New Management Structure

OldBloke · July 17, 2009, 03:05:15 PM

All

This thread has been created to answer any questions you might have on the announcement made here.

GhostMjr · July 17, 2009, 03:22:06 PM

The changes look fine

.

I remember at the October 2008 LAN a discussion (over some whiskey i hasten to add) about how we implement new games and how we choose the section admins was brought up by Arm, Pen and Lib.

Essentially, is the finite pool the reasoning behind sometimes why we are slow to choose supported games or simply because there needs to be sufficient footing in community of those with the game to add further games to our community.

Basically what i mean is we have often kept 3 games going obviously due to server costs but aren't our servers powerful enough to run more than what they currently do at the moment?

Otherwise all seems ok to me

delanvital · July 17, 2009, 03:40:27 PM

Looks fine indeed

The only concern that pops to mind is the resurfacing issue of too much game diversity. From reading the text, I see the change aimed at making room for more potential different game admins - and thus an even greater spread of people across more games.

I hope I do not sound too melancholic and retrospective, but I do believe it is a fact, that gaming quality and member turn up on servers has dropped in tact supported games being increased. I am not sure, but to me it does not look like the actual active amount of gamers has increased with more supported games. I like the notion of a "gaming community" but I feel we are loosing the dedication to a game, which in turn makes gaming great for all players. And we are loosing this, because people are often joining the game on which there are most people to play with, rather than the game they would actually prefer. And I am not talking about "not being willing to start a game and wait for the rest"... I have done that quite a bit with CS, but the fact is, that after about an hour people spread out on LFS, L4D, WoW, COD4 and what not.

I hope my point is clear, I might be rambling...

I am not sure what the solution is to the luxurious problem of having the capacity to support many games, other than some initiative that makes more people aware of dMw, and then sort the weed from the chaff. And, imho, this should take precedent to increasing admin capacity... imho..

sulky_uk · July 17, 2009, 04:09:12 PM

changes look good, im sure they will work as well as we hope.

Jabbs · July 17, 2009, 06:07:46 PM

Quote from: delanvital;282713I am not sure what the solution is to the luxurious problem of having the capacity to support many games, other than some initiative that makes more people aware of dMw, and then sort the weed from the chaff. And, imho, this should take precedent to increasing admin capacity... imho..

Probably to increase the number of members in the community so that there are always players who want to play.

The problem you describe Del is the difference between a Gaming Community and a Gaming Clan.

Something to ponder I'm sure

delanvital · July 17, 2009, 06:42:50 PM

Quote from: Jabbs;282737Probably to increase the number of members in the community so that there are always players who want to play.

That is what I tried to say with the section you quoted

Penfold · July 17, 2009, 07:15:54 PM

Quote from: delanvital;282713.....And, imho, this should take precedent to increasing admin capacity... imho..

We're not increasingly admin capacity more re-aligning it so to speak.

I agree that the biggest problem we face is fragmentation. As our game pool diversifies so the numbers per game decrease.

We do need to get more people into dMw but we also have high standards and do not want the run of the mill dross.

Sure we could fling open our doors to the great unwashed but I don't think any of us would want that.

OldBloke · July 17, 2009, 07:16:26 PM

Quote from: Jabbs;282737Probably to increase the number of members in the community so that there are always players who want to play.

Indeed. Our community is shrinking and will die the death of a thousand cuts unless we attract new members. The problem is two-fold:

We are (rightly) only looking to take on people who are happy to play our way.
We currently 'specialise' in some pretty old games.

We're not prepared to lower our standards so we are trying to attract people with the 'right stuff' by putting up public servers for the latest releases that advertise our ethos in-game. However, this has proved to be a lot more difficult than we envisaged - mainly due to some pretty poor dedicated server support from the games houses.

delanvital · July 17, 2009, 07:22:13 PM

What I tried to say was - increase the numbers of people who come here to see what it is. Then put more emphasis on sorting the weed from the chaff. As long as enough people drop by there are potential members to work with

Penfold · July 17, 2009, 07:38:03 PM

It's a separate debate really as to how we increase the membership without diluting the dMw'ness of it all. It 's a tough one :g:

GhostMjr · July 17, 2009, 08:52:25 PM

Then surely to attract more members we do need to play competitively and attract players that way

under our ethos.

