Re: Please revise supporter kick for Squad Leaders

**Celestial1** · 10-04-2009, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by Dick Blonov

I can understand the OPs point, and it's probably something worth looking into. But frankly, 33¢ a day ? Deep pocket book ? Just look at the average gameplay time the kicked players have enjoyed when, and only when, a SM joins a full server. Give me a break.

While the fee itself isn't monumental, it still is a fee; it takes money from other aspects of someone's purchases/services that they regularly use.

Some people who play games aren't wealthy enough to enjoy the benefits of an extra $10 a month, because the money they could take it out of is left as 'emergency' money that is saved so that if the family needs money, they have it.

This obviously isn't the case for everyone, and it's not the case for me; but for some, it very well could be.
And, furthermore, it would be the same for me if I was still living off of my parent's money at this time, because my mother has just undergone a large string of surgeries in attempt to fix some of her long time health issues. My savings account is currently empty; it's all been pushed to my parents account temporarily so that if they need the money they have it, since they are currently across the United States, in California, recieving expensive medical treatment. There's no way in hell that you would ever find me putting Supporting Member over my Mother's health.

Regardless, the analogy stands; those who fork out money for the SM are rewarded simply for money, rather than for teamwork like those who actually lead squads and do good for the team.

**thegreatnardini** · 10-04-2009, 08:15 PM

If you can't afford it that's fine, this isn't about forcing people to donate. But if we don't get enough money to run the servers there won't be one. So obviously paying members get some perks. Here's a quote from Apophis in the SM forum:

Supporting member fees sit in a PayPal/Money market account and are used to pay for all the fees/licenses/etc for TG.

It costs close to $30,000 a year for our servers, in addition to that there are a few thousands a year in additional licenses, domain renewals, etc. From a back-end perspective, TG is run like an enterprise class business. Our main web and database servers are attached to network attached storage devices and have nightly backups. Things like the NAS array is an additional cost.

When the TG account gets a nice buffer, we often launch a couple new servers and try out new games. This is usually timed to the release of new titles. When BF2142 or Quake Wars comes out, we're not going to have an existing subscriber base to support those severs. So the "buffer" supports the initial roll-out cost of the server as well as the monthly co-location fees until the game either becomes self-supporting or we determine that the server won't pull its own weight and it's dropped.

TG leases physical machines, we do NOT buy $49/month 16 slot server rentals from other companies. We go direct to the datacenter and lease co-located machines. This isn't cheap, not by a long shot, but it provides us greater stability and flexibility.

So while we may generate allot of money through the PR player base there aren't allot of (if any) excess funds. This was from 3 years ago, imagine how much TG has grown since then and multiply that number...

**Dick Blonov** · 10-04-2009, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by Celestial1

Regardless, the analogy stands; those who fork out money for the SM are rewarded simply for money, rather than for teamwork like those who actually lead squads and do good for the team.

Read my post again. I agree with the OP. Just try not to insult people that pay for your playtime here.

DB

**Rudd_medicman** · 10-04-2009, 09:01 PM

Please just turn it off for password nights, everyone has to get the password from the forums anyway, seeing tanks empty because their crews were disconnected pisses me off mightily. I started paying because I thought, great server and I'd like to get on it when I want, but after a while of not getting kicked, you start seeing how much teh kicking interferes with the teamwork.

There are other methods.

**Havok** · 10-04-2009, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Rudd_medicman

There are other methods.

Such as? You can't expand the server, and you can't make a person not fill a public slot. So the only method I see is kick those who do not pay and have been on the longest and had their fair share of playing. If you know of a solution to the problem then tell the admins so they can change things. But imo its fine as is, why should SMs have to wait to get in when they're paying for a slot?

**thegreatnardini** · 10-04-2009, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by Rudd_medicman

Please just turn it off for password nights, everyone has to get the password from the forums anyway, seeing tanks empty because their crews were disconnected pisses me off mightily. I started paying because I thought, great server and I'd like to get on it when I want, but after a while of not getting kicked, you start seeing how much teh kicking interferes with the teamwork.

