside from the
> occasional knife plugin related ban (Ergo: To protect the item economy and
> the profits associated thereof) - Though others are better able to comment
> on the happenings of GLST in CS:GO servers hence why I initially did not.
> Perhaps others on this mailing list could show that same type of restraint
> henceforth, Matthias?
>
> Thirdly, there is nothing ironic about my post, perhaps Matthias needs to
> revise the definition of the word irony. Moving onto the context in which
> he used it, my stance is not as he presented it, but rather my stance is
> that A) Valve won't be interested in pedestaling anyone within the realm of
> "community" hosting as a source of feedback on this matter. B) Valve won't
> be interested in limiting sources of feedback or what feedback they
> receive, all feedback is valuable. C) That any such group will not
> represent the various views of all operators and that operators are better
> off making mature, private and direct contact with Valve instead of pushing
> an agenda through a single channel that may not always be representative of
> their community's stance on various matters. Matthias seems to completely
> ignore that it is he, via pushing this suggestion of an official, filtered,
> channel, that would seek to rob server operators with minority opinions of
> a voice – That is an example irony.
>
> And lastly, the reason I don't care about the troll badge that Matthias is
> so desperately trying to staple to my forehead is that it was given to me
> by someone who doesn't even know Godwin's law – hardly a respectable
> individual. For the uninitiated, Matthias, ye who casts the first Nazi
> analogy loses the debate and thier credibility. Google it and bring a
> more intelligent analogy in future.
>
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
> proph...@sticed.org> wrote:
>
>> GSPs have definitively established the meaning of what a "private server"
>> is and so has Valve in the quickplay menu with "community servers". I see
>> no need for further debate here. You can use whatever term you want, but
>> it's ridiculous to say others official terminology is the wrong one to use
>> - and furthermore, not helping the discussion.
>> You still haven't fully understood the "voice concept" I guess. There is
>> no reason why this group should be moderated by non-serverops. That is
>> ridiculous. You might as well demand that the democrats should be
>> represented by a Nazi.
>> Also, it seems you have completely ignored Powerlord's (Ross) point,
>> which is introducing tokens to properly identify, report and remove
>> servers. I also 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Rowedahelicon]

I think a non serverop would be great.

The personal investments are what drives everyone the way it does I
imagine, but a non server op wouldn't need to care about a particular
server, just the game itself. I think finding a candidate though would be
difficult, unless we put together some input polls and gave it to our
respective communities?


On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Adam walker  wrote:

> Actually, that seemed fairly heated on both sides. But using an outside
> perspective, e.g. A "non-serverops", as your moderating ground is not a bad
> idea.
>
> Someone without a vested interest and therefore not subject to the bias
> that server operators would naturally have would be able to weigh up your
> arguments and come to a rational conclusion. You can have a constructive
> debate on both sides, if it got to that point, without it being skewed in
> favour of one particular side.
>
> Clearly, if it was a server operator moderating the debate, they would
> have a prejudice towards a particular argument and the opposing side may as
> well not even raise their point.
>
> Or am I to believe that the idea of bias limiting in debates is a complete
> fallacy in this day and age?
>
> On 18 Dec 2015, at 23:52, Matthias InstantMuffin Kollek <
> proph...@sticed.org> wrote:
>
> Yep, trolling.
> Thanks for making it obvious.
>
> Anyone with an actual constructive interest wants to way in?
>
> On 19.12.2015 00:47, Cats From Above wrote:
>
> Firstly, if the group was to be an official channel (which will never
> happen) then there is good reason why someone without vested interests in
> server hosting should be channeling the discussion back to Valve. I'll use
> Mathias as an example. Matthias is very clearly anti-advertising and
> believes that communities using such should be sv_tagged accordingly, if it
> is allowed at all. I have no doubt that if Matthias was in a moderating
> position, he would abuse said position to surreptitiously advance that
> agenda irrespective of the official stance of the collective he is supposed
> to be representing. I note that rules do not require communities to use
> sv_tags for their MOTD content at this point in time – Yet Matthias clearly
> believes that anyone who uses advertising as a revenue model is committing
> some great moral evil, thus undermining his ability to work with others.
>
>
>
> Secondly, I wasn't aware Ross's response required any further debate or
> discussion or that I was required to respond to every post made. However,
> since Matthias seems to think that I robbed Ross of a response, yes, there
> is a game server token system, obviously; No, Valve have not been using it
> to ban servers within Team Fortress 2 and I suspect that they don't really
> use it as a banning mechanism in CS:GO on regular basis aside from the
> occasional knife plugin related ban (Ergo: To protect the item economy and
> the profits associated thereof) - Though others are better able to comment
> on the happenings of GLST in CS:GO servers hence why I initially did not.
> Perhaps others on this mailing list could show that same type of restraint
> henceforth, Matthias?
>
> Thirdly, there is nothing ironic about my post, perhaps Matthias needs to
> revise the definition of the word irony. Moving onto the context in which
> he used it, my stance is not as he presented it, but rather my stance is
> that A) Valve won't be interested in pedestaling anyone within the realm of
> "community" hosting as a source of feedback on this matter. B) Valve won't
> be interested in limiting sources of feedback or what feedback they
> receive, all feedback is valuable. C) That any such group will not
> represent the various views of all operators and that operators are better
> off making mature, private and direct contact with Valve instead of pushing
> an agenda through a single channel that may not always be representative of
> their community's stance on various matters. Matthias seems to completely
> ignore that it is he, via pushing this suggestion of an official, filtered,
> channel, that would seek to rob server operators with minority opinions of
> a voice – That is an example irony.
>
> And lastly, the reason I don't care about the troll badge that Matthias is
> so desperately trying to staple to my forehead is that it was given to me
> by someone who doesn't even know Godwin's law – hardly a respectable
> individual. For the uninitiated, Matthias, ye who casts the first Nazi
> analogy loses the debate and thier credibility. Google it and bring a
> more intelligent analogy in future.
>
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
> proph...@sticed.org> wrote:
>
>> GSPs have definitively established the meaning of what a "private server"
>> is and so has Valve in the quickplay menu with "community servers". I see
>> no need for further debate here. You can use whatever term you want, but
>> it's ridiculous to say others 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Rowedahelicon]

Not necessarily, I've had people from my group tell me about how great it
is and how annoying it's been what Valve has done. Though I feel maybe that
would be more of someone wanting to see *my* community do good and less
interested in the how / why. But I dunno, it's hard to say.

And hey no need for "come on guys" , any idea is worth while and there is
no need to bash anything

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
proph...@sticed.org> wrote:

> A non server op also wouldn't care about servers. Simple as that. Yes, you
> should pick multiple people, and the right ones. But yes, you should at
> least pick someone who represents your party. Not only in terms of having
> an actual representative, but someone who shares the expertise and point of
> view. Come on guys.
>
> On 19.12.2015 01:17, Rowedahelicon wrote:
>
> I think a non serverop would be great.
>
> The personal investments are what drives everyone the way it does I
> imagine, but a non server op wouldn't need to care about a particular
> server, just the game itself. I think finding a candidate though would be
> difficult, unless we put together some input polls and gave it to our
> respective communities?
>
> --
> *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
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

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.

On 19.12.2015 01:34, Rowedahelicon wrote:
Not necessarily, I've had people from my group tell me about how great 
it is and how annoying it's been what Valve has done. Though I feel 
maybe that would be more of someone wanting to see *my* community do 
good and less interested in the how / why. But I dunno, it's hard to say.


And hey no need for "come on guys" , any idea is worth while and there 
is no need to bash anything


On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek 
> wrote:


A non server op also wouldn't care about servers. Simple as that.
Yes, you should pick multiple people, and the right ones. But yes,
you should at least pick someone who represents your party. Not
only in terms of having an actual representative, but someone who
shares the expertise and point of view. Come on guys.

On 19.12.2015 01:17, Rowedahelicon wrote:

I think a non serverop would be great.

The personal investments are what drives everyone the way it does
I imagine, but a non server op wouldn't need to care about a
particular server, just the game itself. I think finding a
candidate though would be difficult, unless we put together some
input polls and gave it to our respective communities?

-- 
*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



___
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


___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Robert Paulson]

The average player wouldn't have a bizzare vendetta against community
servers. It takes a dedicated troll to sign up for a server mailing list
and spam insults towards anyone that is pro-community. And as we have seen
from those such as dan "needaxeo" their motivations are probably not the
well-being of the average player.

As a player I do not see what the issue with ads are. Valve blocked them
for anyone connecting through quickplay and if I am not connecting through
quickplay and I cannot tolerate it at all, then I disable the MOTD.

If you are a community owner, why do you care that other servers have ads?
There are only 2 possible reasons I can see.

1. You think that they are the reason for the quickplay change.
2. You want Valve to kill off your competition for you especially when you
see your own servers dying while people like Andrew have a top server with
ads.

#1 has been debunked over and over and over again. Ads were already 100%
blocked for quickplay players for a long time. The real cause was probably
to keep pay2win servers from skirting the quickplay rules. Years before ads
existed, people were abusing fake players to get money through premium
status. Ads did not cause this.

