[hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support
Following the announcement last night that there will be no server browser for the highly anticipated Left 4 Dead, we have been thinking long and hard about the impact this has on the hosting of the game. With no server browser how are people supposed to join a server they have rented? Will there at least be a direct to join IP feature? Without these there is no incentive for either the purchase of servers by customers or the provision of free-to-play publics by gaming communities, as people have no choice over what server they join. This kills the rental, hosting and community market for the game outright. Do Valve really intend to host all the servers themselves for the game or has the importance of these features and their impact been overlooked? As it stands right now we (Multiplay) see no benefit in supporting this game at all and unless this situation changes we do not intend to host any servers for it. We hope other GSP's will support us in this action. The MOTD ad block is of minor significance in comparison to the building a community around servers. This is the start of a slippery slope which once started down it will be hard to turn back. The community goodwill and hard work must not be taken for granted and pushed too far. Valve's success is in no small part due to the widespread availability of servers for it's games, the majority of which are funded and run by the community at large. To take away the community's ability to continue to run servers that they can build solid regular player bases around, will simply destroy the communities around the game and also significantly dent faith and goodwill in Valve as a company. While we wish Valve success with this game; their decision leaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removal of direct join options from any game. Regards Steve This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
Re: [hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support
While I agree that these concerns are valid and of importance (to GSPs, rental customers and players alike); I think it it's also important we see how the entire system plays out in the context of the game before condemning it too quickly. As a player, I would prefer to be able to indicate a preference for a server to play on (such as one ran by my ISP) as opposed to being placed on someone else's server. As I know the servers provided by my ISP are of high quality and that they allow me to play on them without incurring bandwidth charges (if I were to exceed my internet usage quota), I would prefer to be using their servers as opposed to anyone else's. This also allows me to control my gaming experience by knowing that I won't be suffering any lag, or if there are problems, I can get them fixed. I totally agree with your points about communities being formed around servers (I only ever have the desire to play on game servers provided by my ISP, regardless of game), I look for people I know there, and know that when a new game comes out, my ISP can have a few servers up and I know my gaming experience will be lag and issue free (assuming the players are good, of course :)). Hopefully though as Eric pointed out in his initial e-mail, Valve will be taking feedback on board from the server community as this is a new avenue for them (and everyone else?) in how multiplayer games will be formed, and these sorts of issues should definitely be addressed in a reasonable manner. I think it is important to consider for a moment that Valve won't have done anything with the intention of destroying server rentals or gaming communities (GSPs included), but rather decided this may a better way to get a game going and a faster way to play with friends. Recalling for a moment the Custom server tab drama, I think that could have been handled a bit better by both parties. Valve went pretty quiet about the issue after it was introduced, but that probably wasn't helped by the drilling they immediately took from quite a lot of people - communication should have been a bit more constructive and open in this regard. Hopefully both parties can work through any big issues regarding the new Left 4 Dead matchmaking system to both keep any new cool features the Valve team have in place for Left 4 Dead, but also respond to important issues concerning GSPs, the communities that surround them, and the fact a lot of gamers like to buy/rent servers in order to call a place as home (for clan matches, practice play, etc). I personally think Valve is one of only a few game companies that interact with their customers and do listen to their feedback, while still taking initiative in trying new things such as the new matchmaking system - a constructive discussion about any issues that arise from this system I think would be beneficial for both sides. Cheers, Andrew -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Hartland Sent: Thursday, 6 November 2008 10:40 PM To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: [hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support Following the announcement last night that there will be no server browser for the highly anticipated Left 4 Dead, we have been thinking long and hard about the impact this has on the hosting of the game. With no server browser how are people supposed to join a server they have rented? Will there at least be a direct to join IP feature? Without these there is no incentive for either the purchase of servers by customers or the provision of free-to-play publics by gaming communities, as people have no choice over what server they join. This kills the rental, hosting and community market for the game outright. Do Valve really intend to host all the servers themselves for the game or has the importance of these features and their impact been overlooked? As it stands right now we (Multiplay) see no benefit in supporting this game at all and unless this situation changes we do not intend to host any servers for it. We hope other GSP's will support us in this action. The MOTD ad block is of minor significance in comparison to the building a community around servers. This is the start of a slippery slope which once started down it will be hard to turn back. The community goodwill and hard work must not be taken for granted and pushed too far. Valve's success is in no small part due to the widespread availability of servers for it's games, the majority of which are funded and run by the community at large. To take away the community's ability to continue to run servers that they can build solid regular player bases around, will simply destroy the communities around the game and also significantly dent faith and goodwill in Valve as a company. While we wish Valve success with this game; their decision leaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removal of direct join
Re: [hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support
I totally agree. But I'll also express my community's concern. We run 13 HL2 based servers and wanted to add a few l4d servers to our cluster, but I hardly see the point if the community has any issue whatsoever playing on them with ease. I really hope there's a way to bookmark servers you like. On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:23 AM, Andrew Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: While I agree that these concerns are valid and of importance (to GSPs, rental customers and players alike); I think it it's also important we see how the entire system plays out in the context of the game before condemning it too quickly. As a player, I would prefer to be able to indicate a preference for a server to play on (such as one ran by my ISP) as opposed to being placed on someone else's server. As I know the servers provided by my ISP are of high quality and that they allow me to play on them without incurring bandwidth charges (if I were to exceed my internet usage quota), I would prefer to be using their servers as opposed to anyone else's. This also allows me to control my gaming experience by knowing that I won't be suffering any lag, or if there are problems, I can get them fixed. I totally agree with your points about communities being formed around servers (I only ever have the desire to play on game servers provided by my ISP, regardless of game), I look for people I know there, and know that when a new game comes out, my ISP can have a few servers up and I know my gaming