I play on alot of servers and maybe what we should be looking at is more matches, more friendlies and people who have free time like myself to be recruiters.

I have recruited quite a few people for the community one of the more recent ones is Serial Thrilla.

We have a small net of games and yes games need to be active but we have our times of the year where we are busy.

We just need to build on our strengths i don't see it as the community will die without out new members without us first setting up several ways to actually recruit new blood.

sulky_uk · July 17, 2009, 09:17:19 PM

i agree with everything that has been said, but saying that, i hvave too add that times are now harder for gaming clans than they were say 8 or 10 yrs ago, back then you had the big hitters like cs, ghost recon and the likes, there were a short list of games that everyone seemed to play, now though things are differant. You can go onto steam and play over 100 games online with other "real "ppl. You can play any number of MMorpg, you can play lots of differant simulator types of games.

We cant listen to the whim of every single person who plays any random number of games, im sure fiddling with chaos theroy would probably be easier, so we should carry on as before and embrace what we have. No disrepect to the racers among us but at the moment we have LFS Rfactor and some others that i have nearly bought but glad that i havent because the interest level was there for a brief moment then gone.

i feel the games we support at the moment are what we need to concentrate on for at least another 12-18 months

cs:s i hope valve continues to delevelop it especaily when HL3 comes out

lfd: lets not go there lfd 2 is valve being a money grabber

cod4: i love this game but got bored, i hope modern warfare 2 is a worthy successor

WOW: you luckey bar stewards this game is going to go forever

lfs: i love this game...just hope they can finish it b4 everyone loses interest

r factor: its good but is it as good as lfs.. who knows

i know some ppl wont agrree with some/any of this but if we diversify and support loads more than the core yes we willl get more players, but will we feel like a tight nit clan that we do now?

my 2p's worth

T-Bag · July 18, 2009, 12:40:31 AM

Like the restructuring. Hopefully it will lead to games running more autonomously. Appointment of game admins by the section admins. They're trusted to run the department. That could lead to more impromptu matches on non-dedicated nights when the map could do with a change or something else minor.
I know the number of admins is unlikely to change, but maybe moving it between a pool as people go through peaks and troughs of availability to avoid dry spells.

(just resuggesting this again while a major change is going on)

In general things are going pretty well. L4D in particular is thriving recently with Steam friends invites being used to great effect. A "sign up" board could be done for all members to list in a section if they want to be notified when a game they own is started as I imagine it is hard for say a CS:S who owns CoD 4 to get involved with that scene not getting the standard messages that are sent out etc.

That's all I can think of. The suggestions are not meant to be negative. I enjoy playing here, and using the forum. They're things which could possibly improve things, but in the bigger picture might not.

Gone_Away · July 18, 2009, 01:36:50 AM

Can someone help me understand why the so-called "division of power" is with the same crew that has been running things for years now?

I know you'll most likely dismiss my comment and perhaps not find it very contructive but one of the things that frustrates me about dMw is the lack of diversity at the senior level.

You guys see fit to charge the majority for what I see as "fringe benefits" and disguise this under a "membership" of sorts. What I fail to see here is openness and transparency and often decisions are taken for the community without any consultation or discussion.

If we are expected to pay "membership" (yes I know it's not manditory) then why as members, do we not have any say in the running of the community?

Why is there not an elected board that governs dMw and officers of the community that work for it's best interests? Why as paid members do we not have visability of the running costs of the community? Is there a treasurer that prepares a budget that is submitted for approval to the community leaders? Is there a committee that meets on a regular basis to chart the way forward for the group? Do we have a vision? Direction?

What I've seen over the last few years is continuance of the "old boys club" and failed attempts at this and then that without any direct input from the wider membership. I think this community and it's members would like to see something a little more radical than what has been proposed.

Why shouldn't we cater to a wider audience that perhaps join us for the "fun" first and then the serious second? Why can't we do both? Why can't the paid members decide?

This community could be so much more but time after time I see the same members being put forward for this and that and then six months later something different.