So that leaves #2. Which is really sad because instead of trying to fix the
problem for all communities, people here keep spamming the mailing list
with something that Valve has already considered solved.
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Cats From Above]

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> 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> 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> 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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[E. Olsen]

I would allow for reserved slots as long as servers don't kick for them if
quickplay is enabled, which is the current system (for example, we offer
hidden reserved slots during the day, but disable quickplay from 5pm-12am
on our highest trafficed servers, and after 6PM to 12AM we do kick for
reserved slots if necessary, etc.)

A side note on reserved slots - that would be a great area for Valve to
create something of value that server operators could offer to players in
lieu of running those ads to pay the bills. All they would need to do is
build a system into the server browser that works like this (I've suggested
this same system to Valve 2-3 times in the last 3 years, btw):

- Allow players to "queue" to connect to a full server

- Players would be connected to the server in the order in which the
entered the queue

- Players on that server's "whitelist" (i.e. admins, supporters, etc.)
would be automatically moved to the front of the line when they queued up,
giving them priority access without disrupting anyone's game.

The system as I described it above is the exact system that was implemented
for Battliefield 3, and (once they finally got it working right) it was
really the most elegant implementation of a reserved slot system I've ever
seen. No one's game was disrupted by being kicked, yet the people paying
the bills didn't have to stand in line behind the ones who weren't.
Something like that would be both great for the game itself, and something
of value that server operators could offer supporters, etc.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
proph...@sticed.org> wrote:

> Switch to the token system from csgo, include all servers in the quickplay
> pool (sole exception might be servers that offer reserved slots for cash)
> but give the players more options. Tag servers properly so quickplayers can
> decide for themselves if they want to join a server that runs ads or not,
> or try out a community mod, or custom maps.
>
> Make some of the quickplay offenses ban-able:
> https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=2825-AFGJ-3513
>
> i.e.
> Opening a MOTD window (hidden or visible) that is not requested
> Forcing clients to view the MOTD until a timer has expired
> Giving or selling gameplay advantage to players
> Granting or modifying economy items, or taking actions that devalue
> players' items, or interfering with the TF2 economy
> Browser popups
>
> By default do not show official servers in the server browser (add that
> checkbox back).
>
> On 19.12.2015 02:41, Rowedahelicon wrote:
>
> 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
>> 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Cats From Above]

Firstly, perhaps the term I meant was actually private server operator. And
yes, whilst it can be interpreted to refer to a “passworded” server, It can
also be used to refer to the nature of its management - Ergo: Operated by a
private entity other than Valve Valve. The term “community server” is
somewhat emotive in this debate and it makes it sound like to have no
“community servers” is indicative of poor health in the Team Fortress 2
“community” or something of that nature – Something that is not a given.

Secondly, I find it mildly amusing that both Robert and Matthias have the
chutzpa to go around telling modded server operators how well their servers
are and are not doing – as if the operators themselves don’t know. A Fearts
(DISC-FF) was on here earlier saying that Quickplay hasn’t negatively
affected his modded servers and in fact since the Quickplay changes they’ve
only gotten more popular. I myself have similar experience in this regard.

Thirdly, I acknowledge the diversity of this group. However, I do not
believe that pedestaling a select few private server operators as the
“voice of all privately run servers” is the answer. Nor do I think Valve is
interested in limiting itself to who or what it listens to nor would it be
interested in having someone else picking and choosing what it hears. If
such a group were made, it would need to be headed by someone with no
vested interest in privately operated servers – In Vegan parlance this
means someone that isn’t running or involved in the running of a community.

Fourthly, the routine complaints on this mailing list every time Valve
pushes an update is not community outcry, in my view. Every individual here
who seems to have an issue with Quickplay has a vested interest in the
operation of a privately managed server. Hence, I suspect that most
involvement here is triggered by a desire to see one’s privately operated
server(s) survive as opposed to any genuine care for the wider Team
Fortress 2 community.

Fifthly, SLAG was initially brought up by Robert in one of his earlier
responses. He used it as an example of a popular modded community that had
been significantly hurt by Quickplay, hence my response referring to SLAG's
issues at an administrative level that are probably doing it more harm than
Quickplay is. If Matthias read Robert’s response, he would have known why
this comment was made.

Sixthly, if putting forward an opposing point of view and throwing in the
occasional ad hominem jibe makes me a troll, then it is a label I shall
wear proudly. Thank you.

Finally, you can bet your money that if I created a SPUF thread asking “Do
you want community servers back in the default Quickplay pool?” that the
overwhelming response will be “No”, with specific reference to not wanting
things like, A) Advertising B) Fake players C) Pay to win benefits D)
Abusive Admins E) Stupid game mods F) Arbitrary rules etc. – These are all
stereotypes some Quickplay users “look forward to” when they join a
community server and I don’t think Quickplay users more generally speaking
want a bar of it. Valve are fully aware of this reality, hence the reason
for the change they made in the first place.


Regardless, N-Gon has aptly demonstrated the pointlessness of this
conversation with his off-topic remark

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 4:21 AM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
proph...@sticed.org> wrote:

> There is no community outcry, because this is the outcry. You're expecting
> an outcry from people who are barely able to adjust their game's settings,
> let alone disable the motd in their configs to get rid of annoying ads.
> I also don't know why you're bringing up Slag's servers. I've heard a few
> stories about him. I know some model designers who he ripped off, he stole
> their content without giving two fucks. It is also not quite white-knighty
> of a community to sell unmutes and unbans. I wouldn't pick him as the
> poster boy for well-run community servers or better phrased "friendly".
> If you're questioning the talent that is left in the modding community,
> feel free to ask this question again in the next two months.
> Honestly, I think you're trying to troll on a high level here. "One of
> those vegan types", yeah sure. "Funny"
>
>
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

GSPs have definitively established the meaning of what a "private 
server" is and so has Valve in the quickplay menu with "community 
servers". I see no need for further debate here. You can use whatever 
term you want, but it's ridiculous to say others official terminology is 
the wrong one to use - and furthermore, not helping the discussion.
You still haven't fully understood the "voice concept" I guess. There is 
no reason why this group should be moderated by non-serverops. That is 
ridiculous. You might as well demand that the democrats should be 
represented by a Nazi.
Also, it seems you have completely ignored Powerlord's (Ross) point, 
which is introducing tokens to properly identify, report and remove 
servers. I also don't care who brought up the slag's servers. It is 
neither me, nor Robert saying which community servers are bad (or 
rather, how abusive specific servers are to their players), as you 
noticed in your enumeration, it is the representative opinion of SPUF 
players.
Now where lies the issue? In servers not being properly tagged (ads, 
p2w) and banned (fake players, p2w), therefore giving decent community 
servers the taint that comes with the baddies they're not related to. 
This is what the GSLT token system is for, and this is what Valve is 
already using in CSGO.
It is ironic that you are against an organized group that moves this OT 
discussion into a constructive and moderated forum so Valve can hear us, 
while you are against Valve ignoring groups. So you're finally right. 
Valve is not interested in limiting itself to who or what it listens to. 
So why not let the server-ops have a voice as well, among other 
preexisting groups?
Yes, I am interested in community servers thriving. But I am not 
interested in abusive, ad-infested, p2w communities that give honest and 
hard-working serverops a bad rep.
Something no one has mentioned before, and as an explanation as to why 
some communities apparently (can't really verify what their ops say, I 
actually have opposing stats as I mentioned before), is that the 
mid-popularity communities die out due to the changes and their 
playerbase may or may not mitigate to the few popular communities that 
could establish themselves before the quickplay changes. Thus making it 
impossible to survive or start a community regardless of content and 
management if you aren't in the top 5%.


Last but not least, if you say you're fine with wearing the troll badge, 
I think that shows your stance and your cause. I don't see you being 
opposing, or constructive. I see you rephrasing and hiding behind other 
people's points, and derailing the topic down to terminologies, saying 
nothing will work no matter what, literally laughing about others who 
try. And for those well-organized walls of texts, that's a bad yield. I 
think we got whatever small point you made, and I believe two sentences 
would have sufficed.


On 18.12.2015 22:45, Cats From Above wrote:


Firstly, perhaps the term I meant was actually private server 
operator. And yes, whilst it can be interpreted to refer to a 
“passworded” server, It can also be used to refer to the nature of its 
management - Ergo: Operated by a private entity other than Valve 
Valve. The term “community server” is somewhat emotive in this debate 
and it makes it sound like to have no “community servers” is 
indicative of poor health in the Team Fortress 2 “community” or 
something of that nature – Something that is not a given.


Secondly, I find it mildly amusing that both Robert and Matthias have 
the chutzpa to go around telling modded server operators how well 
their servers are and are not doing – as if the operators themselves 
don’t know. A Fearts (DISC-FF) was on here earlier saying that 
Quickplay hasn’t negatively affected his modded servers and in fact 
since the Quickplay changes they’ve only gotten more popular. I myself 
have similar experience in this regard.


Thirdly, I acknowledge the diversity of this group. However, I do not 
believe that pedestaling a select few private server operators as the 
“voice of all privately run servers” is the answer. Nor do I think 
Valve is interested in limiting itself to who or what it listens to 
nor would it be interested in having someone else picking and choosing 
what it hears. If such a group were made, it would need to be headed 
by someone with no vested interest in privately operated servers – In 
Vegan parlance this means someone that isn’t running or involved in 
the running of a community.