There are other methods.

That may be a possibility, but only a few people have access to that (i.e Disposable and Mantis) so it's improbable we can get that to happen.

**Skud** · 10-04-2009, 09:30 PM

Rudd, that is an excellent idea.

**snooggums** · 10-04-2009, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by fuzzhead

I think the team stack issues on the server are mostly due to SM kick from what I can tell. When one team gets all their decent squad leaders kicked, and they try to get back in but the server is full. And the new supporting members that are the ones kicking people and joining the server, they're very likely to switch to the team their friends are on (ie the WINNING team now that all the good players got kicked)

Actually the teamstacking issue is completely different and has more to do with too many people wanting to play with friends at the same time. Although your theory has merit, I have witnessed an entire 'stacked' team simply follow to the opposite team over the course of a couple map changes because people want to play with the side with the 'most' whether that is people on teamspeak, mumble or tags/regulars. Otherwise all the new supporting members would be more likely to show up on the losing side if that is the one with more non-supporting members as the odds are higher that a spot will be open on that side.

I do understand the want for keeping people who play the way it should be played in, but if we simply kicked the initially bad players the first time they weren't as good as the regulars then we would never get any new players and we would still be seen as elitist (then we would be the server that only has paying members, Devs and players who already know what they are doing). We want the new/non-teamwork oriented players to get a chance to see how to do it right and allow everyone the chance to play as long as possible, which is why the longest player gets kicked instead of the shortest/lowest score as I see on a lot of other servers. The only reason that the SM kick is so noticeable is that there are so many supporting members who all join about the same time, and to be honest, most of them don't support just for the slot.

Originally Posted by Rudd_medicman

Please just turn it off for password nights, everyone has to get the password from the forums anyway, seeing tanks empty because their crews were disconnected pisses me off mightily. I started paying because I thought, great server and I'd like to get on it when I want, but after a while of not getting kicked, you start seeing how much teh kicking interferes with the teamwork.

There are other methods.

I see your idea and counter it with a question. Why shouldn't a supporting member who is not available at the beginning of the password night not be able to join that particular night?

Maybe a limit to the number of active SMs before a kick is allowed would work better, ie if there are at least 31 supporting members in game the 32nd SM attempting to join would not cause the SM kick to initiate. That would allow a large number of SMs to play but allow a large public population that would not get kicked.

**kilevvri1** · 10-04-2009, 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by fuzzhead

I think this system was okay 3 years ago, when TG PR was just starting out and there was probably legitimate concern on the financial viability of a PR server. But I think now that PR is so successful, you got alot more supporting members than required to meet the minimum required to run the server.

No offense I don't know you guy, but do you know how insulting and narrow minded this statement is?

TG has been built first and foremost as a community, SM or not. The system was in place way before PR ever dropped. I hope it will be in place for a very long time, as that will mean that the bills are being paid and people can come here learn how to play with maturity and teamwork of extraordinary levels.

If they don't feel like being kicked off the server well become an SM if you can't afford it, well we all feel the pain I for one couldn't at one point. But I was on every night playing with great guys, that taught you how to play better. When I got kicked I tried to get back on if not well, 'thems the breaks'.

TG is great, don't knock it because you are so selfish you can only think about your playtime and not the playtime of the community as a whole.

SM's pay the bills we all receive the thrills!

Nuff Said

**A_Grounded_Pilot** · 10-04-2009, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by thegreatnardini

And Grounded, that kick message is hard-coded, there is no way to change it. We have some great developers in the community that have worked on these scripts for us, it's not a matter of not being able to do it, but rather that we have decided not to.

Understood. I guess I thought your (the admins') hands were a little more tied than they actually are.

Originally Posted by thegreatnardini

The CO does not get kicked for SM, no matter how long they've been playing.

I learn something new every day. Thank you for enlightening me.

kilevvri1, take a look at Realitymod.com. dbzao and fuzzhead are lead PR developers, and are both very well respected by many in our community.

