Re: TGNS Server Two

**Agamemnon** · 01-14-2007, 03:15 PM

As an SM, I would also like regs to still be able to gb ?'s. I'm usually not comfortable gbing someone on the other team, as I'm not in a position to see what's going on. In the past, when asked to kick a player on the other team my response has always been to remind people of the gb command. With SMs spread thin over two servers, this results in less regulation of which ?'s are sticking around during non-peak hours, which consequently lowers the quality of gameplay witnessed by the good ?'s. Unless we actually feel that people we want around were being gb'ed, I don't see anything postive about this change to make up for the reduced quality of gameplay.

**Kerostasis** · 01-14-2007, 07:08 PM

Shot in the dark: GB command for registered members is only available when there are no SMs? Similar to the way SMs can only access admin commands when there are no admins. Maybe even borrowing the same function that makes sure there is at least one tempadmin on each team, to answer Agamemnon's question above my making sure theres someone with access to GB on each team.

I can't speak myself for how necessary this is, since for some strange reason I never seem to join the server when there are no SMs.

Go figure.

**Yer Mom** · 01-14-2007, 09:04 PM

I concur. GB is a must have.

-Mom

**blu.knight** · 01-14-2007, 10:14 PM

I agree with Ag, but I disagree with you Kero.

As an SM, I still want regs to be able to use gb. I think this should be on wether or not an SM is present. There are many SMs that do not ever use admin functions. This is why I disagree with you Kero, if an SM is not policing someone on the server needs to. You can count on the actual admins to do so, but you can't count on SMs.

Allowing the community to police itself is good though. I know that before I was an SM I used the gb command quite a bit and I also know I was thanked by some SMs because they didn't feel like doing it themselves.

Also, PMing an admin is not an acceptable answer. A game of NS is not long. The problem that gb solves is unfavorable unregistered players. PMing an admin just takes too long, and in the meantime several games can be ruined by one douche of a player. This may seem like a bit of an overstatement, but one person really can suck all the fun out of it for one, if not both, team(s).

**Ferris Bueller** · 01-14-2007, 11:14 PM

Another issue, I know we have a few admins who play a lot and some that dont play as much due to time constraints, but I rarely see more than one full-fledged admin on the server at any given time. How is this going to work with two servers?

Between the time constraints from peoples outside lives, setting up both servers to run how we want them (which is a process that we know takes a couple weeks of tweaking) and other miscellaneous hoopla, I dont see there being a strong enough full admin (not SM's) presence between the servers with as many people as we have on the job now. Dont get me wrong, you guys do a hell of a job, but I am also keenly aware that you have lives and other stuff to do and certainly cant be 3 places at once.

Also, I agree with trying to find a solution to allowing regs who have met some kind of credential (i.e. the senior admin staff trusts them perhaps and assigns priveleges by steamid?) to use the GB command. I've noticed about a 250% increase in server population the last couple days and its only going to get bigger once word REALLY spreads that we have 2 servers now.

**Yer Mom** · 01-15-2007, 12:36 AM

I like the idea Ferris has thrown in the loop. Adding the GB command to players by use of steamID is a pretty good idea. It's all about trusting each other to police the server the correct way.

Either way it goes, the player base for TG during the day is about 6 ?'s on each team, and maybe 2 reg's. This is during prime time daytime when there are no reg's around and no SM's. Those two reg's are going to have very interesting games until a reg gets on to gb whoever is causing problems. If we remove the reg's ability to gb people, then we have to wait just that much longer to get rid of troublesome players.

I agree that the SM's and Admin do an amazing job already, but to be honest, I don't think you can handle it all at once. You can police the servers at night when the reg's fill the server, but the daytime game is still going to be horrible because of no one being able to remove troublesome players.

-Mom

**blu.knight** · 01-15-2007, 02:15 PM

I really don't understand why we removed points. It seemed to have done such a great job of giving us a high quality server.

If it's not broken don't fix it?

**ImAWuss** · 01-15-2007, 03:43 PM

Points were an extra perk to add some kind of special abilities for non-sm's. Personaly, I don't see a requirement for it.

IMHO, anyone that's registered and agreed to the terms of the primer should still have access to the gb command. This command has been shown to be invaluable. I've used it several times, and received thanks every time.

**blu.knight** · 01-15-2007, 04:02 PM

The only two reasons I saw for points were to populate the server with regulars more quickly (By allowing us to kick out the ?'s), and to make sure that it is only the people that understand the rules who get gb access. Those that just went and signed the primer I'm not sure should be able to use the gb command. The rest of the "points" abilities were just perks... But then again, the ability to use points to add bots helped fill the server faster normally.
It seems like those three point things served a purpose to increase the quality of "life" on the server.

