Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
tf_mm_servermode 2 isn't required to host a MvM gameserver, is it? No. You don't have to use matchmaking at all. You can host the server and play the maps just like any other gamemode. Players can join through the server browser, favorites tab, direct connect, friend invites, etc. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Andreas Grimm Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 10:52 PM To: 'Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list' Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions tf_mm_servermode 2 isn't required to host a MvM gameserver, is it? From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.commailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com]mailto:[mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher Dunn Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 7:40 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list (hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.commailto:hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com); Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.commailto:h...@list.valvesoftware.com) Subject: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Here are some answers to questions regarding hosting MvM servers: * Players can join your server through any means they can join PvP games: the server browser, ad hoc joins, or the new matchmaking system (quickplay beta). * To accept matchmaking traffic, you must select which sort of traffic you want. (Regular PvP traffic or MvM traffic.) Set tf_mm_servermode 2 to be placed in the MvM pool. * For MvM matchmaking, if 6 players are sent to your server to start a new game, it will switch to whatever map the players selected. * You will need a TF gameserver account to accept matchmaking traffic. * You can switch the server in and out of any matchmaking mode pool or back to any regular game mode at any time. * The CPU usage for a 6 player MvM game is about the same as for a regular TF server. (Yep, this mode requires significantly more CPU cycles per player than the PvP mode, that's an unfortunate fact.) Given the surge of players that comes with any major release, and the player / server ratio of this game mode, the demand for MvM servers will probably be high. We expect that a large number of players will want to try out the new mode, so we will be converting most of our servers to host MvM, and then adjust the allocation based on what players are playing. I, for one, DO NOT welcome our new robot overlords! - Fletch ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
At what hour will the update come out? I am guessing it will be around 6 EST as usual? ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
MvM ? On 2012-08-14 08:29, Glib Tsyrklyevych wrote: At what hour will the update come out? I am guessing it will be around 6 EST as usual? ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
On 14/08/2012 09:04, daniel nilsson jokihao wrote: MvM ? new game mode, see the blog here :- tf2.com -- Dan ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] TF MvM hosting questions
So the new mode is a 6 player/slots per server game? On 2012-08-14 07:46, Cameron Munroe wrote: Is there anyway we can preemptively setup a server? My guess in no, but just asking as it seems like it will be fun. On 8/13/2012 10:39 PM, Fletcher Dunn wrote: Here are some answers to questions regarding hosting MvM servers: * Players can join your server through any means they can join PvP games: the server browser, ad hoc joins, or the new matchmaking system (quickplay beta). * To accept matchmaking traffic, you must select which sort of traffic you want. (Regular PvP traffic or MvM traffic.) Set tf_mm_servermode 2 to be placed in the MvM pool. * For MvM matchmaking, if 6 players are sent to your server to start a new game, it will switch to whatever map the players selected. * You will need a TF gameserver account to accept matchmaking traffic. * You can switch the server in and out of any matchmaking mode pool or back to any regular game mode at any time. * The CPU usage for a 6 player MvM game is about the same as for a regular TF server. (Yep, this mode requires significantly more CPU cycles per player than the PvP mode, that's an unfortunate fact.) Given the surge of players that comes with any major release, and the player / server ratio of this game mode, the demand for MvM servers will probably be high. We expect that a large number of players will want to try out the new mode, so we will be converting most of our servers to host MvM, and then adjust the allocation based on what players are playing. I, for one, DO NOT welcome our new robot overlords! - Fletch ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] TF MvM hosting questions
