The 'Public Server' debate

[OldBloke]

Could I ask you all to try and weed out the chaff from the debate thread as in it there are people making suggestions on how we could configure our servers to encourage more members. Please take the time to try to grasp what it is they're proposing as some are not particularly easy to understand  (I read one twice and will still need to read it again :blink:)

What will probably happen is that the thread will probably go off in all sorts of directions and die but we need to make sure that the good points are captured so that we can debate them properly here.

[Benny]

I'll make a start....

1. A free for all server

For all and sundry to come and play how they like. GG's, fragging, and we slowly get the guys that seem fun on comms and drag them over through advertising. To me this is dead in the water. Having a server full of idiots and then throwing up some ad's saying 'Sick of playing on this free server we provide - why not try our other server where it's nothing like this'

2. next idea here

[Benny]

I assume this is being done in thread elsewhere but at risk of starting another dead end thread in the middle of a random forum section, I'm going to spout my ramblings here.

The arguments appear to be about the changes and how left out everyone feels. Well at the point I say....aww...

It's then led into how we need more players and more servers and possibly more office space to go with our new shareholder business. I can't quite get my head around this so I'll put it in the way I see things.

Do we want to grow the community in terms of people?
If it's a cost of the quality of person we have at present I would say no.

Do we want a wider range of servers?
Possibly, we want to support more games, but we don't have the population to do it. More games require more people, more people is exclusively impacted by point 1.
If you/we want more servers and more players we need to look at how we go about doing that. You/we need to attract more players and that needs to be done by those wishing to expand their games or by those wishing to introduce more games.

Do we want to run this place like a business relying on those that really are invested to be accountable for every bell and whistle?
I would say unequivocally no.

This is all becoming a ****ing competition about a few people who aren't happy that they don't get to tell everyone how things should be done. I've made some fairly mild comments in a couple of the threads, maybe I wasn't blunt enough.

We want competitive teams and games -  Oh good, you've proven time and again that without the efforts of those behind the scenes you can't tie your own shoelaces let alone arrange a team to turn up once a week at a given time.

We want more games, more servers and more games, that's the problem - Great, what do you suggest?
How about this obscure mod, or this old game I play once a month, nobody else here plays it, but I think it will be great, can you admins and leaders sort it out for me?

I have kids at home, I have staff at work, I don't need to hold the hands of people who can't be arsed to put some effort in. Effort does not count as posting questions in a forum.


As with all of these conversations I find my self looking at TG and frankly they have grown and expanded. If that is what we want then we could do worse than follow them. An active front page, getting into beta trials and posting reviews of hardware and software, increasing our web presence and bringing people in that way. Opening up a public server, in my not so humble opinion is just giving people a free server to frag on. The dynamics of CS are not the same as every other game, it may have worked there (and credit where due WhiteOne) but it won't work for everything.

CoD annoys me intensely, I like the game and do enjoy it, but only with less than about 10 people on. Voice comms are dire* and it just becomes the same as playing anywhere else.  What is the point of playing with friends if there's no communication? I drop in and out and basically want it to be how it used to be. L4D is currently popular for exactly the opposite reason. It's still fun and it's still teamwork based. I take no credit for it.

This is coming across as a rant, but it's not meant as such. I don't think anyone who can read this is in any way contributory to the issues.

Seriously, go to TG, look at the front page, look at the reviews, in particular read the current first news item. Notice how it has grown from a forum into a large breathing website with multiple games and a huge number of gamers.

Don't get me wrong here. I like the status quo. I like Level 42 as well, but if we are going to change I will be up front helping. If we aren't and we like what we have - what's not to like - then I'll be at the back trying to support where I can. That decision, contrary to popular lynch mobs is not OB's and TL's. It comes as a result of those that are moaning doing something about it. Contributing. Fairly fecking obvious in my head.

Now my chest feels lighter.



*jump in and tell me how I should lead by example..

[TeaLeaf]

Benny, firstly my apologies for the lack of input from myself in this thread, but I have been sort of focused on other more public threads and was hoping other SHs would post here to help the discussion.  I have already made such a plea in another thread in the Game Admin section for all to see.