experience will be lag and issue free (assuming the players are good, of course :)). Hopefully though as Eric pointed out in his initial e-mail, Valve will be taking feedback on board from the server community as this is a new avenue for them (and everyone else?) in how multiplayer games will be formed, and these sorts of issues should definitely be addressed in a reasonable manner. I think it is important to consider for a moment that Valve won't have done anything with the intention of destroying server rentals or gaming communities (GSPs included), but rather decided this may a better way to get a game going and a faster way to play with friends. Recalling for a moment the Custom server tab drama, I think that could have been handled a bit better by both parties. Valve went pretty quiet about the issue after it was introduced, but that probably wasn't helped by the drilling they immediately took from quite a lot of people - communication should have been a bit more constructive and open in this regard. Hopefully both parties can work through any big issues regarding the new Left 4 Dead matchmaking system to both keep any new cool features the Valve team have in place for Left 4 Dead, but also respond to important issues concerning GSPs, the communities that surround them, and the fact a lot of gamers like to buy/rent servers in order to call a place as home (for clan matches, practice play, etc). I personally think Valve is one of only a few game companies that interact with their customers and do listen to their feedback, while still taking initiative in trying new things such as the new matchmaking system - a constructive discussion about any issues that arise from this system I think would be beneficial for both sides. Cheers, Andrew -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Hartland Sent: Thursday, 6 November 2008 10:40 PM To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: [hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support Following the announcement last night that there will be no server browser for the highly anticipated Left 4 Dead, we have been thinking long and hard about the impact this has on the hosting of the game. With no server browser how are people supposed to join a server they have rented? Will there at least be a direct to join IP feature? Without these there is no incentive for either the purchase of servers by customers or the provision of free-to-play publics by gaming communities, as people have no choice over what server they join. This kills the rental, hosting and community market for the game outright. Do Valve really intend to host all the servers themselves for the game or has the importance of these features and their impact been overlooked? As it stands right now we (Multiplay) see no benefit in supporting this game at all and unless this situation changes we do not intend to host any servers for it. We hope other GSP's will support us in this action. The MOTD ad block is of minor significance in comparison to the building a community around servers. This is the start of a slippery slope which once started down it will be hard to turn back. The community goodwill and hard work must not be taken for granted and pushed too far. Valve's success is in no small part due to the widespread availability of servers for it's games, the majority of which are funded and run
Re: [hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support
While we wish Valve success with this game; their decision leaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removal of direct join options from any game. You think that is good company practice to make decisions like this based on one email? I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? 2008/11/6 Steven Hartland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Following the announcement last night that there will be no server browser for the highly anticipated Left 4 Dead, we have been thinking long and hard about the impact this has on the hosting of the game. With no server browser how are people supposed to join a server they have rented? Will there at least be a direct to join IP feature? Without these there is no incentive for either the purchase of servers by customers or the provision of free-to-play publics by gaming communities, as people have no choice over what server they join. This kills the rental, hosting and community market for the game outright. Do Valve really intend to host all the servers themselves for the game or has the importance of these features and their impact been overlooked? As it stands right now we (Multiplay) see no benefit in supporting this game at all and unless this situation changes we do not intend to host any servers for it. We hope other GSP's will support us in this action. The MOTD ad block is of minor significance in comparison to the building a community around servers. This is the start of a slippery slope which once started down it will be hard to turn back. The community goodwill and hard work must not be taken for granted and pushed too far. Valve's success is in no small part due to the widespread availability of servers for it's games, the majority of which are funded and run by the community at large. To take away the community's ability to continue to run servers that they can build solid regular player bases around, will simply destroy the communities around the game and also significantly dent faith and goodwill in Valve as a company. While we wish Valve success with this game; their decision leaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removal of direct join options from any game. Regards Steve This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
Re: [hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support
Olly, Valve have posted the info to this to the list SPECIFICALLY. It is a huge change to the way the game works... We can only go on the info that has been given and that is that there will be no server browser. The new system that has been described means I doubt clans will bother to host servers because the chances of EVER getting to play on a server they are paying for is next to minimal!! As to I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? - the earlier people start to explain that this is a BAD move (or rather start to raise concerns) to Valve the sooner they can look into fixing it. Should we wait another day or so when there might be no chance of fixing things for the full release. We are raising concerns with an announcement THEY made - now it is surely (fairly) Valve's turn to respond to our concerns - either by saying yes that's how it is.. or explaining where we are misinterpreting things. Why else would thay have posted it?? The way I see it this will easily kill the PC version of the game: no one will really want to host servers they never play on... so there will be no servers. joy! Thomas Morton ++ No problem should ever have to be solved twice ++ 2008/11/6 Olly [EMAIL PROTECTED] While we wish Valve success with this game; their decision leaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removal of direct join options from any game. You think that is good company practice to make decisions like this based on one email? I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? 2008/11/6 Steven Hartland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Following the announcement last night that there will be no server browser for the highly anticipated Left 4 Dead, we have been thinking long and hard about the impact this has on the hosting of the game. With no server browser how are people supposed to join a server they have rented? Will there at least be a direct to join IP feature? Without these there is no incentive for either the purchase of servers by customers or the provision of free-to-play publics by gaming communities, as people have no choice over what server they join. This kills the rental, hosting and community market for the game outright. Do Valve really intend to host all the servers themselves for the game or has the importance of these features and their impact been overlooked? As it stands right now we (Multiplay) see no benefit in supporting this game at all and unless this situation changes we do not intend to host any servers for it. We hope other GSP's will support us in this action. The MOTD ad block is of minor significance in comparison to the building a community around servers. This is the start of a slippery slope which once started down it will be hard to turn back. The community goodwill and hard work must not be taken for granted and pushed too far. Valve's success is in no small part due to the widespread availability of servers for it's games, the majority of which are funded and run by the community at large. To take away the community's ability to continue to run servers that they can build solid regular player bases around, will simply destroy the communities around the game and also significantly dent faith and goodwill in Valve as a company. While we wish Valve success with this game; their decision leaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removal of direct join options from any game. Regards Steve This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