Would we need to set maxplayers to 6 when we start the server? Michael Johansen Owner and systems operator - BlackOutGaming.org Mobile: +4790810071 | Twitter: @BlackOut_Gaming Steam: michael_sj123 | IRC: #BlackOutGaming @ QuakeNet This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of BlackOut Gaming. Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:06:13 +0200 From: daniel.joki...@gmail.com To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] TF MvM hosting questions So the new mode is a 6 player/slots per server game? On 2012-08-14 07:46, Cameron Munroe wrote: Is there anyway we can preemptively setup a server? My guess in no, but just asking as it seems like it will be fun. On 8/13/2012 10:39 PM, Fletcher Dunn wrote: Here are some answers to questions regarding hosting MvM servers: * Players can join your server through any means they can join PvP games: the server browser, ad hoc joins, or the new matchmaking system (quickplay beta). * To accept matchmaking traffic, you must select which sort of traffic you want. (Regular PvP traffic or MvM traffic.) Set tf_mm_servermode 2 to be placed in the MvM pool. * For MvM matchmaking, if 6 players are sent to your server to start a new game, it will switch to whatever map the players selected. * You will need a TF gameserver account to accept matchmaking traffic. * You can switch the server in and out of any matchmaking mode pool or back to any regular game mode at any time. * The CPU usage for a 6 player MvM game is about the same as for a regular TF server. (Yep, this mode requires significantly more CPU cycles per player than the PvP mode, that's an unfortunate fact.) Given the surge of players that comes with any major release, and the player / server ratio of this game mode, the demand for MvM servers will probably be high. We expect that a large number of players will want to try out the new mode, so we will be converting most of our servers to host MvM, and then adjust the allocation based on what players are playing. I, for one, DO NOT welcome our new robot overlords! - Fletch ___ 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 ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] TF MvM hosting questions
Would assume it goes automatic once you change the gamemode. * The CPU usage for a 6 player MvM game is about the same as for a regular TF server. (Yep, this mode requires significantly more CPU Is more .. ouch.. if this is compared to a full 24 slots server... then its a lot.. i can imagine not enough servers out there having the beef to just create a couple of those. Even if i manage to get 10 up and running then, it still can only handle 60 people. Time will tell. 2012/8/14 Michael Johansen michs...@live.no Would we need to set maxplayers to 6 when we start the server? Michael Johansen Owner and systems operator - BlackOutGaming.org Mobile: +4790810071 | Twitter: @BlackOut_Gaming Steam: michael_sj123 | IRC: #BlackOutGaming @ QuakeNet This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of BlackOut Gaming. Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:06:13 +0200 From: daniel.joki...@gmail.com To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] TF MvM hosting questions So the new mode is a 6 player/slots per server game? On 2012-08-14 07:46, Cameron Munroe wrote: Is there anyway we can preemptively setup a server? My guess in no, but just asking as it seems like it will be fun. On 8/13/2012 10:39 PM, Fletcher Dunn wrote: Here are some answers to questions regarding hosting MvM servers: * Players can join your server through any means they can join PvP games: the server browser, ad hoc joins, or the new matchmaking system (quickplay beta). * To accept matchmaking traffic, you must select which sort of traffic you want. (Regular PvP traffic or MvM traffic.) Set tf_mm_servermode 2 to be placed in the MvM pool. * For MvM matchmaking, if 6 players are sent to your server to start a new game, it will switch to whatever map the players selected. * You will need a TF gameserver account to accept matchmaking traffic. * You can switch the server in and out of any matchmaking mode pool or back to any regular game mode at any time. * The CPU usage for a 6 player MvM game is about the same as for a regular TF server. (Yep, this mode requires significantly more CPU cycles per player than the PvP mode, that's an unfortunate fact.) Given the surge of players that comes with any major release, and the player / server ratio of this game mode, the demand for MvM servers will probably be high. We expect that a large number of players will want to try out the new mode, so we will be converting most of our servers to host MvM, and then adjust the allocation based on what players are playing. I, for one, DO NOT welcome our new robot overlords! - Fletch ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] TF MvM hosting questions
