"The *only* reason we were doing it was to avoid the initial hit to our quickplay score. The intention isn't to trick players, though I can see how one may think that was the intention."
Yeah that's the problem right here, nobody believes it was your intention to do wrong, but you ARE hosting a 32 man server, and then trying to still score on the no-penalty quickplay traffic until you get more than 24 players. That's using the system to get more players into your server than you'd normally get otherwise - because they might think they are here for a good ol' 12 on 12 action. Not a 12 on 12 until more show up kind of game. On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Essay Tew Phaun <sc2p...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's pretty simple to me, let server owners know it's a violation of the > policy and most will remove it. I've removed it from all of the servers. > The *only* reason we were doing it was to avoid the initial hit to our > quickplay score. The intention isn't to trick players, though I can see how > one may think that was the intention. My problem is that the subject has > been brought up a few times and we've never gotten a direct answer on it > and by definition, it does not break the policy. The server is advertised > properly by the tag when the server goes beyond 24 players. We don't set > tags anywhere because we don't need to, when you enable/disable features > the server usually handles that for you. It seems really strange to me that > you would automatically delist a server like that without answering the > question about whether this is a violation or not and without making it so > when servers go above 24 players the tag is changed immediately. > > I don't like the idea that we're not breaking the rules the way they > currently exist yet we've had a server delisted. I don't like the idea that > we were never given a direct answer yet we had a server delisted. I also > see tons of servers right now running 32 players without the tag. It is > very very very bothersome that I've reported servers in the past who were > grossly breaking the policy of truth rules and it took them months to get > delisted, yet one of our servers is now breaking a rule that was never > clarified as breaking a rule? I have big problems with that, because I > would have not had a problem removing the dynamic slot changer had this > been expressed as a violation by Valve. The tag is changed when the player > counts rise but because it's not done immediately (Don't ask me why this > is) a lot of servers were blacklisted for those few moments where the tag > doesn't exist? > > I really believe this has to be a mistake, because there are a bunch of > servers right now as I type this that are breaking tag rules and are not > delisted. It's not enough that we have to work as a community as hard as we > do to keep our servers full on a daily basis with client crashes and server > crashes, now we've got a server delisted that really doesn't break any > rules. > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 2:51 PM, HyperionGaming.org Admin < > ad...@hyperiongaming.org> wrote: > > > Exactly. Valve never talked about the dynamicslots plugin as a violation > > before. If the plugin is now considered as "cheating" and can get servers > > blacklisted, then it's quite simple: don't use it. Right now, we still > > don't know if that's the reason his server was delisted. Hopefully, > someone > > from Valve will clear up the issue either here or privately. And if they > > do, please let us know the verdict. > > > > Question: If you start the server with 32 slots, use the dynamicslots > > plugin to show 24 slots until 20 players join, are you still getting the > 32 > > slots quickplay penalty while there are less than 20 players on the > server? > > If so, then I guess it's cheating the system, but I was under the > > impression that quickplay was based on max slots not visible slots. I > might > > be wrong. > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Todd Pettit <pettit.t...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I am starting to believe valve probably intentionally made the > > > _increasedmaxplayers not change with sv_visiblemaxplayers setting to > keep > > > us from "tricking" manipulating quickplay to send more players to a 32 > > > player server. My problem with that is valve never said anything about > it > > > or told people it considers the practice the dynamicslots plugin a > > > violation. Instead they choose to once again simply alienate and cost > > money > > > to dozens of admins. I say this without ever having been affected. I > just > > > think if valve had simply stated that the practice of changing the > > > sv_visiblemaxplayers mid-game or specifically stated it considers the > > > dynamicslots plugin a violation then this conversation would be moot. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "1nsane" <1nsane...@gmail.com> > > > To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" < > > > hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com> > > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:38:10 PM > > > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags > > > > > > Then you'd also have to keep the server always at 32 players or else > when > > > you use sv_visiblemaxplayers the tag can get removed. > > > > > > I see servers on the server list now at 32 players and no > > > increased_maxplayers tag set. This is odd. > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Gordon Reynolds < > > > thisisgordonsem...