Fourthly, the routine complaints on this mailing list every time Valve 
pushes an update is not community outcry, in my view. Every individual 
here who seems to have an issue with Quickplay has a vested interest 
in the operation of a privately managed server. Hence, I suspect that 
most involvement here is triggered by a desire to see one’s privately 
operated server(s) survive as opposed to any genuine care for the 
wider Team Fortress 2 community.

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

Didn't say that.

On 19.12.2015 03:53, Rowedahelicon wrote:
I don't think Ads are the only reason QP was implemented, you need to 
keep in mind the QP beta came before Pinion ever did.


On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek 
> wrote:


Well, ads are part of the union, if you like it or not. Not saying
those people can go to hell (right now), but transparency is why
quickplay exists and lack of transparency is why community
gameplay is excluded. I've heard a lot of people saying I can go
screw myself because the players can choose if they want to join
their server and consume ads or not. (On this very list) Well, let
them.
But yes, current quickplay restrictions are also about popups and
motd abusing as you can read in the article. So yeah, if your motd
would be so loud it would physically hurt my ears, get it fixed.
lol (Or these caffeine ads with the shock moments, but on roids)


On 19.12.2015 03:43, Cats From Above wrote:

I agree with Matthias regarding the 80/20 rule. If we put this
situation into DreamWorks parlance and remember he film Shrek,
what we're dealing with here is an onion and onions have layers.
Obviously, the token system is not a silver bullet and that was
the point in my highlighting the inherent weaknesses of that
system. This doesn't mean that the token system should be
discarded, but rather, we should also discuss other feasible ways
of preventing and detecting servers violating Valve's rules to
help bolster the overall solution. Some may have forgotten that
is was the actions of a minority of servers that got community
servers relegated to the background in the first place - If what
community owners have to say is believed. To leave room for a
minority to get away with doing the wrong thing this time around
is, I fear, to invite the same end result in the future.

Further, I would simply point out that no one is suggesting in
the present conversation that Valve wants to kill community
servers entirely. Now, my views on that are well known, but it's
not an argument I'm peddling right here and now. Hence perhaps we
could refrain from edging on the verges of hyperbole. And again,
surreptitiously blurring this discussion into one about the
validity of using advertisements to fund servers and what notice
should be given thereof is not helpful top the topic of
discussion. I'm pretty sure that if I had a loud and obnoxious
video intro to my community on my servers MOTD, Matthias would
not expect my server to be tagged as
"loudandannoyingmotdstaythef***away" - Hence his issue with
advertising is not the fact adverts make sound, but rather the
fact that it's a funding source for communities other than his own.


On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek
> wrote:

I get your concern, but with reasonable limitations this
should follow the 80/20 rule.
If you want a perfect solution for every single possible
offense and catch every sneaky sob then life really isn't for
you.







___
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


___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Rowedahelicon]

If you join a server and don't like how it is operated, they can leave on
their own free will

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
proph...@sticed.org> wrote:

> How?
>
>
> On 19.12.2015 04:03, Rowedahelicon wrote:
>
> I don't think it's worth trying to enforce them being said in the server
> list or not then, it's more effort that won't happen for a problem that the
> player base can solve on their own
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:00 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
> proph...@sticed.org> wrote:
>
>> Didn't say that.
>>
>>
>> On 19.12.2015 03:53, Rowedahelicon wrote:
>>
>> I don't think Ads are the only reason QP was implemented, you need to
>> keep in mind the QP beta came before Pinion ever did.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
>> proph...@sticed.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, ads are part of the union, if you like it or not. Not saying those
>>> people can go to hell (right now), but transparency is why quickplay exists
>>> and lack of transparency is why community gameplay is excluded. I've heard
>>> a lot of people saying I can go screw myself because the players can choose
>>> if they want to join their server and consume ads or not. (On this very
>>> list) Well, let them.
>>> But yes, current quickplay restrictions are also about popups and motd
>>> abusing as you can read in the article. So yeah, if your motd would be so
>>> loud it would physically hurt my ears, get it fixed. lol (Or these caffeine
>>> ads with the shock moments, but on roids)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19.12.2015 03:43, Cats From Above wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with Matthias regarding the 80/20 rule. If we put this situation
>>> into DreamWorks parlance and remember he film Shrek, what we're dealing
>>> with here is an onion and onions have layers. Obviously, the token system
>>> is not a silver bullet and that was the point in my highlighting the
>>> inherent weaknesses of that system. This doesn't mean that the token system
>>> should be discarded, but rather, we should also discuss other feasible ways
>>> of preventing and detecting servers violating Valve's rules to help bolster
>>> the overall solution. Some may have forgotten that is was the actions of a
>>> minority of servers that got community servers relegated to the background
>>> in the first place - If what community owners have to say is believed. To
>>> leave room for a minority to get away with doing the wrong thing this time
>>> around is, I fear, to invite the same end result in the future.
>>>
>>> Further, I would simply point out that no one is suggesting in the
>>> present conversation that Valve wants to kill community servers entirely.
>>> Now, my views on that are well known, but it's not an argument I'm peddling
>>> right here and now. Hence perhaps we could refrain from edging on the
>>> verges of hyperbole. And again, surreptitiously blurring this discussion
>>> into one about the validity of using advertisements to fund servers and
>>> what notice should be given thereof is not helpful top the topic of
>>> discussion. I'm pretty sure that if I had a loud and obnoxious video intro
>>> to my community on my servers MOTD, Matthias would not expect my server to
>>> be tagged as "loudandannoyingmotdstaythef***away" - Hence his issue with
>>> advertising is not the fact adverts make sound, but rather the fact that
>>> it's a funding source for communities other than his own.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
>>> proph...@sticed.org> wrote:
>>>
 I get your concern, but with reasonable limitations this should follow
 the 80/20 rule.
 If you want a perfect solution for every single possible offense and
 catch every sneaky sob then life really isn't for you.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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/
>
>
> 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

You're not up to date on the latest posts.
I actually have seen no one saying QP was added only and because of ads.
I also mentioned why I believe ads are still relevant for QP/the current 
situation.


On 19.12.2015 04:04, Robert Paulson wrote:
> I don't think Ads are the only reason QP was implemented, you need 
to keep in mind the QP beta came before Pinion ever did.


This.

I don't know why people keep making up their own alternate version of 
history.


People were abusing fake players long before advertising was even a 
thing. And even after advertising was completely erased from 
quickplay, people still abused it. And they will continue abusing even 
if the motd became completely disabled.


> Because MOTDs are actually useful for things other than ads.

This ship has already sailed. Quickplay players are 100% guaranteed 
not to see an ad. No one is asking Valve to unblock the MOTD for 
quickplay players.


> And I'm wondering what happens if you join a server which forces you 
to have motds activated.


I disconnect and blacklist? If I want an official server, it should be 
opt-in not opt-out.


> If we put this situation into DreamWorks parlance and remember he 
film Shrek


Top quality trolling.



___
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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Cats From Above]

By tough enough sell, I am essentially stating that convincing Valve that
the benefits of changing the Quickplay system in ways that are favorable to
"community" servers as opposed to the risk of "community" servers abusing
that trust again will be difficult enough to achieve, without the added
demotivates of "And while you're at it, we'd like you to change this and
this and this and this and this etc."

You have to remember that Valve has "tried" to work with communities in the
past, unsuccessfully I might add. It is understandable that they'd err on
the side of caution when considering Quickplay changes, hence we'd need to
make it as appealing as possible for them and that means not bogging down
the apparent essence of this discussion (We'd like stock servers to be
treated equally) with a truck-load of clinger-on demands.