I think your post is great, it promotes discussion and I would love to see some others pluck up the courage to contribute please.  nobody is going to flame you, we all know each other, so let's start working together and contributing to how we take positive ideas form the public debates and move them into positive action for dMw's future success.

TL.

[Benny]

Firstly no apology required.

Secondly just to make one thing completely clear. I'm not advocating the masses take the control from either of you. Quite the opposite. I'm suggesting that those with gripes should 'get some players, test some maps, post some ideas', go to other forums. Do some background before expecting you two to do all of the work.

Personally, there's no place like home.

[Blunt]

Firstly let me too apologise for my lack of input so far.
As you've probably seen my post in the CS Admin section, I'm off on hols tomorrow for 10 days.
I can well imagine that some decisions will have been made before I come back, so I'm going to have my tuppence worth before I go.

Regarding CSS: Numbers have been steadily declining on the server for some months (since CoD4 became popular). Interest is sporadic but occasional good sessions do still happen (there is still some interest maybe).

Suggestions for a free for all public server have been made. The hope being that we can get a few of the better pubbies to migrate over to our Tactical servers. My questions/reservations are:
1. what dMw's are going to spend their precious gaming hours playing on a frag server trying to persuade people to come to the tactical server?
2. If they do persuade anyone, will there be enough players still interested to make the numbers for a decent game?
3. So many of us have expressed a definite aversion to a frag server, would anybody throw themselves behind the idea should it happen?

My idea is this: (and I don't know is it's even possible to configure...Whitey?)
A mixed style server offering several different gamestyles map by map.
For example- Dust2 played as Gun-game followed by say, Inferno deathmatch. Then another map in TCS, then an AWP map. then Deagle etc. etc.
We wouldn't do them all at once, but mix say 3 styles together each rotation, one being normal(TCS), and change the rotation regularly (say once a week or more frequently if we are requested.
Allow votemap so that favourite maps can be played without an admin having to be  there to change the map.
If people show promise or interest, do as we have always done, invite them to the TCS server/forum, add them to steam friends and invite them to the server when you join etc.

Well there you go, I'm off to pack now.
I'll see if anything else occurs to me as I sweat my way round Catalonia:)
Regards
Blunt

[Whitey]

My idea is this: (and I don't know is it's even possible to configure...Whitey?)
A mixed style server offering several different gamestyles map by map.
For example- Dust2 played as Gun-game followed by say, Inferno deathmatch. Then another map in TCS, then an AWP map. then Deagle etc. etc.

Thankfully it's not possible :flirty:

Gun game is a mod and would need to run on it's own server as does deathmatch.  Deagle maps could be added to the rotation for deagle only as could AWP maps.

I'd hate to see this happen but it's your call.

[Armitage]

Before I start to ramble. Benny may of had the best idea of his life. Our website is shocking, so bad I bet none of us every use it. We need to start a Website department with a SH and some guys to get updating content to make it a place worth visiting. we must have the skill here. Jamoe's name springs to mind.


Do we want to grow the community in terms of people?

I don't see we have a choice, We will get the twatts on our servers, but that's why we have Admins.


We want more games, more servers and more games, that's the problem?

Every new game reduces players from our older games. COD did it to CS, L4D did it to COD and I hope modern combat 2 gives cod a good push.

I've said this before, so last time. Active unlocked servers bring people to the community. Here's my problem with L4D, Unless you start letting the public join, all it is doing is reducing numbers on our other servers in turn makes them less active, making them less attractive to Joe publics.

Blunt before you try anything to radical , just unlock you server on a Friday night. I know some dMw people want get on, I know you will get the odd dick, But all you need to do is get a couple of people worth the dMw tag a month and I think it's got to worth a price worth paying.


We want competitive teams and games

we don't have the commitment, skill or desire to do this.


Do we want to run this place like a business relying on those that really are invested to be accountable for every bell and whistle?

I think as soon as people started paying there subscriptions  you made it a  NPO and with that come certain responsibilities. some people (not all) just think they disserve there voices herd. Personally I always thought of TL and OB as caretakers of the dMw Brand. Not owning dMw itself,  as it was the people on the servers and forum that was dMw not just a server in a rack somewhere in the UK.