Some of the moments oh, didn't find a mvm server yet in the first few days are secure 2012/8/14 Erik-jan Riemers riem...@binkey.nl Would assume it goes automatic once you change the gamemode. * The CPU usage for a 6 player MvM game is about the same as for a regular TF server. (Yep, this mode requires significantly more CPU Is more .. ouch.. if this is compared to a full 24 slots server... then its a lot.. i can imagine not enough servers out there having the beef to just create a couple of those. Even if i manage to get 10 up and running then, it still can only handle 60 people. Time will tell. 2012/8/14 Michael Johansen michs...@live.no Would we need to set maxplayers to 6 when we start the server? Michael Johansen Owner and systems operator - BlackOutGaming.org Mobile: +4790810071 | Twitter: @BlackOut_Gaming Steam: michael_sj123 | IRC: #BlackOutGaming @ QuakeNet This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of BlackOut Gaming. Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:06:13 +0200 From: daniel.joki...@gmail.com To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] TF MvM hosting questions So the new mode is a 6 player/slots per server game? On 2012-08-14 07:46, Cameron Munroe wrote: Is there anyway we can preemptively setup a server? My guess in no, but just asking as it seems like it will be fun. On 8/13/2012 10:39 PM, Fletcher Dunn wrote: Here are some answers to questions regarding hosting MvM servers: * Players can join your server through any means they can join PvP games: the server browser, ad hoc joins, or the new matchmaking system (quickplay beta). * To accept matchmaking traffic, you must select which sort of traffic you want. (Regular PvP traffic or MvM traffic.) Set tf_mm_servermode 2 to be placed in the MvM pool. * For MvM matchmaking, if 6 players are sent to your server to start a new game, it will switch to whatever map the players selected. * You will need a TF gameserver account to accept matchmaking traffic. * You can switch the server in and out of any matchmaking mode pool or back to any regular game mode at any time. * The CPU usage for a 6 player MvM game is about the same as for a regular TF server. (Yep, this mode requires significantly more CPU cycles per player than the PvP mode, that's an unfortunate fact.) Given the surge of players that comes with any major release, and the player / server ratio of this game mode, the demand for MvM servers will probably be high. We expect that a large number of players will want to try out the new mode, so we will be converting most of our servers to host MvM, and then adjust the allocation based on what players are playing. I, for one, DO NOT welcome our new robot overlords! - Fletch ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] CS:GO hostname setting?
Could we get a answer of Valve regarding this? It´s a pain when ever we get a new ip and losing almost every player. 2012/1/30 lwf l...@rocketblast.com When adding to favorites, have the client look up the server supplied domain name and compare it to the current IP address of the server. If they they're not equal add the IP only, preventing both misconfigurations and forgery from ruining the users day. If they are equal, add the domain name as well as the IP and compare again on future connects. If they're not equal once added show an error message with both addresses as well as the current server title and explain to the user that the server may have moved, and ask the user what action to take. If the user complies, update the last known IP for that favorite entry. Problem solved and we can use DNS exactly what it's for. However, it does not deal with ports. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 01:30, Necavi nec...@0xf.org wrote: If I remember correctly, the reason that valve has not done this in the past is to prevent server operators from basically having the power to redirect multiple players to the same server by abusing hostnames. They are able to do this by either starting up a dozen servers, each claiming the same hostname as their main server, meaning that if anyone favorites that particular server they are in fact favoriting the main server. (Note: this particular exploit only really works if the hostname is set by cvar, other exploits exist for other methods). Granted, I'm one of the server operators who wishes that kind of power, but for a different reason, I tend to host servers with RPG elements (such as War3Source) and I've always fantasized about having a server that controls access to all the other ones, sorting players out by their RPG level or something similar, doing almost exactly the opposite of what valve is trying to protect against (phantom servers redirecting to a real one, this is more similar to a single phantom server taking the place of several real ones). ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] CS:GO hostname setting?