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > You should not be delisted, but you DO run a 32 man server, and > > advertise > > > > it as a 24 man server. You do correctly change the tags once you near > > 24, > > > > but it is false advertisement. If I'm looking for a vanilla 24 man > > > server, > > > > end up on your server, and then 10 minutes later I notice there are > 32 > > > > people, I'm going to be a little miffed. > > > > > > > > This isn't breaking the letter of the policy but it might be treading > > > along > > > > the "spirit" of it. Just keep the increased_maxplayers tag on at all > > > times, > > > > because you -are- running a 32 man server. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:59 AM, StevoTVR <stevo...@stevotvr.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > It does sound like a violation of the policy's intent. What is the > > > > > difference between a 32 slot server and one that allows people to > > join > > > > > until there are 32 players? I think people would expect the > displayed > > > > > player limit to stay the same during the session. The only reason I > > can > > > > > think of for why you do that is to make your server appear to be > > > > something > > > > > that it isn't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/18/2013 8:06 AM, Essay Tew Phaun wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> It doesn't violate it. Whether it's "ideal" to do so is another > > thing > > > > >> entirely. The tag is dependent upon sv_visiblemaxplayers which can > > be > > > > >> changed at any time. If you're going to have some automated system > > > going > > > > >> around delisting servers then you should at least make sure the > > > features > > > > >> enabled/disabled set the flags *immediately*. Other features set > > those > > > > >> flags immediately, such as bots. In my opinion, they should have > > > linked > > > > >> "increased_maxplayers" to maxplayers and not sv_visiblemaxplayers. > > > Then > > > > if > > > > >> you want to lower the visible players you can set > > sv_visiblemaxplayers > > > > to > > > > >> something lower than 32 and remove the increased_maxplayers tag. > It > > > > >> shouldn't work in the opposite way, especially if they're going to > > > > delist > > > > >> servers for it. > > > > >> > > > > >> TL;DR: It doesn't violate any policy the way it currently works. > > When > > > > >> sv_visiblemaxplayers is changed, the tag "increased_maxplayers" is > > > > added. > > > > >> The problem is that it isn't changed immediately and if my guess > is > > > > >> correct, their automated tag checker has delisted some servers > that > > > > didn't > > > > >> have this tag set at the time of the check. > > > > >> > > > > >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:34 AM, dan <needa...@ntlworld.com> > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> On 17/02/2013 21:32, Essay Tew Phaun wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The servers are all started as 32 player servers, > > > sv_visiblemaxplayers > > > > >>>> is > > > > >>>> set to 24 players. Once 23 players join the sv_visiblemaxplayers > > is > > > > set > > > > >>>> to > > > > >>>> 32 players. The tag "increased_maxplayers" is then applied. This > > > > isn't a > > > > >>>> violation of the tag rules, which is what it's showing we were > > > > delisted > > > > >>>> for. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Why do you change sv_visiblemaxplayers? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I think, without some overwhelming answer to the above question > > > > >>> what you do definitely violates increased_maxplayers. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> You have to think from the point of view of someone joining the > > > server > > > > >>> thinking it's a 24 slot server > > > > >>> or someone using the tags to filter out servers with > > > > >>> increased_maxplayers. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Even if strictly in the pedantic sense the tags are correct > before > > > and > > > > >>> after > > > > >>> you make the change, clearly in the intent of those tags you are > > > > breaking > > > > >>> the rules imo. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> -- > > > > >>> Dan. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> ______________________________****_________________ > > > > >>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list > > > archives, > > > > >>> please visit: > > > > >>> https://list.valvesoftware.****com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/*** > > > > >>> *hlds_linux<https://list.**valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/** > > > > >>> mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux< > > > > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux> > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> ______________________________**_________________ > > > > >> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list > > archives, > > > > >> please visit: > > > > >> https://list.valvesoftware. > > > **com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**hlds_linux< > > > > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > > > > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list > > archives, > > > > > please visit: > > > > > https://list.valvesoftware. > > > **com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**hlds_linux< > > > > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > - Gordon Reynolds > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list > archives, > > > > please visit: > > > > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > > > please visit: > > > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > > > please visit: > > > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > *Plasma* > > HyperionGaming.org Admin <http://www.hyperiongaming.org> > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > > please visit: > > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > -- - Gordon Reynolds _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