I seem to have upset people with an attack in some of my posts. And I am sorry if I went too far and hope a beer at the next LAN will make it good.

I was TOLD about the plans a month or two ago as some one pointed. But being told was my problem. I have been a SH a long time and felt I disserved a bit more respect. But what's done is done.

I hope one good thing that  come out of this is a reminder of some of the less active members that they are needed on the server.

I'm now going back to my COD world,  But I hope you take some of my ideas on board

[Penfold]

I seem to have upset people with an attack in some of my posts. And I am sorry if I went too far and hope a beer at the next LAN will make it good.

I was TOLD about the plans a month or two ago as some one pointed. But being told was my problem. I have been a SH a long time and felt I disserved a bit more respect. But what's done is done.

Hi Pete,

It was more implying that you first heard about it when it was posted publically - when in fact it had been posted for two months in this sub forum which raised the hackles. All it did was fan the flames in a misleading fashion.....

Like I said in that post, knowing about something and agreeing to it are two different things and much as believe in collective responsibility and collective unity, I had to put it right as people were seizing upon it and using it as yet another kosh to bash OB & TL over the head with.

That's the reason why I broke cover and posted it (and in doing so broke one of my cardinal rules of not disagreeing with a fellow senior admin in public - that's what these private areas are for). It certainly wasn't personal

Onto other things:

The single most disturbing comment I've seen is:

Even I, as a sensitive soul, have thought several times, is it worth the effort to contribute when ones ideas are put down so sternly?

Not sure who or what he's referring to but it's not good to read.

[Benny]

Before I start to ramble. Benny may of had the best idea of his life.

I think I'm flattered.

Here's my problem with L4D, Unless you start letting the public join, all it is doing is reducing numbers on our other servers in turn makes them less active,

I'm not sure that quite makes sense to me. The opposite would be to open it up and have a load of people on the servers that would prevent people from the community who want to play it. So then we need more servers and L4D continues to 'steal' internal players. Sorry if I'm missing something here.


----------------------------


If CS is short of players it's not because COD or anything stole them, it's because tastes and trends change. L4D didn't 'take' the CoD players and I don't doubt once the next big thing comes the L4D servers will be the popular ones.

The problem, if indeed it is a problem, is that we don't have the critical mass of non-knobs to fill all of our servers.  

All of these threads have the same issue in my opinion. Everyone is coming up with solutions and no bugger has a clue what the problem is they are trying to  fix. What is it that is so wrong right now?

We want fuller servers? If so, let's get advertising and go hawking. All the internal bickering is doing nothing apart from up my typing speed. The web page is our shop window, and IFwe have a problem then I think that's where we start.

Define the problem and the solutions become easy. Personally I can't do the former.


(and whilst I'm at it...

Even I, as a sensitive soul, have thought several times, is it worth the effort to contribute when ones ideas are put down so sternly?

Bless. My 3 year old comes and asks for a cuddle when I tell him off. I'm not picking on Jabbs here, but for the love of scientology, it's a bloody forum on the internet with hundreds of members.....let's man up a little bit.

[Armitage]

I try and make the L4D point again.

I see our game servers having two jobs. First is to provide fun, well run games for the community. which we have.

Second is to bring new players to the community. If a game has only locked servers, I see this as a failure in the game or the way it's being run.

As I understand it, it is all most impossible to have a public L4D server. which means it's only moving players from our over public game servers, which might attract new players.

I also understand that we could not close down the L4D server with out major upset, but in the future we need to think if a game will add value to the community recruitment, not just how it plays.

[Benny]

I also understand that we could not close down the L4D server with out major upset, but in the future we need to think if a game will add value to the community recruitment, not just how it plays.

I think I get the point and I'm really not being awkward for the sake of it, but appreciate this back and forth will cost me a pint at the LAN.

Agree on the value thing, but if it's popular with our players, even with restricted servers then I think we should support it. You can't force people to play the bigger server, public games if they don't want to.

If we'd trialled L4D and it had been pulled I'd probably still be playing it elsewhere as I do enjoy it. That's really not as cut and dried as that but hey ho.

Onwards...I like the website piece, any other comments from others on that? We have some very good writers here, so let's use them and make the place welcoming. I'm happy to try but my skills aren't in writing.