Re: [hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support
And to those who are expressing concerns, I have no beef with them. It's those who are saying good job valve for effing a perfectly good system up and getting pissed off that are acting like idiots. We have an hour left. we'll all know how it'll work very soon... Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 13:51:31 + From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: Re: [hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support Olly, Valve have posted the info to this to the list SPECIFICALLY. It is a huge change to the way the game works... We can only go on the info that has been given and that is that there will be no server browser. The new system that has been described means I doubt clans will bother to host servers because the chances of EVER getting to play on a server they are paying for is next to minimal!! As to I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? - the earlier people start to explain that this is a BAD move (or rather start to raise concerns) to Valve the sooner they can look into fixing it. Should we wait another day or so when there might be no chance of fixing things for the full release. We are raising concerns with an announcement THEY made - now it is surely (fairly) Valve's turn to respond to our concerns - either by saying yes that's how it is.. or explaining where we are misinterpreting things. Why else would thay have posted it?? The way I see it this will easily kill the PC version of the game: no one will really want to host servers they never play on... so there will be no servers. joy! Thomas Morton ++ No problem should ever have to be solved twice ++ 2008/11/6 Olly [EMAIL PROTECTED] While we wish Valve success with this game; their decisionleaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removalof direct join options from any game.You think that is good company practice to make decisions like this based on one email? I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? 2008/11/6 Steven Hartland [EMAIL PROTECTED]Following the announcement last night that there will be no server browser for the highly anticipated Left 4 Dead, we have been thinking long and hard about the impact this has on the hosting of the game. With no server browser how are people supposed to join a server they have rented? Will there at least be a direct to join IP feature? Without these there is no incentive for either the purchase of servers by customers or the provision of free-to-play publics by gaming communities, as people have no choice over what server they join. This kills the rental, hosting and community market for the game outright. Do Valve really intend to host all the servers themselves for the game or has the importance of these features and their impact been overlooked? As it stands right now we (Multiplay) see no benefit in supporting this game at all and unless this situation changes we do not intend to host any servers for it. We hope other GSP's will support us in this action. The MOTD ad block is of minor significance in comparison to the building a community around servers. This is the start of a slippery slope which once started down it will be hard to turn back. The community goodwill and hard work must not be taken for granted and pushed too far. Valve's success is in no small part due to the widespread availability of servers for it's games, the majority of which are funded and run by the community at large. To take away the community's ability to continue to run servers that they can build solid regular player bases around, will simply destroy the communities around the game and also significantly dent faith and goodwill in Valve as a company. While we wish Valve success with this game; their decision leaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removal of direct join options from any game. Regards Steve This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
Re: [hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support
I agree 100 %. We won't have L4D servers just so anyone but our own clan members can play on them,. If in fact that is where they are going, then the only solution for us will be to have lan games between clan members using Hamachi installed on our gaming box. Hopefully this will be a solution. Busterking 10-78 Clan Boss Visit our website Join our forums www.10-78.com - Original Message - From: Thomas Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support Olly, Valve have posted the info to this to the list SPECIFICALLY. It is a huge change to the way the game works... We can only go on the info that has been given and that is that there will be no server browser. The new system that has been described means I doubt clans will bother to host servers because the chances of EVER getting to play on a server they are paying for is next to minimal!! As to I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? - the earlier people start to explain that this is a BAD move (or rather start to raise concerns) to Valve the sooner they can look into fixing it. Should we wait another day or so when there might be no chance of fixing things for the full release. We are raising concerns with an announcement THEY made - now it is surely (fairly) Valve's turn to respond to our concerns - either by saying yes that's how it is.. or explaining where we are misinterpreting things. Why else would thay have posted it?? The way I see it this will easily kill the PC version of the game: no one will really want to host servers they never play on... so there will be no servers. joy! Thomas Morton ++ No problem should ever have to be solved twice ++ 2008/11/6 Olly [EMAIL PROTECTED] While we wish Valve success with this game; their decision leaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removal of direct join options from any game. You think that is good company practice to make decisions like this based on one email? I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? 2008/11/6 Steven Hartland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Following the announcement last night that there will be no server browser for the highly anticipated Left 4 Dead, we have been thinking long and hard about the impact this has on the hosting of the game. With no server browser how are people supposed to join a server they have rented? Will there at least be a direct to join IP feature? Without these there is no incentive for either the purchase of servers by customers or the provision of free-to-play publics by gaming communities, as people have no choice over what server they join. This kills the rental, hosting and community market for the game outright. Do Valve really intend to host all the servers themselves for the game or has the importance of these features and their impact been overlooked? As it stands right now we (Multiplay) see no benefit in supporting this game at all and unless this situation changes we do not intend to host any servers for it. We hope other GSP's will support us in this action. The MOTD ad block is of minor significance in comparison to the building a community around servers. This is the start of a slippery slope which once started down it will be hard to turn back. The community goodwill and hard work must not be taken for granted and pushed too far. Valve's success is in no small part due to the widespread availability of servers for it's games, the majority of which are funded and run by the community at large. To take away the community's ability to continue to run servers that they can build solid regular player bases around, will simply destroy the communities around the game and also significantly dent faith and goodwill in Valve as a company. While we wish Valve success with this game; their decision leaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removal of direct join options from any game. Regards Steve This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Re: [hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support