Where are we going as a community? Where do we want to be? Obviously "Professional" or "Mature" gamers but how is that defined?

Most of you know that I've been around for a while and I tend to challenge the norm and perhaps sing from a different hymn sheet than some (most?) of you but surely we can do better than this?

Look at the the contrasting responses from Delan, Ghosty, and Sulky. All are in support but each one of them says a different thing. Do we listen to the members? I've seen good suggestions come from the community several times and it all falls on deaf ears.

Why don't we have a Membership or PR Officer? Why don't we have a Games Committee? Why don't we have elected Officers that help chart the direction of the community?

There's enough members that have significant enough experience in business to pull it off, or are you concerned about losing control?

OldBloke · July 18, 2009, 02:56:53 AM

Quote from: Ninja_Freak;282811Can someone help me understand why the so-called "division of power" is with the same crew that has been running things for years now?

I know you'll most likely dismiss my comment and perhaps not find it very contructive but one of the things that frustrates me about dMw is the lack of diversity at the senior level.

This community is run by TeaLeaf and me. We trust each other implicitly to uphold the ideals that make this particular gaming community different i.e. better than the rest. We've seen the opposition and it can't hold a candle to what is provided here.

Quote from: Ninja_Freak;282811You guys see fit to charge the majority for what I see as "fringe benefits" and disguise this under a "membership" of sorts. What I fail to see here is openness and transparency and often decisions are taken for the community without any consultation or discussion.

If we are expected to pay "membership" (yes I know it's not manditory) then why as members, do we not have any say in the running of the community?

No-one pays membership. It's a voluntary subscription, open and transparent as it can be. I challenge you to investigate the costs involved in hosting two 2U gaming servers plus a 1U forum server and then tell me the business model you would employ to finance those costs. Don't forget to include the inevitable upgrade costs too.

Quote from: Ninja_Freak;282811Why is there not an elected board that governs dMw and officers of the community that work for it's best interests? Why as paid members do we not have visability of the running costs of the community? Is there a treasurer that prepares a budget that is submitted for approval to the community leaders? Is there a committee that meets on a regular basis to chart the way forward for the group? Do we have a vision? Direction?

If you're not happy with this community - play elsewhere. If you're not happy with paying the voluntary subscription - don't pay it. No-one will hold it against you. There has to be added value for members who subscribe but we have always emphasised that, in-game, there is no distinction made between those that do and those that don't. Quite simply, a bunch of committed people are doing their level best to provide the best gaming experience they can.

Quote from: Ninja_Freak;282811What I've seen over the last few years is continuance of the "old boys club" and failed attempts at this and then that without any direct input from the wider membership. I think this community and it's members would like to see something a little more radical than what has been proposed.

Why shouldn't we cater to a wider audience that perhaps join us for the "fun" first and then the serious second? Why can't we do both? Why can't the paid members decide?

This community could be so much more but time after time I see the same members being put forward for this and that and then six months later something different.

Where are we going as a community? Where do we want to be? Obviously "Professional" or "Mature" gamers but how is that defined?

Most of you know that I've been around for a while and I tend to challenge the norm and perhaps sing from a different hymn sheet than some (most?) of you but surely we can do better than this?

Look at the the contrasting responses from Delan, Ghosty, and Sulky. All are in support but each one of them says a different thing. Do we listen to the members? I've seen good suggestions come from the community several times and it all falls on deaf ears.

Why don't we have a Membership or PR Officer? Why don't we have a Games Committee? Why don't we have elected Officers that help chart the direction of the community?

We are constantly evolving. We explore and then try things. Some work - some don't. So we try something else. This latest announcement is the next 'something else'. But let me ask you something - what isn't working for you? Where are you being failed?

Quote from: Ninja_Freak;282811There's enough members that have significant enough experience in business to pull it off, or are you concerned about losing control?

This isn't a city corporation being run by highly paid professionals and we don't pretend to be. We are, however, committed to giving you, the members, the best gaming experience we possibly can without lowering the standards that make us what we are. That's not easy and I dare say some will think they could do it better but I can assure you that no-one is more committed to making sure that the ethos of this community is upheld than the people currently charged with doing so.