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
proph...@sticed.org> wrote:

> What do you mean by "tough enough sell"?
>
>
> On 19.12.2015 03:03, Cats From Above wrote:
>
> Matthias, I cannot help but disagree with the scope you’re proposing.
> Getting stock servers back into Quickplay with HTML MOTDs disabled will be
> a tough enough sell let alone accommodating HTML MOTDs, custom game modes,
> custom maps and non-default configurations.
>
> I believe it would behove of us to collectively take one hurdle at a time.
> Getting genuine stock servers back in is the first step. In this step Valve
> would have to implement a policy framework that ensures compliance with the
> rules – which will inconvenience them enough I’m sure. To complicate that
> issue with things like adding support for custom game-modes is to risk
> Valve turning around and saying, “This is more trouble than we’re willing
> to take on at this time. Sorry guys, thank you but no thank you.”
>
> If we can collectively win a small victory in terms of stock servers and
> ensuring stock server compliance with Valve’s rulkes, then that opens the
> door to requesting and proposing other changes such as those which you
> would desire. But to smother Valve with a myriad of changes right from the
> beginning is to simply beg them to put us in the too hard pile and I fear
> that would be an unrecoverable position.
>
>
> Further, it would benefit us to realise that Valve does not wish to play
> the role of babysitter all the time. In the past they have threatened to
> ban server operators, have done so here and there across a period of a
> couple of weeks, and then found better uses of their time. That's fair
> call. Whatever system we devise needs to be set and forget.
>
>
> Though I do concede one benefit of what Matthias is proposing. By going to
> Valve with a holistic (albeit far more complicated) initial step, one can
> possibly remove the incentive for server operators to pass off thier
> servers as something they are not by virtue of the fact that Quickplay will
> accommodate servers that it previous didn't. Though again, it would be
> prudant of Matthias to drop his incessant mentioning of advertising in this
> context, since it is at best premature.
>
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Rowedahelicon <
> theoneando...@rowedahelicon.com> wrote:
>
>> With QP as it is now, people can still get away with breaking some of the
>> rules. Will Valve be willing to police trouble makers when it is so easy to
>> fire up a new server on a new account?
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
>> proph...@sticed.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Switch to the token system from csgo, include all servers in the
>>> quickplay pool (sole exception might be servers that offer reserved slots
>>> for cash) but give the players more options. Tag servers properly so
>>> quickplayers can decide for themselves if they want to join a server that
>>> runs ads or not, or try out a community mod, or custom maps.
>>>
>>> Make some of the quickplay offenses ban-able:
>>> https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=2825-AFGJ-3513
>>>
>>> i.e.
>>> Opening a MOTD window (hidden or visible) that is not requested
>>> Forcing clients to view the MOTD until a timer has expired
>>> Giving or selling gameplay advantage to players
>>> Granting or modifying economy items, or taking actions that devalue
>>> players' items, or interfering with the TF2 economy
>>> Browser popups
>>>
>>> By default do not show official servers in the server browser (add that
>>> checkbox back).
>>> 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:
> 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Rowedahelicon]

Why does it need to be a "proper" system when things were okay prior to QP
though?

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
proph...@sticed.org> wrote:

> If they are overwhelmed by adding 2-3 more checkboxes to a menu, I can't
> help them.
> If a proper system, most of it porting stuff over from csgo, is too much
> to ask, they shouldn't allow community servers at all and shut us down all
> together tomorrow. It's that simple.
> I'm making this effort simply because I'd like to give them a chance and
> assume that they did not advance any further on this topic because of the
> bad signal to noise ration these discussions have, and not because they're
> understaffed and/or too lazy to make it right. Hence my initial proposal of
> the group.
> I also see these interfaces usable for other games (I mean I'm suggesting
> stuff that's used in csgo already), it's a good investment.
> If they want to kill community servers and mods all together, it's their
> loss. Those mods that are being developed and played on community servers
> (for example) are where future talent and products are at. Then they
> deserve to go down in flames and end up being the next EA or Ubisoft. (Last
> I checked, ubisoft was desperate enough to search for future talent, hiding
> behind "bluebyte", at our local college which doesn't even have computer
> science courses)
>
>
> On 19.12.2015 03:17, Cats From Above wrote:
>
> By tough enough sell, I am essentially stating that convincing Valve that
> the benefits of changing the Quickplay system in ways that are favorable to
> "community" servers as opposed to the risk of "community" servers abusing
> that trust again will be difficult enough to achieve, without the added
> demotivates of "And while you're at it, we'd like you to change this and
> this and this and this and this etc."
>
> You have to remember that Valve has "tried" to work with communities in
> the past, unsuccessfully I might add. It is understandable that they'd err
> on the side of caution when considering Quickplay changes, hence we'd need
> to make it as appealing as possible for them and that means not bogging
> down the apparent essence of this discussion (We'd like stock servers to be
> treated equally) with a truck-load of clinger-on demands.
>
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
> proph...@sticed.org> wrote:
>
>> What do you mean by "tough enough sell"?
>>
>>
>> On 19.12.2015 03:03, Cats From Above wrote:
>>
>> Matthias, I cannot help but disagree with the scope you’re proposing.
>> Getting stock servers back into Quickplay with HTML MOTDs disabled will be
>> a tough enough sell let alone accommodating HTML MOTDs, custom game modes,
>> custom maps and non-default configurations.
>>
>> I believe it would behove of us to collectively take one hurdle at a
>> time. Getting genuine stock servers back in is the first step. In this step
>> Valve would have to implement a policy framework that ensures compliance
>> with the rules – which will inconvenience them enough I’m sure. To
>> complicate that issue with things like adding support for custom game-modes
>> is to risk Valve turning around and saying, “This is more trouble than
>> we’re willing to take on at this time. Sorry guys, thank you but no thank
>> you.”
>>
>> If we can collectively win a small victory in terms of stock servers and
>> ensuring stock server compliance with Valve’s rulkes, then that opens the
>> door to requesting and proposing other changes such as those which you
>> would desire. But to smother Valve with a myriad of changes right from the
>> beginning is to simply beg them to put us in the too hard pile and I
>> fear that would be an unrecoverable position.
>>
>>
>> Further, it would benefit us to realise that Valve does not wish to play
>> the role of babysitter all the time. In the past they have threatened to
>> ban server operators, have done so here and there across a period of a
>> couple of weeks, and then found better uses of their time. That's fair
>> call. Whatever system we devise needs to be set and forget.
>>
>>
>> Though I do concede one benefit of what Matthias is proposing. By going
>> to Valve with a holistic (albeit far more complicated) initial step, one
>> can possibly remove the incentive for server operators to pass off thier
>> servers as something they are not by virtue of the fact that Quickplay will
>> accommodate servers that it previous didn't. Though again, it would be
>> prudant of Matthias to drop his incessant mentioning of advertising in this
>> context, since it is at best premature.
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Rowedahelicon <
>> theoneando...@rowedahelicon.com> wrote:
>>
>>> With QP as it is now, people can still get away with breaking some of
>>> the rules. Will Valve be willing to police trouble makers when it is so
>>> easy to fire up a new server on a new account?
>>>
>>> On Fri, 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update released

[HD]

Can yall put the player counts back up in the TAB menu for each team?

K thx!

-Original Message-
From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com
[mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Eric Smith
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 8:28 PM
To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com; hlds_li...@list.valvesoftware.com;
hlds_annou...@list.valvesoftware.com
Subject: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update released

We've released a mandatory update for TF2. The update notes are below. The
new version is  3195453.

-Eric



- Fixed a client crash related to the HUD
- Fixed a client crash related to picking up weapons
- Fixed some Mac client crashes related to being out of memory
- Fixed a bug with removing the Gifter's Name on gift-wrapped items
- Fixed paint cans from the stocking stuffer being always tradeable
- Fixed an issue with knives not animating correctly
- Fixed a bug related to the Loose Cannon and bots in Mann vs. Machine mode
- Fixed Engineer's Wrangler contract updating points for players other than
the Engineer doing the contract
- Fixed a bug where the Sapper preview would disable buildings when removed
- Fixed a bug with Sentry Guns being disabled for 5 seconds instead of the
desired 0.5 seconds after a Sapper is removed
- Fixed an issue with The Concheror regen not being 4 health per second as
intended
- Fixed the Half-Zatoichi giving more overheal then intended. Max overheal
is 1.5x base health.
- Added the EdgeGamers UltiDuo Participant 2015 tournament medal
- Added an option to the Adv. Options menu to disable teammate glow effects
after respawn
- Updated the equip_region for the Chicago Overcoat
- Updated the models/materials for The Chill Chullo

Notes missed from the previous update:

- Huntsman
- Can be fired while off the ground
- Updated pass_pinewood
- Fixed lighting/shadow issues
- Increased size of water tower goals

___
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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Rowedahelicon]

Actually to expand, I agree with spots in that effort on their part may be
unfavorable if they think things are okay the way they are. Mind you, they
have promised us over a year ago they would work on trying to get community
servers something to work with, and they have made no progress on that,
trying to put more work on their side won't be a good solution.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Rowedahelicon <
theoneando...@rowedahelicon.com> wrote:

> Why does it need to be a "proper" system when things were okay prior to QP
> though?
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
> proph...@sticed.org> wrote:
>
>> If they are overwhelmed by adding 2-3 more checkboxes to a menu, I can't
>> help them.
>> If a proper system, most of it porting stuff over from csgo, is too much
>> to ask, they shouldn't allow community servers at all and shut us down all
>> together tomorrow. It's that simple.
>> I'm making this effort simply because I'd like to give them a chance and
>> assume that they did not advance any further on this topic because of the
>> bad signal to noise ration these discussions have, and not because they're
>> understaffed and/or too lazy to make it right. Hence my initial proposal of
>> the group.
>> I also see these interfaces usable for other games (I mean I'm suggesting
>> stuff that's used in csgo already), it's a good investment.
>> If they want to kill community servers and mods all together, it's their
>> loss. Those mods that are being developed and played on community servers
>> (for example) are where future talent and products are at. Then they
>> deserve to go down in flames and end up being the next EA or Ubisoft. (Last
>> I checked, ubisoft was desperate enough to search for future talent, hiding
>> behind "bluebyte", at our local college which doesn't even have computer
>> science courses)
>>
>>
>> On 19.12.2015 03:17, Cats From Above wrote:
>>
>> By tough enough sell, I am essentially stating that convincing Valve that
>> the benefits of changing the Quickplay system in ways that are favorable to
>> "community" servers as opposed to the risk of "community" servers abusing
>> that trust again will be difficult enough to achieve, without the added
>> demotivates of "And while you're at it, we'd like you to change this and
>> this and this and this and this etc."
>>
>> You have to remember that Valve has "tried" to work with communities in
>> the past, unsuccessfully I might add. It is understandable that they'd err
>> on the side of caution when considering Quickplay changes, hence we'd need
>> to make it as appealing as possible for them and that means not bogging
>> down the apparent essence of this discussion (We'd like stock servers to be
>> treated equally) with a truck-load of clinger-on demands.
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
>> proph...@sticed.org> wrote:
>>
>>> What do you mean by "tough enough sell"?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19.12.2015 03:03, Cats From Above wrote:
>>>
>>> Matthias, I cannot help but disagree with the scope you’re proposing.
>>> Getting stock servers back into Quickplay with HTML MOTDs disabled will be
>>> a tough enough sell let alone accommodating HTML MOTDs, custom game modes,
>>> custom maps and non-default configurations.
>>>
>>> I believe it would behove of us to collectively take one hurdle at a
>>> time. Getting genuine stock servers back in is the first step. In this step
>>> Valve would have to implement a policy framework that ensures compliance
>>> with the rules – which will inconvenience them enough I’m sure. To
>>> complicate that issue with things like adding support for custom game-modes
>>> is to risk Valve turning around and saying, “This is more trouble than
>>> we’re willing to take on at this time. Sorry guys, thank you but no thank
>>> you.”
>>>
>>> If we can collectively win a small victory in terms of stock servers and
>>> ensuring stock server compliance with Valve’s rulkes, then that opens the
>>> door to requesting and proposing other changes such as those which you
>>> would desire. But to smother Valve with a myriad of changes right from the
>>> beginning is to simply beg them to put us in the too hard pile and I
>>> fear that would be an unrecoverable position.
>>>
>>>
>>> Further, it would benefit us to realise that Valve does not wish to play
>>> the role of babysitter all the time. In the past they have threatened to
>>> ban server operators, have done so here and there across a period of a
>>> couple of weeks, and then found better uses of their time. That's fair
>>> call. Whatever system we devise needs to be set and forget.
>>>
>>>
>>> Though I do concede one benefit of what Matthias is proposing. By going
>>> to Valve with a holistic (albeit far more complicated) initial step, one
>>> can possibly remove the incentive for server operators to pass off thier
>>> servers as something they are not by virtue of the fact that Quickplay will
>>> 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Cats From Above]

I agree with Matthias regarding the 80/20 rule. If we put this situation
into DreamWorks parlance and remember he film Shrek, what we're dealing
with here is an onion and onions have layers. Obviously, the token system
is not a silver bullet and that was the point in my highlighting the
inherent weaknesses of that system. This doesn't mean that the token system
should be discarded, but rather, we should also discuss other feasible ways
of preventing and detecting servers violating Valve's rules to help bolster
the overall solution. Some may have forgotten that is was the actions of a
minority of servers that got community servers relegated to the background
in the first place - If what community owners have to say is believed. To
leave room for a minority to get away with doing the wrong thing this time
around is, I fear, to invite the same end result in the future.

Further, I would simply point out that no one is suggesting in the present
conversation that Valve wants to kill community servers entirely. Now, my
views on that are well known, but it's not an argument I'm peddling right
here and now. Hence perhaps we could refrain from edging on the verges of
hyperbole. And again, surreptitiously blurring this discussion into one
about the validity of using advertisements to fund servers and what notice
should be given thereof is not helpful top the topic of discussion. I'm
pretty sure that if I had a loud and obnoxious video intro to my community
on my servers MOTD, Matthias would not expect my server to be tagged as
"loudandannoyingmotdstaythef***away" - Hence his issue with advertising is
not the fact adverts make sound, but rather the fact that it's a funding
source for communities other than his own.


On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
proph...@sticed.org> wrote:

> I get your concern, but with reasonable limitations this should follow the
> 80/20 rule.
> If you want a perfect solution for every single possible offense and catch
> every sneaky sob then life really isn't for you.
>
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Rowedahelicon]

I don't think it's worth trying to enforce them being said in the server
list or not then, it's more effort that won't happen for a problem that the
player base can solve on their own

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:00 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
proph...@sticed.org> wrote:

> Didn't say that.
>
>
> On 19.12.2015 03:53, Rowedahelicon wrote:
>
> I don't think Ads are the only reason QP was implemented, you need to keep
> in mind the QP beta came before Pinion ever did.
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
> proph...@sticed.org> wrote:
>
>> Well, ads are part of the union, if you like it or not. Not saying those
>> people can go to hell (right now), but transparency is why quickplay exists
>> and lack of transparency is why community gameplay is excluded. I've heard
>> a lot of people saying I can go screw myself because the players can choose
>> if they want to join their server and consume ads or not. (On this very
>> list) Well, let them.
>> But yes, current quickplay restrictions are also about popups and motd
>> abusing as you can read in the article. So yeah, if your motd would be so
>> loud it would physically hurt my ears, get it fixed. lol (Or these caffeine
>> ads with the shock moments, but on roids)
>>
>>
>> On 19.12.2015 03:43, Cats From Above wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Matthias regarding the 80/20 rule. If we put this situation
>> into DreamWorks parlance and remember he film Shrek, what we're dealing
>> with here is an onion and onions have layers. Obviously, the token system
>> is not a silver bullet and that was the point in my highlighting the
>> inherent weaknesses of that system. This doesn't mean that the token system
>> should be discarded, but rather, we should also discuss other feasible ways
>> of preventing and detecting servers violating Valve's rules to help bolster
>> the overall solution. Some may have forgotten that is was the actions of a
>> minority of servers that got community servers relegated to the background
>> in the first place - If what community owners have to say is believed. To
>> leave room for a minority to get away with doing the wrong thing this time
>> around is, I fear, to invite the same end result in the future.
>>
>> Further, I would simply point out that no one is suggesting in the
>> present conversation that Valve wants to kill community servers entirely.
>> Now, my views on that are well known, but it's not an argument I'm peddling
>> right here and now. Hence perhaps we could refrain from edging on the
>> verges of hyperbole. And again, surreptitiously blurring this discussion
>> into one about the validity of using advertisements to fund servers and
>> what notice should be given thereof is not helpful top the topic of
>> discussion. I'm pretty sure that if I had a loud and obnoxious video intro
>> to my community on my servers MOTD, Matthias would not expect my server to
>> be tagged as "loudandannoyingmotdstaythef***away" - Hence his issue with
>> advertising is not the fact adverts make sound, but rather the fact that
>> it's a funding source for communities other than his own.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
>> proph...@sticed.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I get your concern, but with reasonable limitations this should follow
>>> the 80/20 rule.
>>> If you want a perfect solution for every single possible offense and
>>> catch every sneaky sob then life really isn't for you.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

How?

On 19.12.2015 04:03, Rowedahelicon wrote:
I don't think it's worth trying to enforce them being said in the 
server list or not then, it's more effort that won't happen for a 
problem that the player base can solve on their own


On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:00 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek 
> wrote:


Didn't say that.


On 19.12.2015 03:53, Rowedahelicon wrote:

I don't think Ads are the only reason QP was implemented, you
need to keep in mind the QP beta came before Pinion ever did.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek
> wrote:

Well, ads are part of the union, if you like it or not. Not
saying those people can go to hell (right now), but
transparency is why quickplay exists and lack of transparency
is why community gameplay is excluded. I've heard a lot of
people saying I can go screw myself because the players can
choose if they want to join their server and consume ads or
not. (On this very list) Well, let them.
But yes, current quickplay restrictions are also about popups
and motd abusing as you can read in the article. So yeah, if
your motd would be so loud it would physically hurt my ears,
get it fixed. lol (Or these caffeine ads with the shock
moments, but on roids)


On 19.12.2015 03:43, Cats From Above wrote:

I agree with Matthias regarding the 80/20 rule. If we put
this situation into DreamWorks parlance and remember he film
Shrek, what we're dealing with here is an onion and onions
have layers. Obviously, the token system is not a silver
bullet and that was the point in my highlighting the
inherent weaknesses of that system. This doesn't mean that
the token system should be discarded, but rather, we should
also discuss other feasible ways of preventing and detecting
servers violating Valve's rules to help bolster the overall
solution. Some may have forgotten that is was the actions of
a minority of servers that got community servers relegated
to the background in the first place - If what community
owners have to say is believed. To leave room for a minority
to get away with doing the wrong thing this time around is,
I fear, to invite the same end result in the future.

Further, I would simply point out that no one is suggesting
in the present conversation that Valve wants to kill
community servers entirely. Now, my views on that are well
known, but it's not an argument I'm peddling right here and
now. Hence perhaps we could refrain from edging on the
verges of hyperbole. And again, surreptitiously blurring
this discussion into one about the validity of using
advertisements to fund servers and what notice should be
given thereof is not helpful top the topic of discussion.
I'm pretty sure that if I had a loud and obnoxious video
intro to my community on my servers MOTD, Matthias would not
expect my server to be tagged as
"loudandannoyingmotdstaythef***away" - Hence his issue with
advertising is not the fact adverts make sound, but rather
the fact that it's a funding source for communities other
than his own.