This is exactly how I see it. Right now I'm ready to set up 8 L4D servers and my (pretty small) community has at least 20 people with the game pre-ordered, If there's no sensible way to play on our own servers with our friends, there'll be a lot of pre-orders canceled, and my servers will go to games that will work for the community. such as CoD:WaW, and other co-op favourites. Thomas Morton wrote: Olly, Valve have posted the info to this to the list SPECIFICALLY. It is a huge change to the way the game works... We can only go on the info that has been given and that is that there will be no server browser. The new system that has been described means I doubt clans will bother to host servers because the chances of EVER getting to play on a server they are paying for is next to minimal!! As to I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? - the earlier people start to explain that this is a BAD move (or rather start to raise concerns) to Valve the sooner they can look into fixing it. Should we wait another day or so when there might be no chance of fixing things for the full release. We are raising concerns with an announcement THEY made - now it is surely (fairly) Valve's turn to respond to our concerns - either by saying yes that's how it is.. or explaining where we are misinterpreting things. Why else would thay have posted it?? The way I see it this will easily kill the PC version of the game: no one will really want to host servers they never play on... so there will be no servers. joy! Thomas Morton ++ No problem should ever have to be solved twice ++ 2008/11/6 Olly [EMAIL PROTECTED] While we wish Valve success with this game; their decision leaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removal of direct join options from any game. You think that is good company practice to make decisions like this based on one email? I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? 2008/11/6 Steven Hartland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Following the announcement last night that there will be no server browser for the highly anticipated Left 4 Dead, we have been thinking long and hard about the impact this has on the hosting of the game. With no server browser how are people supposed to join a server they have rented? Will there at least be a direct to join IP feature? Without these there is no incentive for either the purchase of servers by customers or the provision of free-to-play publics by gaming communities, as people have no choice over what server they join. This kills the rental, hosting and community market for the game outright. Do Valve really intend to host all the servers themselves for the game or has the importance of these features and their impact been overlooked? As it stands right now we (Multiplay) see no benefit in supporting this game at all and unless this situation changes we do not intend to host any servers for it. We hope other GSP's will support us in this action. The MOTD ad block is of minor significance in comparison to the building a community around servers. This is the start of a slippery slope which once started down it will be hard to turn back. The community goodwill and hard work must not be taken for granted and pushed too far. Valve's success is in no small part due to the widespread availability of servers for it's games, the majority of which are funded and run by the community at large. To take away the community's ability to continue to run servers that they can build solid regular player bases around, will simply destroy the communities around the game and also significantly dent faith and goodwill in Valve as a company. While we wish Valve success with this game; their decision leaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removal of direct join options from any game. Regards Steve This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences,
Re: [hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support
This looks promising fellows: http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/3340/l4dserversqm8.jpg Busterking 10-78 Clan Boss Visit our website Join our forums www.10-78.com - Original Message - From: Sebastian Staudt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support I highly doubt there will be no possibility to have private servers or favorite servers. The matchmaking system is most likely not a system completely different from the server browser. Although it may look like at first sight. There will still be clients, servers and master servers. Valve won't reinvent the internet. ;) This is what I expect (I don't know either ;)): - A tab showing active games waiting for players (seperated into coop and pure multiplayer) - A second tab showing servers with games in progress or no active game (ready for a new game). - Other tabs showing servers you have joined before (history) and favorites And I also expect that server admins will be able to password protect servers (or games). So you could lock a whole server to specific players (pure private) or you could lock a single game (private game). Maybe the latter is even possible for some kind of moderator player. Not a admin accessing through rcon or the likes. If this is the case admins may also be able to allow / disallow moderating to specific players. This moderator mode would allow some friends not owning a server to host their private games without the need of a server or even rcon access. Once again I don't know what Valve is intending to do, but this is how I expect it (and how I would do it). Regards, Koraktor 2008/11/6 Thomas Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Olly, Valve have posted the info to this to the list SPECIFICALLY. It is a huge change to the way the game works... We can only go on the info that has been given and that is that there will be no server browser. The new system that has been described means I doubt clans will bother to host servers because the chances of EVER getting to play on a server they are paying for is next to minimal!! As to I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? - the earlier people start to explain that this is a BAD move (or rather start to raise concerns) to Valve the sooner they can look into fixing it. Should we wait another day or so when there might be no chance of fixing things for the full release. We are raising concerns with an announcement THEY made - now it is surely (fairly) Valve's turn to respond to our concerns - either by saying yes that's how it is.. or explaining where we are misinterpreting things. Why else would thay have posted it?? The way I see it this will easily kill the PC version of the game: no one will really want to host servers they never play on... so there will be no servers. joy! Thomas Morton ++ No problem should ever have to be solved twice ++ 2008/11/6 Olly [EMAIL PROTECTED] While we wish Valve success with this game; their decision leaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removal of direct join options from any game. You think that is good company practice to make decisions like this based on one email? I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? 2008/11/6 Steven Hartland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Following the announcement last night that there will be no server browser for the highly anticipated Left 4 Dead, we have been thinking long and hard about the impact this has on the hosting of the game. With no server browser how are people supposed to join a server they have rented? Will there at least be a direct to join IP feature? Without these there is no incentive for either the purchase of servers by customers or the provision of free-to-play publics by gaming communities, as people have no choice over what server they join. This kills the rental, hosting and community market for the game outright. Do Valve really intend to host all the servers themselves for the game or has the importance of these features and their impact been overlooked? As it stands right now we (Multiplay) see no benefit in supporting this game at all and unless this situation changes we do not intend to host any servers for it. We hope other GSP's will support us in this action. The MOTD ad block is of minor significance in comparison to the building a community around servers. This is the start of a slippery slope which once started down it will be hard to turn back. The community goodwill and hard work must not be taken