I see my own name again.. its been something thats long overdue but still not present. 2012/8/14 Peter Svensson min.satans.facebook.m...@gmail.com Could we get a answer of Valve regarding this? It´s a pain when ever we get a new ip and losing almost every player. 2012/1/30 lwf l...@rocketblast.com When adding to favorites, have the client look up the server supplied domain name and compare it to the current IP address of the server. If they they're not equal add the IP only, preventing both misconfigurations and forgery from ruining the users day. If they are equal, add the domain name as well as the IP and compare again on future connects. If they're not equal once added show an error message with both addresses as well as the current server title and explain to the user that the server may have moved, and ask the user what action to take. If the user complies, update the last known IP for that favorite entry. Problem solved and we can use DNS exactly what it's for. However, it does not deal with ports. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 01:30, Necavi nec...@0xf.org wrote: If I remember correctly, the reason that valve has not done this in the past is to prevent server operators from basically having the power to redirect multiple players to the same server by abusing hostnames. They are able to do this by either starting up a dozen servers, each claiming the same hostname as their main server, meaning that if anyone favorites that particular server they are in fact favoriting the main server. (Note: this particular exploit only really works if the hostname is set by cvar, other exploits exist for other methods). Granted, I'm one of the server operators who wishes that kind of power, but for a different reason, I tend to host servers with RPG elements (such as War3Source) and I've always fantasized about having a server that controls access to all the other ones, sorting players out by their RPG level or something similar, doing almost exactly the opposite of what valve is trying to protect against (phantom servers redirecting to a real one, this is more similar to a single phantom server taking the place of several real ones). ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] TF MvM hosting questions
Ok so 6 player limit - is that solid cause right now? I stretch like many others a 24 player server to 32 which still runs fine and if you have the horsepower in the server then why not. I believe a question was asked about the CPU usage - please compare? CPU = 24 player on current game modes compared to CPU = 6Player on this game mode can you throw some numbers? I really appreciate the info already given because what you will have is a ton of excited players wanting to play yet those of us that can support some servers up as of now are just sitting here scratching our heads. Don't forget the amount of things that will be broken in SourceMod if you run that to deal with but I for one don't like the 6 player limit and would really like to push that as long as the hardware can sustain it. -Original Message- From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher Dunn Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 1:40 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list (hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com); Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.com) Subject: [hlds_linux] TF MvM hosting questions Here are some answers to questions regarding hosting MvM servers: * Players can join your server through any means they can join PvP games: the server browser, ad hoc joins, or the new matchmaking system (quickplay beta). * To accept matchmaking traffic, you must select which sort of traffic you want. (Regular PvP traffic or MvM traffic.) Set tf_mm_servermode 2 to be placed in the MvM pool. * For MvM matchmaking, if 6 players are sent to your server to start a new game, it will switch to whatever map the players selected. * You will need a TF gameserver account to accept matchmaking traffic. * You can switch the server in and out of any matchmaking mode pool or back to any regular game mode at any time. * The CPU usage for a 6 player MvM game is about the same as for a regular TF server. (Yep, this mode requires significantly more CPU cycles per player than the PvP mode, that's an unfortunate fact.) Given the surge of players that comes with any major release, and the player / server ratio of this game mode, the demand for MvM servers will probably be high. We expect that a large number of players will want to try out the new mode, so we will be converting most of our servers to host MvM, and then adjust the allocation based on what players are playing. I, for one, DO NOT welcome our new robot overlords! - Fletch ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] TF MvM hosting questions
I'm also interested in some extreme variants of this mode. Sure, they may be borders ... but 6 players only? About 16 would be niceor 24? Lets see! 2012/8/14 Frank ad...@gamerscrib.net Ok so 6 player limit - is that solid cause right now? I stretch like many others a 24 player server to 32 which still runs fine and if you have the horsepower in the server then why not. I believe a question was asked about the CPU usage - please compare? CPU = 24 player on current game modes compared to CPU = 6Player on this game mode can you throw some numbers? I really appreciate the info already given because what you will have is a ton of excited players wanting to play yet those of us that can support some servers up as of now are just sitting here scratching our heads. Don't forget the amount of things that will be broken in SourceMod if you run that to deal with but I for one don't like the 6 player limit and would really like to push that as long as the hardware can sustain it. -Original Message- From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher Dunn Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 1:40 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list (hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com); Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.com) Subject: [hlds_linux] TF MvM hosting questions Here are some answers to questions regarding hosting MvM servers: * Players can join your server through any means they can join PvP games: the server browser, ad hoc joins, or the new matchmaking system (quickplay beta). * To accept matchmaking traffic, you must select which sort of traffic you want. (Regular PvP traffic or MvM traffic.) Set tf_mm_servermode 2 to be placed in the MvM pool. * For MvM matchmaking, if 6 players are sent to your server to start a new game, it will switch to whatever map the players selected. * You will need a TF gameserver account to accept matchmaking traffic. * You can switch the server in and out of any matchmaking mode pool or back to any regular game mode at any time. * The CPU usage for a 6 player MvM game is about the same as for a regular TF server. (Yep, this mode requires significantly more CPU cycles per player than the PvP mode, that's an unfortunate fact.) Given the surge of players that comes with any major release, and the player / server ratio of this game mode, the demand for MvM servers will probably be high. We expect that a large number of players will want to try out the new mode, so we will be converting most of our servers to host MvM, and then adjust the allocation based on what players are playing. I, for one, DO NOT welcome our new robot overlords! - Fletch ___ 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