**Ferris Bueller** · 10-04-2009, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by Celestial1

Regardless, the analogy stands; those who fork out money for the SM are rewarded simply for money, rather than for teamwork like those who actually lead squads and do good for the team.

See, this is the part that interests me. Its the absolute truth. But its truth, as nardini pointed out (as have several others), has merit. Yes, people who pay SM fees are rewarded with the ability to join any of TG's servers at any time. Did anyone take not of the astronomical amount of money that is required to keep TG going? Upwards of $30,000 as of three years ago. Just to give you a little insight, TG was probably hosting half the titles full-time that it does now. Three years ago, TG had a little over 8,000 registered users on the forums. We now have a substantially larger number of titles. We now have over 30,000 registered users. So if you dont think that the costs have increased, you're deluding yourself.

As many people have stated before, paying SM has its perks. But paying SM doesnt guarantee your money goes to any one game. Sure, PR may be the only title you play at TG, but your money DOES NOT necessarily go to the PR server. It goes everywhere. All of the SM money is lumped together and used as needed to support the entirety of the community. This isnt something thats up for debate nor is it something that is going to change. Thats an issue that has been brought up many times in the past too. In reciprocation for the global monetary support, every SM has been granted global benefits. Chances are, this isnt something thats going to change either.

So on that basis, I'll restate my point again: regardless of their intentions, every paying SM is supporting the community. Now, if some SMs arent team players or dont contribute to the health of the servers they play on, our admin staff has tools to fix that, i.e. the banhammer. Hell, I originally got my SM for the same reason as a lot of other people, just for the reserved slot. But as the years I've been with the community have gone on, I've found other ways to support the community than money. However, I do understand the burden of cost and the reward in relation to helping reduce that large sum. As a consequence, I know that should my SM run out, I'll lose some of the perks I have now. Its a justifiable and reasonable tradeoff. Furthermore, the idea of supporting the community through teamwork and contribution are intangible, non-quantifiable concepts that cant be realistically integrated into any kick-system. Just because someone takes SL for 3 people has no bearing on their measure of teamplay, as disposable pointed out in his example. Just because someone has 5000 points for their team doesnt mean that they're necessarily a contributor to the community. SM money is hard fact. Either you give or you dont.

Any system can be abused. The system we have in place has the least amount of loopholes for people to exploit. If some smart cookie can come up with a blended system that utilizes the suggestion here, while still maintaining the priveleges that SMs have to join the server at-will, I'm sure it could and would be tried out.

**kilevvri1** · 10-04-2009, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by A_Grounded_Pilot

kilevvri1, take a look at Realitymod.com. dbzao and fuzzhead are lead PR developers, and are both EXTREMELY well respected by many in our community.

I think learning that now actually makes me more inflamed by his statement then, that is just my own personal opinion. Seeing as he is a PR Dev, and the TG PR server last time I remember hearing was the #1 PR server in the world, well someone has to be doing something right.

Now get me I do not play PR,never got into it but I respect the talent and the level of maturity and co-operation needed to design and to play it. Being a Dev, does not give anyone carte blanche to just insult the community as a whole, for a process that has kept many enjoying good camaraderie and gaming. I don't know the figures but I suspect a lot of whom are non-SM'.

I am sorry if I was ignorant as to his status as a PR Dev but it is no reprieve from what I consider an insulting rant. Not just to TG SM's but the community as a whole and if mine has turned into one too, please forgive me.

**Googol** · 10-04-2009, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by fuzzhead

The only reason I've not bought a Supporting Membership at TG is because I think this system is totally disgusting and goes against teamwork and an open community. If this system was dropped or changed I would get a supporting membership right away, but I DO NOT support a system like this and refuse to pay money to get a "spot" on the server.