Re: [hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support
No offence Sebastian but your making all that up (as you said). There is nothing to suggest *any* of that stuff will be there. If it is then that would be awesome.. Valve? TBH reading PURELY on what was posted on this list I dont think your going to see those features. Thomas Morton ++ No problem should ever have to be solved twice ++ 2008/11/6 Sebastian Staudt [EMAIL PROTECTED] I highly doubt there will be no possibility to have private servers or favorite servers. The matchmaking system is most likely not a system completely different from the server browser. Although it may look like at first sight. There will still be clients, servers and master servers. Valve won't reinvent the internet. ;) This is what I expect (I don't know either ;)): - A tab showing active games waiting for players (seperated into coop and pure multiplayer) - A second tab showing servers with games in progress or no active game (ready for a new game). - Other tabs showing servers you have joined before (history) and favorites And I also expect that server admins will be able to password protect servers (or games). So you could lock a whole server to specific players (pure private) or you could lock a single game (private game). Maybe the latter is even possible for some kind of moderator player. Not a admin accessing through rcon or the likes. If this is the case admins may also be able to allow / disallow moderating to specific players. This moderator mode would allow some friends not owning a server to host their private games without the need of a server or even rcon access. Once again I don't know what Valve is intending to do, but this is how I expect it (and how I would do it). Regards, Koraktor 2008/11/6 Thomas Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Olly, Valve have posted the info to this to the list SPECIFICALLY. It is a huge change to the way the game works... We can only go on the info that has been given and that is that there will be no server browser. The new system that has been described means I doubt clans will bother to host servers because the chances of EVER getting to play on a server they are paying for is next to minimal!! As to I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? - the earlier people start to explain that this is a BAD move (or rather start to raise concerns) to Valve the sooner they can look into fixing it. Should we wait another day or so when there might be no chance of fixing things for the full release. We are raising concerns with an announcement THEY made - now it is surely (fairly) Valve's turn to respond to our concerns - either by saying yes that's how it is.. or explaining where we are misinterpreting things. Why else would thay have posted it?? The way I see it this will easily kill the PC version of the game: no one will really want to host servers they never play on... so there will be no servers. joy! Thomas Morton ++ No problem should ever have to be solved twice ++ 2008/11/6 Olly [EMAIL PROTECTED] While we wish Valve success with this game; their decision leaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removal of direct join options from any game. You think that is good company practice to make decisions like this based on one email? I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? 2008/11/6 Steven Hartland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Following the announcement last night that there will be no server browser for the highly anticipated Left 4 Dead, we have been thinking long and hard about the impact this has on the hosting of the game. With no server browser how are people supposed to join a server they have rented? Will there at least be a direct to join IP feature? Without these there is no incentive for either the purchase of servers by customers or the provision of free-to-play publics by gaming communities, as people have no choice over what server they join. This kills the rental, hosting and community market for the game outright. Do Valve really intend to host all the servers themselves for the game or has the importance of these features and their impact been overlooked? As it stands right now we (Multiplay) see no benefit in supporting this game at all and unless this situation changes we do not intend to host any servers for it. We hope other GSP's will support us in this action. The MOTD ad block is of minor significance in comparison to the building a community around servers. This is the start of a slippery slope which once started down it will be hard to turn back. The community goodwill
Re: [hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support
We don't know all of the facts yet But this guy makes a valid point. On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:39 AM, Steven Hartland [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Following the announcement last night that there will be no server browser for the highly anticipated Left 4 Dead, we have been thinking long and hard about the impact this has on the hosting of the game. With no server browser how are people supposed to join a server they have rented? Will there at least be a direct to join IP feature? Without these there is no incentive for either the purchase of servers by customers or the provision of free-to-play publics by gaming communities, as people have no choice over what server they join. This kills the rental, hosting and community market for the game outright. Do Valve really intend to host all the servers themselves for the game or has the importance of these features and their impact been overlooked? As it stands right now we (Multiplay) see no benefit in supporting this game at all and unless this situation changes we do not intend to host any servers for it. We hope other GSP's will support us in this action. The MOTD ad block is of minor significance in comparison to the building a community around servers. This is the start of a slippery slope which once started down it will be hard to turn back. The community goodwill and hard work must not be taken for granted and pushed too far. Valve's success is in no small part due to the widespread availability of servers for it's games, the majority of which are funded and run by the community at large. To take away the community's ability to continue to run servers that they can build solid regular player bases around, will simply destroy the communities around the game and also significantly dent faith and goodwill in Valve as a company. While we wish Valve success with this game; their decision leaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removal of direct join options from any game. Regards Steve This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
Re: [hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support
That's true. But - as many of you have noticed - Valve would not have thought a minute about the system. At least that's how long I thought about those issues. ;) And I'm sure Valve doesn't want to annoy all those players and admins trying to build a real community around the game. Regards, Koraktor 2008/11/6 Thomas Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] No offence Sebastian but your making all that up (as you said). There is nothing to suggest *any* of that stuff will be there. If it is then that would be awesome.. Valve? TBH reading PURELY on what was posted on this list I dont think your going to see those features. Thomas Morton ++ No problem should ever have to be solved twice ++ 2008/11/6 Sebastian Staudt [EMAIL PROTECTED] I highly doubt there will be no possibility to have private servers or favorite servers. The matchmaking system is most likely not a system completely different from the server browser. Although it may look like at first sight. There will still be clients, servers and master servers. Valve won't reinvent the internet. ;) This is what I expect (I don't know either ;)): - A tab showing active games waiting for players (seperated into coop and pure multiplayer) - A second tab showing servers with games in progress or no active game (ready for a new game). - Other tabs showing servers you have