On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin"
Kollek > wrote:

I get your concern, but with reasonable limitations this
should follow the 80/20 rule.
If you want a perfect solution for every single possible
offense and catch every sneaky sob then life really
isn't for you.







___
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



___
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 - 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Robert Paulson]

> I don't think Ads are the only reason QP was implemented, you need to
keep in mind the QP beta came before Pinion ever did.

This.

I don't know why people keep making up their own alternate version of
history.

People were abusing fake players long before advertising was even a thing.
And even after advertising was completely erased from quickplay, people
still abused it. And they will continue abusing even if the motd became
completely disabled.

> Because MOTDs are actually useful for things other than ads.

This ship has already sailed. Quickplay players are 100% guaranteed not to
see an ad. No one is asking Valve to unblock the MOTD for quickplay players.

> And I'm wondering what happens if you join a server which forces you to
have motds activated.

I disconnect and blacklist? If I want an official server, it should be
opt-in not opt-out.

> If we put this situation into DreamWorks parlance and remember he film
Shrek

Top quality trolling.
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

"You seemed to have missed the point Matthias, I have genuine difficulty 
that an individual such as yourself would be so truly bothered by a 
short video in the MOTD played when you first join a server."


It's so great that you know me.
Yes, I get bothered by each and every ad I hear. I have never heard a 
quiet ad (or to be honest, one with regular speaking voice), anywhere on 
the web. It's part of advertisement culture that they're so loud. People 
got accustomed to this because during tv breaks they would usually go to 
the kitchen or the bathroom (which is why they are so loud in the first 
place), and it became second nature. (Luckily there are restrictions in 
Germany for the volume of a tv ad) You can't cancel them once they play, 
and worst, they usually replay again. Not when you first connect. Not on 
map change, but every round.
I did the experiment I mentioned earlier. I had a script join a list of 
non-valve servers one after the other. I left the speakers on. It wasn't 
fun. I get why people who used the server browser got a bad impression 
of community servers. Not only because of P2W and faking player counts. 
It is one of the things that led to quickplay being the preferred method 
to find a game.
It also doesn't help that the motd option is buried in the advanced 
options. And I also think it doesn't clearly associate this with the 
functionality of ads. Good luck to the average joe making that 
connection and finding that option (keep in mind how much effort the 
average player can put into this, if you do anything related to UIs you 
know), so he can pick a server in the browser. We know how it ended, he 
went extinct. Or evolution grabbed him by the balls and dragged him to 
the current QP. (Keep this in mind for the previous paragraph)


On 19.12.2015 04:14, Cats From Above wrote:


You seemed to have missed the point Matthias, I have genuine 
difficulty that an individual such as yourself would be so truly 
bothered by a short video in the MOTD played when you first join a 
server. Now don’t get me wrong, I do agree there are some mildly 
agitating ways to implement adverts and these ways shouldn’t be 
allowed. I personally would take exception to A) Having to wait a 
noticeable period of time before joining a team. B) Being unable to 
stop the advert. C) Being penalised for having HTML MOTDs disabled D) 
Having adverts played after I joined a team for the first time. (Ergo, 
on death, round win, timer etc.)



However, I would argue that those evils are a secondary problem with 
server providers implementing adverts in a nefarious way as opposed to 
existence of adverts themselves. Whilst these implementations may 
coincide with the existence of adverts on some servers, I’m skeptical 
about the insinuation that all server operators implement adverts in 
these ways as I know many do not.



And I would further argue that banishing video MOTDs is not part of 
the union of getting servers back into the default Quickplay pool as 
for again, the current status quo is such that HTML adverts are not an 
issue in terms of Quickplay and Valve coded a solution which prevents 
the MOTD being reopened by a server for Quickplay connects. If you 
wish to change that, perhaps you could start your own discussion, 
instead of flagrantly derailing this discussion about the default 
Quickplay pools into your own personal vendetta against advertising. I 
for one do not intend to continue discussing side issues such as this 
in the given context of getting servers back into the default 
Quickplay pool and would implore you to do the same. Thanks.



On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek 
> wrote:


Well, ads are part of the union, if you like it or not. Not saying
those people can go to hell (right now), but transparency is why
quickplay exists and lack of transparency is why community
gameplay is excluded. I've heard a lot of people saying I can go
screw myself because the players can choose if they want to join
their server and consume ads or not. (On this very list) Well, let
them.
But yes, current quickplay restrictions are also about popups and
motd abusing as you can read in the article. So yeah, if your motd
would be so loud it would physically hurt my ears, get it fixed.
lol (Or these caffeine ads with the shock moments, but on roids)



___
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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

What do you mean by "tough enough sell"?

On 19.12.2015 03:03, Cats From Above wrote:


Matthias, I cannot help but disagree with the scope you’re proposing. 
Getting stock servers back into Quickplay with HTML MOTDs disabled 
will be a tough enough sell let alone accommodating HTML MOTDs, custom 
game modes, custom maps and non-default configurations.


I believe it would behove of us to collectively take one hurdle at a 
time. Getting genuine stock servers back in is the first step. In this 
step Valve would have to implement a policy framework that ensures 
compliance with the rules – which will inconvenience them enough I’m 
sure. To complicate that issue with things like adding support for 
custom game-modes is to risk Valve turning around and saying, “This is 
more trouble than we’re willing to take on at this time. Sorry guys, 
thank you but no thank you.”


If we can collectively win a small victory in terms of stock servers 
and ensuring stock server compliance with Valve’s rulkes, then that 
opens the door to requesting and proposing other changes such as those 
which you would desire. But to smother Valve with a myriad of changes 
right from the beginning is to simply beg them to put us in the too 
hard pile and I fear that would be an unrecoverable position.



Further, it would benefit us to realise that Valve does not wish to 
play the role of babysitter all the time. In the past they have 
threatened to ban server operators, have done so here and there across 
a period of a couple of weeks, and then found better uses of their 
time. That's fair call. Whatever system we devise needs to be set and 
forget.



Though I do concede one benefit of what Matthias is proposing. By 
going to Valve with a holistic (albeit far more complicated) initial 
step, one can possibly remove the incentive for server operators to 
pass off thier servers as something they are not by virtue of the fact 
that Quickplay will accommodate servers that it previous didn't. 
Though again, it would be prudant of Matthias to drop his incessant 
mentioning of advertising in this context, since it is at best premature.



On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Rowedahelicon 
> wrote:


With QP as it is now, people can still get away with breaking some
of the rules. Will Valve be willing to police trouble makers when
it is so easy to fire up a new server on a new account?

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek
> wrote:

Switch to the token system from csgo, include all servers in
the quickplay pool (sole exception might be servers that offer
reserved slots for cash) but give the players more options.
Tag servers properly so quickplayers can decide for themselves
if they want to join a server that runs ads or not, or try out
a community mod, or custom maps.

Make some of the quickplay offenses ban-able:
https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=2825-AFGJ-3513

i.e.
Opening a MOTD window (hidden or visible) that is not requested
Forcing clients to view the MOTD until a timer has expired
Giving or selling gameplay advantage to players
Granting or modifying economy items, or taking actions that
devalue players' items, or interfering with the TF2 economy
Browser popups

By default do not show official servers in the server browser
(add that checkbox back).
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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Cats From Above]

The token system adds a cost to starting a server, if I'm not mistaken, by
requiring users to have a full steam account. However, many community
hosters out there make a reasonable turn over and would easily be able to
justify the cost of a full Steam account as nothing other than a mild
inconvenience that is part of the cost of doing business. Even if there was
an Steam account age involved, I know many people have accounts sitting
around for the sole purpose of letting them age - usually hackers but in
this context such might benefit rogue server operators also.