How does it go against teamwork and an open community? It certainly goes for an open community because it allows everyone who is new or doesn't pay equal exposure to the server. If anything the script is very fair and welcoming. Then you say, 'well, if that's what it's about, just remove the script to give everyone equal play time'. Well, ask yourself, why is TG such a popular server? Because it's the veteran Supporting Members who have easy access that provide leadership, teamwork, and tactics. As stated before, it's not that expensive and I find it kind of silly that you are refusing to fix your problems.

**Celestial1** · 10-04-2009, 11:33 PM

Originally Posted by Dick Blonov

Read my post again. I agree with the OP. Just try not to insult people that pay for your playtime here.

I realize that, but like I said the analogy stands for it's purpose, and you had disagreed with the analogy (perhaps because of the wording), and I put out why it makes sense.

I have and will again be a Supporting Member of TG. Only reason I don't have it set right now is because I'm just getting settled in into college and a new area, and have to acquire the internet funds to link to paypal and etc.

Originally Posted by snooggums

Actually the teamstacking issue is completely different and has more to do with too many people wanting to play with friends at the same time. Although your theory has merit, I have witnessed an entire 'stacked' team simply follow to the opposite team over the course of a couple map changes because people want to play with the side with the 'most' whether that is people on teamspeak, mumble or tags/regulars. Otherwise all the new supporting members would be more likely to show up on the losing side if that is the one with more non-supporting members as the odds are higher that a spot will be open on that side.

The teamstacking issue is not completely different; it's a different issue, yes, but SM contributes to it.

Hypothetically, let's say we have what would be 'stacked' teams. All TG on one side, most/all with SM. Other side is all regulars/pubbies without SM.

An SM that joins the server kicks someone (from the Reg/Pub team). Sees friends on other side, or sees that more people on the other team are on TS/Mumble/etc. and so he switches (you can switch when teams are even. So, if he kicked 1 person and replaced him, he can swap even if the teams are 31-31).

SM contributes or can contribute to 'stacked' teams, in this manner. (I'm not trying to start a stacked teams debate, I'm just trying to justify Fuzz's remark)

Maybe a limit to the number of active SMs before a kick is allowed would work better, ie if there are at least 31 supporting members in game the 32nd SM attempting to join would not cause the SM kick to initiate. That would allow a large number of SMs to play but allow a large public population that would not get kicked.

It still doesn't really affect anyone but the ones who are kicked in the first place; if there are 30 SMs in a game of Kashan 64, and then one SM joins and kicks the A-10 in the middle of an attack run and it ends up landing on and killing a friendly squad-it happens. It still doesn't really fix the issue of people being kicked when they are doing an 'important' job for the team.

Any system can be abused. The system we have in place has the least amount of loopholes for people to exploit. If some smart cookie can come up with a blended system that utilizes the suggestion here, while still maintaining the priveleges that SMs have to join the server at-will, I'm sure it could and would be tried out.

Less loopholes doesn't necessarily mean a better system, however. (That is not to say that it isn't a good enough system, or that there is definitely a better solution.)

A system with less loopholes may not have nearly as much contextual benefits, and a system with many contextual benefits may have lots of loopholes.

Preferably, I think the biggest thing that could use changing is giving the script a non-destructive hierarchy of player statuses.

1) Supporting Member - Cannot be kicked ever
2) CO - Cannot be kicked ever
3) Infantry SLs - ?
4) Alive players - 2nd in line to be kicked
5) Dead players - 1st in line to be kicked

If an SM joins the server at 62 players, the server would:
1) Check for dead players. If none, skip to step 2
2) Check for longest playing of those players (always excluding CO/Supp Members).
3) Check for Leadership status? (if available, kick lowest on totem pole of command, would be good especially if a dead player is being kicked; a dead squadmember would be better kicked than a dead squadleader, perhaps)
4) Kick player.

Don't know if it's possible, and am not considering any ramifications of this system, so don't yell at me about it. I'm just giving what I think would be the best way to do it without getting too far indepth.

**asch** · 10-04-2009, 11:51 PM

Folks, let's calm down here and have a constructive mature discussion.... (more to come).

Thread Tools

Display