joined before (history) and favorites And I also expect that server admins will be able to password protect servers (or games). So you could lock a whole server to specific players (pure private) or you could lock a single game (private game). Maybe the latter is even possible for some kind of moderator player. Not a admin accessing through rcon or the likes. If this is the case admins may also be able to allow / disallow moderating to specific players. This moderator mode would allow some friends not owning a server to host their private games without the need of a server or even rcon access. Once again I don't know what Valve is intending to do, but this is how I expect it (and how I would do it). Regards, Koraktor 2008/11/6 Thomas Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Olly, Valve have posted the info to this to the list SPECIFICALLY. It is a huge change to the way the game works... We can only go on the info that has been given and that is that there will be no server browser. The new system that has been described means I doubt clans will bother to host servers because the chances of EVER getting to play on a server they are paying for is next to minimal!! As to I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? - the earlier people start to explain that this is a BAD move (or rather start to raise concerns) to Valve the sooner they can look into fixing it. Should we wait another day or so when there might be no chance of fixing things for the full release. We are raising concerns with an announcement THEY made - now it is surely (fairly) Valve's turn to respond to our concerns - either by saying yes that's how it is.. or explaining where we are misinterpreting things. Why else would thay have posted it?? The way I see it this will easily kill the PC version of the game: no one will really want to host servers they never play on... so there will be no servers. joy! Thomas Morton ++ No problem should ever have to be solved twice ++ 2008/11/6 Olly [EMAIL PROTECTED] While we wish Valve success with this game; their decision leaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removal of direct join options from any game. You think that is good company practice to make decisions like this based on one email? I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? 2008/11/6 Steven Hartland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Following the announcement last night that there will be no server browser for the highly anticipated Left 4 Dead, we have been thinking long and hard about the impact this has on the hosting of the game. With no server browser how are people supposed to join a server they have rented? Will there at least be a direct to join IP feature? Without these there is no incentive for either the purchase of servers by customers or the provision of free-to-play publics by gaming communities, as people have no choice over what server they join. This kills the rental, hosting and community market for the game outright. Do Valve really intend to host all the servers themselves for the game or has the importance of these features and their impact been
Re: [hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support
When the issue was first mentioned, Eric from Valve said he would look into it. Considering that was nearly 12 hours ago and that Valve has yet (to my knowledge) release any new information, I'm hoping they are trying to prevent a major crisis. ~ Matt On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Thomas Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: No offence Sebastian but your making all that up (as you said). There is nothing to suggest *any* of that stuff will be there. If it is then that would be awesome.. Valve? TBH reading PURELY on what was posted on this list I dont think your going to see those features. Thomas Morton ++ No problem should ever have to be solved twice ++ 2008/11/6 Sebastian Staudt [EMAIL PROTECTED] I highly doubt there will be no possibility to have private servers or favorite servers. The matchmaking system is most likely not a system completely different from the server browser. Although it may look like at first sight. There will still be clients, servers and master servers. Valve won't reinvent the internet. ;) This is what I expect (I don't know either ;)): - A tab showing active games waiting for players (seperated into coop and pure multiplayer) - A second tab showing servers with games in progress or no active game (ready for a new game). - Other tabs showing servers you have joined before (history) and favorites And I also expect that server admins will be able to password protect servers (or games). So you could lock a whole server to specific players (pure private) or you could lock a single game (private game). Maybe the latter is even possible for some kind of moderator player. Not a admin accessing through rcon or the likes. If this is the case admins may also be able to allow / disallow moderating to specific players. This moderator mode would allow some friends not owning a server to host their private games without the need of a server or even rcon access. Once again I don't know what Valve is intending to do, but this is how I expect it (and how I would do it). Regards, Koraktor 2008/11/6 Thomas Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Olly, Valve have posted the info to this to the list SPECIFICALLY. It is a huge change to the way the game works... We can only go on the info that has been given and that is that there will be no server browser. The new system that has been described means I doubt clans will bother to host servers because the chances of EVER getting to play on a server they are paying for is next to minimal!! As to I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? - the earlier people start to explain that this is a BAD move (or rather start to raise concerns) to Valve the sooner they can look into fixing it. Should we wait another day or so when there might be no chance of fixing things for the full release. We are raising concerns with an announcement THEY made - now it is surely (fairly) Valve's turn to respond to our concerns - either by saying yes that's how it is.. or explaining where we are misinterpreting things. Why else would thay have posted it?? The way I see it this will easily kill the PC version of the game: no one will really want to host servers they never play on... so there will be no servers. joy! Thomas Morton ++ No problem should ever have to be solved twice ++ 2008/11/6 Olly [EMAIL PROTECTED] While we wish Valve success with this game; their decision leaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removal of direct join options from any game. You think that is good company practice to make decisions like this based on one email? I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? 2008/11/6 Steven Hartland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Following the announcement last night that there will be no server browser for the highly anticipated Left 4 Dead, we have been thinking long and hard about the impact this has on the hosting of the game. With no server browser how are people supposed to join a server they have rented? Will there at least be a direct to join IP feature? Without these there is no incentive for either the purchase of servers by customers or the provision of free-to-play publics by gaming communities, as people have no choice over what server they join. This kills the rental, hosting and community market for the game outright. Do Valve really intend to host all the servers themselves for the game or has the importance of these features and their impact been overlooked? As it
Re: [hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support