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
proph...@sticed.org> wrote:

> With the token system it won't be as easy.
>
>
> On 19.12.2015 02:54, Rowedahelicon wrote:
>
> With QP as it is now, people can still get away with breaking some of the
> rules. Will Valve be willing to police trouble makers when it is so easy to
> fire up a new server on a new account?
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
> proph...@sticed.org> wrote:
>
>> Switch to the token system from csgo, include all servers in the
>> quickplay pool (sole exception might be servers that offer reserved slots
>> for cash) but give the players more options. Tag servers properly so
>> quickplayers can decide for themselves if they want to join a server that
>> runs ads or not, or try out a community mod, or custom maps.
>>
>> Make some of the quickplay offenses ban-able:
>> 
>> https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=2825-AFGJ-3513
>>
>> i.e.
>> Opening a MOTD window (hidden or visible) that is not requested
>> Forcing clients to view the MOTD until a timer has expired
>> Giving or selling gameplay advantage to players
>> Granting or modifying economy items, or taking actions that devalue
>> players' items, or interfering with the TF2 economy
>> Browser popups
>>
>> By default do not show official servers in the server browser (add that
>> checkbox back).
>>
>>
>> On 19.12.2015 02:41, Rowedahelicon wrote:
>>
>> 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 <
>>> 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

If they are overwhelmed by adding 2-3 more checkboxes to a menu, I can't 
help them.
If a proper system, most of it porting stuff over from csgo, is too much 
to ask, they shouldn't allow community servers at all and shut us down 
all together tomorrow. It's that simple.
I'm making this effort simply because I'd like to give them a chance and 
assume that they did not advance any further on this topic because of 
the bad signal to noise ration these discussions have, and not because 
they're understaffed and/or too lazy to make it right. Hence my initial 
proposal of the group.
I also see these interfaces usable for other games (I mean I'm 
suggesting stuff that's used in csgo already), it's a good investment.
If they want to kill community servers and mods all together, it's their 
loss. Those mods that are being developed and played on community 
servers (for example) are where future talent and products are at. Then 
they deserve to go down in flames and end up being the next EA or 
Ubisoft. (Last I checked, ubisoft was desperate enough to search for 
future talent, hiding behind "bluebyte", at our local college which 
doesn't even have computer science courses)


On 19.12.2015 03:17, Cats From Above wrote:
By tough enough sell, I am essentially stating that convincing Valve 
that the benefits of changing the Quickplay system in ways that are 
favorable to "community" servers as opposed to the risk of "community" 
servers abusing that trust again will be difficult enough to achieve, 
without the added demotivates of "And while you're at it, we'd like 
you to change this and this and this and this and this etc."


You have to remember that Valve has "tried" to work with communities 
in the past, unsuccessfully I might add. It is understandable that 
they'd err on the side of caution when considering Quickplay changes, 
hence we'd need to make it as appealing as possible for them and that 
means not bogging down the apparent essence of this discussion (We'd 
like stock servers to be treated equally) with a truck-load of 
clinger-on demands.


On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek 
> wrote:


What do you mean by "tough enough sell"?


On 19.12.2015 03:03, Cats From Above wrote:


Matthias, I cannot help but disagree with the scope you’re
proposing. Getting stock servers back into Quickplay with HTML
MOTDs disabled will be a tough enough sell let alone
accommodating HTML MOTDs, custom game modes, custom maps and
non-default configurations.

I believe it would behove of us to collectively take one hurdle
at a time. Getting genuine stock servers back in is the first
step. In this step Valve would have to implement a policy
framework that ensures compliance with the rules – which will
inconvenience them enough I’m sure. To complicate that issue with
things like adding support for custom game-modes is to risk Valve
turning around and saying, “This is more trouble than we’re
willing to take on at this time. Sorry guys, thank you but no
thank you.”

If we can collectively win a small victory in terms of stock
servers and ensuring stock server compliance with Valve’s rulkes,
then that opens the door to requesting and proposing other
changes such as those which you would desire. But to smother
Valve with a myriad of changes right from the beginning is to
simply beg them to put us in the too hard pile and I fear that
would be an unrecoverable position.


Further, it would benefit us to realise that Valve does not wish
to play the role of babysitter all the time. In the past they
have threatened to ban server operators, have done so here and
there across a period of a couple of weeks, and then found better
uses of their time. That's fair call. Whatever system we devise
needs to be set and forget.


Though I do concede one benefit of what Matthias is proposing. By
going to Valve with a holistic (albeit far more complicated)
initial step, one can possibly remove the incentive for server
operators to pass off thier servers as something they are not by
virtue of the fact that Quickplay will accommodate servers that
it previous didn't. Though again, it would be prudant of Matthias
to drop his incessant mentioning of advertising in this context,
since it is at best premature.


On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Rowedahelicon
> wrote:

With QP as it is now, people can still get away with breaking
some of the rules. Will Valve be willing to police trouble
makers when it is so easy to fire up a new server on a new
account?

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin"
Kollek > wrote:

Switch to the 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

Obviously there was a need for QP to offer players transparency and a 
constant experience they selected.


On 19.12.2015 03:39, Rowedahelicon wrote:
Why does it need to be a "proper" system when things were okay prior 
to QP though?


On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek 
> wrote:


If they are overwhelmed by adding 2-3 more checkboxes to a menu, I
can't help them.
If a proper system, most of it porting stuff over from csgo, is
too much to ask, they shouldn't allow community servers at all and
shut us down all together tomorrow. It's that simple.
I'm making this effort simply because I'd like to give them a
chance and assume that they did not advance any further on this
topic because of the bad signal to noise ration these discussions
have, and not because they're understaffed and/or too lazy to make
it right. Hence my initial proposal of the group.
I also see these interfaces usable for other games (I mean I'm
suggesting stuff that's used in csgo already), it's a good investment.
If they want to kill community servers and mods all together, it's
their loss. Those mods that are being developed and played on
community servers (for example) are where future talent and
products are at. Then they deserve to go down in flames and end up
being the next EA or Ubisoft. (Last I checked, ubisoft was
desperate enough to search for future talent, hiding behind
"bluebyte", at our local college which doesn't even have computer
science courses)


On 19.12.2015 03:17, Cats From Above wrote:

By tough enough sell, I am essentially stating that convincing
Valve that the benefits of changing the Quickplay system in ways
that are favorable to "community" servers as opposed to the risk
of "community" servers abusing that trust again will be difficult
enough to achieve, without the added demotivates of "And while
you're at it, we'd like you to change this and this and this and
this and this etc."

You have to remember that Valve has "tried" to work with
communities in the past, unsuccessfully I might add. It is
understandable that they'd err on the side of caution when
considering Quickplay changes, hence we'd need to make it as
appealing as possible for them and that means not bogging down
the apparent essence of this discussion (We'd like stock servers
to be treated equally) with a truck-load of clinger-on demands.

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek
> wrote:

What do you mean by "tough enough sell"?


On 19.12.2015 03:03, Cats From Above wrote:


Matthias, I cannot help but disagree with the scope you’re
proposing. Getting stock servers back into Quickplay with
HTML MOTDs disabled will be a tough enough sell let alone
accommodating HTML MOTDs, custom game modes, custom maps and
non-default configurations.

I believe it would behove of us to collectively take one
hurdle at a time. Getting genuine stock servers back in is
the first step. In this step Valve would have to implement a
policy framework that ensures compliance with the rules –
which will inconvenience them enough I’m sure. To complicate
that issue with things like adding support for custom
game-modes is to risk Valve turning around and saying, “This
is more trouble than we’re willing to take on at this time.
Sorry guys, thank you but no thank you.”

If we can collectively win a small victory in terms of stock
servers and ensuring stock server compliance with Valve’s
rulkes, then that opens the door to requesting and proposing
other changes such as those which you would desire. But to
smother Valve with a myriad of changes right from the
beginning is to simply beg them to put us in the too hard
pile and I fear that would be an unrecoverable position.


Further, it would benefit us to realise that Valve does not
wish to play the role of babysitter all the time. In the
past they have threatened to ban server operators, have done
so here and there across a period of a couple of weeks, and
then found better uses of their time. That's fair call.
Whatever system we devise needs to be set and forget.


Though I do concede one benefit of what Matthias is
proposing. By going to Valve with a holistic (albeit far
more complicated) initial step, one can possibly remove the
incentive for server operators to pass off thier servers as
something they are not by virtue of the fact that Quickplay
will accommodate servers that it previous didn't. Though
again, it would be prudant of Matthias to drop 

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Cats From Above]

You seemed to have missed the point Matthias, I have genuine difficulty
that an individual such as yourself would be so truly bothered by a short
video in the MOTD played when you first join a server. Now don’t get me
wrong, I do agree there are some mildly agitating ways to implement adverts
and these ways shouldn’t be allowed. I personally would take exception to
A) Having to wait a noticeable period of time before joining a team. B)
Being unable to stop the advert. C) Being penalised for having HTML MOTDs
disabled D) Having adverts played after I joined a team for the first time.
(Ergo, on death, round win, timer etc.)


However, I would argue that those evils are a secondary problem with server
providers implementing adverts in a nefarious way as opposed to existence
of adverts themselves. Whilst these implementations may coincide with the
existence of adverts on some servers, I’m skeptical about the insinuation
that all server operators implement adverts in these ways as I know many do
not.


And I would further argue that banishing video MOTDs is not part of the
union of getting servers back into the default Quickplay pool as for again,
the current status quo is such that HTML adverts are not an issue in terms
of Quickplay and Valve coded a solution which prevents the MOTD being
reopened by a server for Quickplay connects. If you wish to change that,
perhaps you could start your own discussion, instead of flagrantly
derailing this discussion about the default Quickplay pools into your own
personal vendetta against advertising. I for one do not intend to continue
discussing side issues such as this in the given context of getting servers
back into the default Quickplay pool and would implore you to do the same.
Thanks.

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
proph...@sticed.org> wrote:

> Well, ads are part of the union, if you like it or not. Not saying those
> people can go to hell (right now), but transparency is why quickplay exists
> and lack of transparency is why community gameplay is excluded. I've heard
> a lot of people saying I can go screw myself because the players can choose
> if they want to join their server and consume ads or not. (On this very
> list) Well, let them.
> But yes, current quickplay restrictions are also about popups and motd
> abusing as you can read in the article. So yeah, if your motd would be so
> loud it would physically hurt my ears, get it fixed. lol (Or these caffeine
> ads with the shock moments, but on roids)
>
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

I get your concern, but with reasonable limitations this should follow 
the 80/20 rule.
If you want a perfect solution for every single possible offense and 
catch every sneaky sob then life really isn't for you.