I know I've heard Wyz talk about the slot kicking too. It seemed his opinion was that without the non-paying SMs the SMs don't have fun, so the ability for the regs kick ?'s was neccessary for an enjoyable experience and to keep the SMs coming back and paying.

**Sirusblk** · 01-15-2007, 04:03 PM

I recognize both arguments and I'm not saying I'm for either but I'm all for a middle ground. Maybe a probationary period should be given to non-sms. Maybe they have to be active and registered for a while before given the gb command.

I like the point system, even if they have to run independently on each server. It figures right before the point system is gone I spend my points for a tagline and it doesn't work :/ I liked it because it's sorta like an in game achievement. I think the point system promoted server traffic like no other and I'd love to see it transition to other games, say Dystopia since the server could use the traffic

-Sirusblk

**Ferris Bueller** · 01-15-2007, 05:30 PM

Heres the problem with a time-based system:
server malfunctions.
Be realistic guys, we all know computers. They crap out and die, they crash, they mysteriously lose data. It happens. If we were to implement a time-based system for regs to use gb, any one of these and other problems could throw that system out of whack and all of a sudden we're back to square one where no regs have gb access until some bright lad like wyz, poker or korm gets into the mechanics and fixes the time-slotting.

the nice thing about my suggestion with the steamid based system is it gives the admin staff complete oversight on who does and does not get access, as well as the ability to create a static list of people who have access that can be backed up to any number of locations for "instant" fixing if need be.

end of story is this: we need the ability for regulars and trusted folks to police the server. as stated above, i know how busy peoples lives get, and yet we seem to be running a top-notch shop around here without much problem (many thanks to the guys who make it happen, you know who you are, and we all recognize the superhuman effort it takes to do so). however, with two servers, thats twice the effort that has to be put forth by what now appears to be 1/3 or less the people who had the ability to help out previously. it might not be bad now, but we've all seen how things can spiral out of control quickly and none of us wants to see it happen.

i'd really like to see some feedback from the big dogs about the ideas that have been put on the table so that those of us churning them out can have a direction to steer for or simply stop chasing our tails if such is the case.
/rant.

**Yer Mom** · 01-16-2007, 05:31 PM

Spiraling out of control. It's happening already. I played a game the day before yesterday where we could not get rid of people who weren't responding, or being vulgar, or disturbing game play. In the end, a SM did come in and start playing, but then he had no idea who had been doing what for how long, and it all got disturbingly confusing.

Ferris is right, you guys have double the work for half the manpower. There needs to be a happy medium. The reason I liked the point system so much was because it decided who had kicking rights according to how long they had been playing. I think we need to implement a system like this again, if not the same system.

I would even go so far as to say enabling votekicking would be better than no way to kick people at all, but then if you have one or two regulars on and the rest of the server is ?'s it's going to be hard for the regulars to get a votekick to go through.

The answer? Who knows. I liked the point system myself, it seemed to help populate the server, and to also help keep the server clean.

-Mom

**Pokerface** · 01-16-2007, 05:38 PM

Again, I will say, to my knowledge, not one admin has received notification of anyone doing anything untoward on the server.

I see the complaints in here, vague yet exuberant, but no one has actually come to the people who can help the situation in the manner required.

Originally Posted by Me, Page One

Just because you (the non-SM regular) don't have immediate on-server administrative ability at your disposal doesn't mean that you're hamstrung, nor does it mean that a player who ruins a game one night needs to come back in future nights. PM an admin. Name names, name maps, name times.

**kormendi** · 01-16-2007, 05:41 PM

If I'm home, you can get me (or any of the 11 other admins) on AIM, email, forum PM, or IRC. I'm 5 feet from my computer 99% of the time when I am home, so I'll respond in short order.

I know it sucks to leave the game to report players, but it's a solution.

**Yer Mom** · 01-16-2007, 09:06 PM

I hate to be the outsider, but you probably won't see me reporting anyone. I'll do it if the disturbance is outrageous, but in most cases I won't report people.

The only thing I see reporting people doing is getting rid of possible future players. I was once the "**** you, you sack of **** nub cake ****tard", and the reason I changed was TG. These people are never going to learn from just being banned due to a forum PM or an email. So, that eliminates two of the forms of server control, in my opinion, leaving us only with AIM or Xfire (or any IM). Then we have to debate who is on when.

The easier solution I see is to just re-enable the gb command, tbh. You're right that it is a solution, but our goal is to gain more possible SM's and more regs without disturbing the normal game play, correct? I think the gb command did just that. It let the regs police the server and decide who was worthy of becoming a reg. Not to say that you have to be a reg before you become an SM, but rather we'd rather have people be regs before they even consider paying us to become SM's, otherwise they're not going to appreciate TG for what it is, imho.

-Mom

Thread Tools

Display