Why would valve even bother reading this.. we have nothing to give feedback on until the demo is released. All i'm saying is... wait until the demo is out, and then post the comments that will be accurate. They will be alot more helpful to valve when we can say things for sure. Who knows, maybe there will be a favorites list, or a 'only play in these servers' or whatever... 2008/11/6 Thomas Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Olly, Valve have posted the info to this to the list SPECIFICALLY. It is a huge change to the way the game works... We can only go on the info that has been given and that is that there will be no server browser. The new system that has been described means I doubt clans will bother to host servers because the chances of EVER getting to play on a server they are paying for is next to minimal!! As to I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? - the earlier people start to explain that this is a BAD move (or rather start to raise concerns) to Valve the sooner they can look into fixing it. Should we wait another day or so when there might be no chance of fixing things for the full release. We are raising concerns with an announcement THEY made - now it is surely (fairly) Valve's turn to respond to our concerns - either by saying yes that's how it is.. or explaining where we are misinterpreting things. Why else would thay have posted it?? The way I see it this will easily kill the PC version of the game: no one will really want to host servers they never play on... so there will be no servers. joy! Thomas Morton ++ No problem should ever have to be solved twice ++ 2008/11/6 Olly [EMAIL PROTECTED] While we wish Valve success with this game; their decision leaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removal of direct join options from any game. You think that is good company practice to make decisions like this based on one email? I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? 2008/11/6 Steven Hartland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Following the announcement last night that there will be no server browser for the highly anticipated Left 4 Dead, we have been thinking long and hard about the impact this has on the hosting of the game. With no server browser how are people supposed to join a server they have rented? Will there at least be a direct to join IP feature? Without these there is no incentive for either the purchase of servers by customers or the provision of free-to-play publics by gaming communities, as people have no choice over what server they join. This kills the rental, hosting and community market for the game outright. Do Valve really intend to host all the servers themselves for the game or has the importance of these features and their impact been overlooked? As it stands right now we (Multiplay) see no benefit in supporting this game at all and unless this situation changes we do not intend to host any servers for it. We hope other GSP's will support us in this action. The MOTD ad block is of minor significance in comparison to the building a community around servers. This is the start of a slippery slope which once started down it will be hard to turn back. The community goodwill and hard work must not be taken for granted and pushed too far. Valve's success is in no small part due to the widespread availability of servers for it's games, the majority of which are funded and run by the community at large. To take away the community's ability to continue to run servers that they can build solid regular player bases around, will simply destroy the communities around the game and also significantly dent faith and goodwill in Valve as a company. While we wish Valve success with this game; their decision leaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removal of direct join options from any game. Regards Steve This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit:
Re: [hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support
I highly doubt there will be no possibility to have private servers or favorite servers. The matchmaking system is most likely not a system completely different from the server browser. Although it may look like at first sight. There will still be clients, servers and master servers. Valve won't reinvent the internet. ;) This is what I expect (I don't know either ;)): - A tab showing active games waiting for players (seperated into coop and pure multiplayer) - A second tab showing servers with games in progress or no active game (ready for a new game). - Other tabs showing servers you have joined before (history) and favorites And I also expect that server admins will be able to password protect servers (or games). So you could lock a whole server to specific players (pure private) or you could lock a single game (private game). Maybe the latter is even possible for some kind of moderator player. Not a admin accessing through rcon or the likes. If this is the case admins may also be able to allow / disallow moderating to specific players. This moderator mode would allow some friends not owning a server to host their private games without the need of a server or even rcon access. Once again I don't know what Valve is intending to do, but this is how I expect it (and how I would do it). Regards, Koraktor 2008/11/6 Thomas Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Olly, Valve have posted the info to this to the list SPECIFICALLY. It is a huge change to the way the game works... We can only go on the info that has been given and that is that there will be no server browser. The new system that has been described means I doubt clans will bother to host servers because the chances of EVER getting to play on a server they are paying for is next to minimal!! As to I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? - the earlier people start to explain that this is a BAD move (or rather start to raise concerns) to Valve the sooner they can look into fixing it. Should we wait another day or so when there might be no chance of fixing things for the full release. We are raising concerns with an announcement THEY made - now it is surely (fairly) Valve's turn to respond to our concerns - either by saying yes that's how it is.. or explaining where we are misinterpreting things. Why else would thay have posted it?? The way I see it this will easily kill the PC version of the game: no one will really want to host servers they never play on... so there will be no servers. joy! Thomas Morton ++ No problem should ever have to be solved twice ++ 2008/11/6 Olly [EMAIL PROTECTED] While we wish Valve success with this game; their decision leaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removal of direct join options from any game. You think that is good company practice to make decisions like this based on one email? I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? 2008/11/6 Steven Hartland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Following the announcement last night that there will be no server browser for the highly anticipated Left 4 Dead, we have been thinking long and hard about the impact this has on the hosting of the game. With no server browser how are people supposed to join a server they have rented? Will there at least be a direct to join IP feature? Without these there is no incentive for either the purchase of servers by customers or the provision of free-to-play publics by gaming communities, as people have no choice over what server they join. This kills the rental, hosting and community market for the game outright. Do Valve really intend to host all the servers themselves for the game or has the importance of these features and their impact been overlooked? As it stands right now we (Multiplay) see no benefit in supporting this game at all and unless this situation changes we do not intend to host any servers for it. We hope other GSP's will support us in this action. The MOTD ad block is of minor significance in comparison to the building a community around servers. This is the start of a slippery slope which once started down it will be hard to turn back. The community goodwill and hard work must not be taken for granted and pushed too far. Valve's success is in no small part due to the widespread availability of servers for it's games, the majority of which are funded and run by the community at large. To take away the community's ability to continue to run servers that they can build solid regular player bases around, will simply destroy the communities around the game and also significantly dent faith and goodwill in Valve as a company. While
Re: [hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support