So far this is working out for csgo. A bunch of servers were banned, and 
with the official notice people on scripting forums do not support skin 
plugins anymore. There might be stuff crawling up for a next ban wave 
but the interface is in place, works, and contained most of the madness.

Current limitations also require a phone number iirc.
Keep in mind that by losing the token/the acc they should lose all 
favorites.


On 19.12.2015 03:06, Cats From Above wrote:
The token system adds a cost to starting a server, if I'm not 
mistaken, by requiring users to have a full steam account. However, 
many community hosters out there make a reasonable turn over and would 
easily be able to justify the cost of a full Steam account as nothing 
other than a mild inconvenience that is part of the cost of doing 
business. Even if there was an Steam account age involved, I know many 
people have accounts sitting around for the sole purpose of letting 
them age - usually hackers but in this context such might benefit 
rogue server operators also.



___
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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek]

Well, ads are part of the union, if you like it or not. Not saying those 
people can go to hell (right now), but transparency is why quickplay 
exists and lack of transparency is why community gameplay is excluded. 
I've heard a lot of people saying I can go screw myself because the 
players can choose if they want to join their server and consume ads or 
not. (On this very list) Well, let them.
But yes, current quickplay restrictions are also about popups and motd 
abusing as you can read in the article. So yeah, if your motd would be 
so loud it would physically hurt my ears, get it fixed. lol (Or these 
caffeine ads with the shock moments, but on roids)


On 19.12.2015 03:43, Cats From Above wrote:
I agree with Matthias regarding the 80/20 rule. If we put this 
situation into DreamWorks parlance and remember he film Shrek, what 
we're dealing with here is an onion and onions have layers. Obviously, 
the token system is not a silver bullet and that was the point in my 
highlighting the inherent weaknesses of that system. This doesn't mean 
that the token system should be discarded, but rather, we should also 
discuss other feasible ways of preventing and detecting servers 
violating Valve's rules to help bolster the overall solution. Some may 
have forgotten that is was the actions of a minority of servers that 
got community servers relegated to the background in the first place - 
If what community owners have to say is believed. To leave room for a 
minority to get away with doing the wrong thing this time around is, I 
fear, to invite the same end result in the future.


Further, I would simply point out that no one is suggesting in the 
present conversation that Valve wants to kill community servers 
entirely. Now, my views on that are well known, but it's not an 
argument I'm peddling right here and now. Hence perhaps we could 
refrain from edging on the verges of hyperbole. And again, 
surreptitiously blurring this discussion into one about the validity 
of using advertisements to fund servers and what notice should be 
given thereof is not helpful top the topic of discussion. I'm pretty 
sure that if I had a loud and obnoxious video intro to my community on 
my servers MOTD, Matthias would not expect my server to be tagged as 
"loudandannoyingmotdstaythef***away" - Hence his issue with 
advertising is not the fact adverts make sound, but rather the fact 
that it's a funding source for communities other than his own.



On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek 
> wrote:


I get your concern, but with reasonable limitations this should
follow the 80/20 rule.
If you want a perfect solution for every single possible offense
and catch every sneaky sob then life really isn't for you.







___
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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Rowedahelicon]

I don't think Ads are the only reason QP was implemented, you need to keep
in mind the QP beta came before Pinion ever did.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
proph...@sticed.org> wrote:

> Well, ads are part of the union, if you like it or not. Not saying those
> people can go to hell (right now), but transparency is why quickplay exists
> and lack of transparency is why community gameplay is excluded. I've heard
> a lot of people saying I can go screw myself because the players can choose
> if they want to join their server and consume ads or not. (On this very
> list) Well, let them.
> But yes, current quickplay restrictions are also about popups and motd
> abusing as you can read in the article. So yeah, if your motd would be so
> loud it would physically hurt my ears, get it fixed. lol (Or these caffeine
> ads with the shock moments, but on roids)
>
>
> On 19.12.2015 03:43, Cats From Above wrote:
>
> I agree with Matthias regarding the 80/20 rule. If we put this situation
> into DreamWorks parlance and remember he film Shrek, what we're dealing
> with here is an onion and onions have layers. Obviously, the token system
> is not a silver bullet and that was the point in my highlighting the
> inherent weaknesses of that system. This doesn't mean that the token system
> should be discarded, but rather, we should also discuss other feasible ways
> of preventing and detecting servers violating Valve's rules to help bolster
> the overall solution. Some may have forgotten that is was the actions of a
> minority of servers that got community servers relegated to the background
> in the first place - If what community owners have to say is believed. To
> leave room for a minority to get away with doing the wrong thing this time
> around is, I fear, to invite the same end result in the future.
>
> Further, I would simply point out that no one is suggesting in the present
> conversation that Valve wants to kill community servers entirely. Now, my
> views on that are well known, but it's not an argument I'm peddling right
> here and now. Hence perhaps we could refrain from edging on the verges of
> hyperbole. And again, surreptitiously blurring this discussion into one
> about the validity of using advertisements to fund servers and what notice
> should be given thereof is not helpful top the topic of discussion. I'm
> pretty sure that if I had a loud and obnoxious video intro to my community
> on my servers MOTD, Matthias would not expect my server to be tagged as
> "loudandannoyingmotdstaythef***away" - Hence his issue with advertising is
> not the fact adverts make sound, but rather the fact that it's a funding
> source for communities other than his own.
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
> proph...@sticed.org> wrote:
>
>> I get your concern, but with reasonable limitations this should follow
>> the 80/20 rule.
>> If you want a perfect solution for every single possible offense and
>> catch every sneaky sob then life really isn't for you.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update coming

[Rowedahelicon]

Ads aren't relevant, the solution is just to ignore servers that use them,
and if you ask Valve to try and stop them they will not take the time to
handle cases. They will make a sweeping decision that affects everyone to
stop a handful of things.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek <
proph...@sticed.org> wrote:

> You're not up to date on the latest posts.
> I actually have seen no one saying QP was added only and because of ads.
> I also mentioned why I believe ads are still relevant for QP/the current
> situation.
>
>
> On 19.12.2015 04:04, Robert Paulson wrote:
>
> > I don't think Ads are the only reason QP was implemented, you need to
> keep in mind the QP beta came before Pinion ever did.
>
> This.
>
> I don't know why people keep making up their own alternate version of
> history.
>
> People were abusing fake players long before advertising was even a thing.
> And even after advertising was completely erased from quickplay, people
> still abused it. And they will continue abusing even if the motd became
> completely disabled.
>
> > Because MOTDs are actually useful for things other than ads.
>
> This ship has already sailed. Quickplay players are 100% guaranteed not to
> see an ad. No one is asking Valve to unblock the MOTD for quickplay players.
>
> > And I'm wondering what happens if you join a server which forces you to
> have motds activated.
>
> I disconnect and blacklist? If I want an official server, it should be
> opt-in not opt-out.
>
> > If we put this situation into DreamWorks parlance and remember he film
> Shrek
>
> Top quality trolling.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update released

[A Fearts]

I second that. I don't understand why it was removed. Also killstreaks
don't display properly on scoreboard.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:41 PM, HD  wrote:

> Can yall put the player counts back up in the TAB menu for each team?
>
> K thx!
>
> -Original Message-
> From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com
> [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Eric Smith
> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 8:28 PM
> To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com; hlds_li...@list.valvesoftware.com;
> hlds_annou...@list.valvesoftware.com
> Subject: [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update released
>
> We've released a mandatory update for TF2. The update notes are below. The
> new version is  3195453.
>
> -Eric
>
> 
>
> - Fixed a client crash related to the HUD
> - Fixed a client crash related to picking up weapons
> - Fixed some Mac client crashes related to being out of memory
> - Fixed a bug with removing the Gifter's Name on gift-wrapped items
> - Fixed paint cans from the stocking stuffer being always tradeable
> - Fixed an issue with knives not animating correctly
> - Fixed a bug related to the Loose Cannon and bots in Mann vs. Machine mode
> - Fixed Engineer's Wrangler contract updating points for players other than
> the Engineer doing the contract
> - Fixed a bug where the Sapper preview would disable buildings when removed
> - Fixed a bug with Sentry Guns being disabled for 5 seconds instead of the
> desired 0.5 seconds after a Sapper is removed
> - Fixed an issue with The Concheror regen not being 4 health per second as
> intended
> - Fixed the Half-Zatoichi giving more overheal then intended. Max overheal
> is 1.5x base health.
> - Added the EdgeGamers UltiDuo Participant 2015 tournament medal
> - Added an option to the Adv. Options menu to disable teammate glow effects
> after respawn
> - Updated the equip_region for the Chicago Overcoat
> - Updated the models/materials for The Chill Chullo
>
> Notes missed from the previous update:
>
> - Huntsman
> - Can be fired while off the ground
> - Updated pass_pinewood
> - Fixed lighting/shadow issues
> - Increased size of water tower goals
>
> ___
> 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