Then why bother posting to the listi f they didnt want feedback.. Dont go second guessing Valve - allow those of us willing to give feedback on their new idea do it in a way that means they can filteri t from the noise!! Thomas Morton ++ No problem should ever have to be solved twice ++ 2008/11/6 Olly [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why would valve even bother reading this.. we have nothing to give feedback on until the demo is released. All i'm saying is... wait until the demo is out, and then post the comments that will be accurate. They will be alot more helpful to valve when we can say things for sure. Who knows, maybe there will be a favorites list, or a 'only play in these servers' or whatever... 2008/11/6 Thomas Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Olly, Valve have posted the info to this to the list SPECIFICALLY. It is a huge change to the way the game works... We can only go on the info that has been given and that is that there will be no server browser. The new system that has been described means I doubt clans will bother to host servers because the chances of EVER getting to play on a server they are paying for is next to minimal!! As to I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? - the earlier people start to explain that this is a BAD move (or rather start to raise concerns) to Valve the sooner they can look into fixing it. Should we wait another day or so when there might be no chance of fixing things for the full release. We are raising concerns with an announcement THEY made - now it is surely (fairly) Valve's turn to respond to our concerns - either by saying yes that's how it is.. or explaining where we are misinterpreting things. Why else would thay have posted it?? The way I see it this will easily kill the PC version of the game: no one will really want to host servers they never play on... so there will be no servers. joy! Thomas Morton ++ No problem should ever have to be solved twice ++ 2008/11/6 Olly [EMAIL PROTECTED] While we wish Valve success with this game; their decision leaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removal of direct join options from any game. You think that is good company practice to make decisions like this based on one email? I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? 2008/11/6 Steven Hartland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Following the announcement last night that there will be no server browser for the highly anticipated Left 4 Dead, we have been thinking long and hard about the impact this has on the hosting of the game. With no server browser how are people supposed to join a server they have rented? Will there at least be a direct to join IP feature? Without these there is no incentive for either the purchase of servers by customers or the provision of free-to-play publics by gaming communities, as people have no choice over what server they join. This kills the rental, hosting and community market for the game outright. Do Valve really intend to host all the servers themselves for the game or has the importance of these features and their impact been overlooked? As it stands right now we (Multiplay) see no benefit in supporting this game at all and unless this situation changes we do not intend to host any servers for it. We hope other GSP's will support us in this action. The MOTD ad block is of minor significance in comparison to the building a community around servers. This is the start of a slippery slope which once started down it will be hard to turn back. The community goodwill and hard work must not be taken for granted and pushed too far. Valve's success is in no small part due to the widespread availability of servers for it's games, the majority of which are funded and run by the community at large. To take away the community's ability to continue to run servers that they can build solid regular player bases around, will simply destroy the communities around the game and also significantly dent faith and goodwill in Valve as a company. While we wish Valve success with this game; their decision leaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removal of direct join options from any game. Regards Steve This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited
Re: [hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support
I *highly* doubt Valve removed the ability to connect directly to a server in lieu of the matchmaking system. The matchmaking system will no doubt be priority, but the console commands connect [serverip], map [mapname], changelevel [mapname] should all still work, otherwise Valve would have had to completly rework their debugging/mapmaking process. Every source game Valve has released up till now has supported these commands. Doug already stated players would be able to host and play on their own servers, so why not server operators as well? I can't find the interview I read on it, so I can't state the exact source. - Original Message From: Thomas Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2008 9:21:59 AM Subject: Re: [hlds] L4D No Server Browser = No Server Support No offence Sebastian but your making all that up (as you said). There is nothing to suggest *any* of that stuff will be there. If it is then that would be awesome.. Valve? TBH reading PURELY on what was posted on this list I dont think your going to see those features. Thomas Morton ++ No problem should ever have to be solved twice ++ 2008/11/6 Sebastian Staudt [EMAIL PROTECTED] I highly doubt there will be no possibility to have private servers or favorite servers. The matchmaking system is most likely not a system completely different from the server browser. Although it may look like at first sight. There will still be clients, servers and master servers. Valve won't reinvent the internet. ;) This is what I expect (I don't know either ;)): - A tab showing active games waiting for players (seperated into coop and pure multiplayer) - A second tab showing servers with games in progress or no active game (ready for a new game). - Other tabs showing servers you have joined before (history) and favorites And I also expect that server admins will be able to password protect servers (or games). So you could lock a whole server to specific players (pure private) or you could lock a single game (private game). Maybe the latter is even possible for some kind of moderator player. Not a admin accessing through rcon or the likes. If this is the case admins may also be able to allow / disallow moderating to specific players. This moderator mode would allow some friends not owning a server to host their private games without the need of a server or even rcon access. Once again I don't know what Valve is intending to do, but this is how I expect it (and how I would do it). Regards, Koraktor 2008/11/6 Thomas Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Olly, Valve have posted the info to this to the list SPECIFICALLY. It is a huge change to the way the game works... We can only go on the info that has been given and that is that there will be no server browser. The new system that has been described means I doubt clans will bother to host servers because the chances of EVER getting to play on a server they are paying for is next to minimal!! As to I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? - the earlier people start to explain that this is a BAD move (or rather start to raise concerns) to Valve the sooner they can look into fixing it. Should we wait another day or so when there might be no chance of fixing things for the full release. We are raising concerns with an announcement THEY made - now it is surely (fairly) Valve's turn to respond to our concerns - either by saying yes that's how it is.. or explaining where we are misinterpreting things. Why else would thay have posted it?? The way I see it this will easily kill the PC version of the game: no one will really want to host servers they never play on... so there will be no servers. joy! Thomas Morton ++ No problem should ever have to be solved twice ++ 2008/11/6 Olly [EMAIL PROTECTED] While we wish Valve success with this game; their decision leaves us with no choice but to take this action in the hope that it will highlight how strongly we feel about the removal of direct join options from any game. You think that is good company practice to make decisions like this based on one email? I cant understand why everyone is so eager to slap valve for making a decision that we haven't even seen the result of? 2008/11/6 Steven Hartland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Following the announcement last night that there will be no server browser for the highly anticipated Left 4 Dead, we have been thinking long and hard about the impact this has on the hosting of the game. With no server browser how are people supposed to join a server they have rented? Will there at least be a direct to join IP feature? Without