[hlds_linux] CS:Go steamgroup, manual connect, and other ways to make my server findable
Hi! I've been hosting valve servers since a lot of years both hlds and srcds, and i loved the old serverbrowser and favourites model. I'm not saying i don't like the new play-on-any-available-server-and-don't-know-where-you-are-actually-playing model, it's easier for new players. but, i was wondering if there are some ways people can add my cs:go server somewhere to find it and play on it when they want to. I have set up 'sv_steamgroup' cvar, but i don't see this taking effect. Left 4 dead had a rolling list of steamgroup servers in the lower part of the home screen, but i don't see that in CS:Go. Also, this morning i tried connecting to my server by ip using console command connect, but it didn't work. This is the console output: ] connect XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX: Warning: Self recursive import detected in 'sharedlib.swf' Import error: GFxResource 'btn-arrow-insert' is not exported from movie 'sharedlib.swf' Connecting to public(XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:) ... 32.949: Sending UDP connect to public IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX: Server using 'public' lobbies, requiring pw no, lobby id 0 RememberIPAddressForLobby: lobby 0 from address XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX: Grace request retry for unreserved server... Retrying public(XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:) ... 32.971: Sending UDP connect to public IP XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX: Server using 'public' lobbies, requiring pw no, lobby id 0 RememberIPAddressForLobby: lobby 0 from address XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX: Server approved grace request... Retrying connection to XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:, server requires lobby reservation but is unreserved. Received game details information from XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:... CGCClientJobStartMatchmaking: Matchmaking timed out talking to ranking server, it may be down. Will attempt to matchmake anyway. [MM] Sending reservation request to XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX: [MM] Sending reservation request to XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX: ¿Are there other ways to connect to my server (and make visible to my friends and community fellows)? Regards, Germán ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update released
Any word back on this Eric? On 10.08.2012 14:24, Eric Smith wrote: I'll forward your email around to see who is looking into the problem. -Eric -Original Message- From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Russell Smith Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 2:17 PM To: h...@list.valvesoftware.com; hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Mandatory TF2 update released Thanks for the heads up Eric. It would be great if we could get a word back from a Valve employee on the CPU spiking issue that started happening with the Pyro update. There's been a couple threads about it and no word from Valve. New updates are nice and all but I would prefer to have a stable server over new content. ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] Mandatory TF2 update released
We're going to push the CS:S update to next week. We have a big update coming for TF2 (http://www.teamfortress.com/) and we need to focus on that this week. Thanks for your patience. -Eric -Original Message- From: Eric Smith Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 2:22 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] Mandatory TF2 update released We'll get an update for CS:S out early next week. -Eric -Original Message- From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Kyle Sanderson Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 2:17 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Mandatory TF2 update released Any chance at a CS:S sync for next week? We're still unable to create 'stable' listen servers which was fixed in OB. Thanks, Kyle. On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Eric Smith er...@valvesoftware.com wrote: If you're still seeing server crashes related to the new sapper, please send us the crash dumps. Thanks. -Eric -Original Message- From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Frank Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 2:12 PM To: 'Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list' Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Mandatory TF2 update released I'm assuming the new sapper was adjusted or the crash exploit was patched? Right after last patch to fix it I had two servers crash from a noticeable sapper placement so since then I've been still blocking it's use. -Original Message- From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Eric Smith Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 5:09 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list; Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list; 'hlds_annou...@list.valvesoftware.com' Subject: [hlds_linux] Mandatory TF2 update released We've released a mandatory update to TF2. The notes for the update are below. -Eric -- Team Fortress 2 - Added new map Koth_King - Added the Ready Steady Pan tournament medals - Added new promo items - Fixed a Medigun exploit that could leave players indefinitely invulnerable - Fixed sentry gun sometimes placing wrong, being rotated into the ground and pointing upward - Renamed The Huo Long Heatmaker to The Huo-Long Heater - Updated the localization files - Updated the Neon Annihilator - Materials now animate - Damage penalty only applies to players (not buildings) - Can damage sappers ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
We will not have Steam group functionality tomorrow. You actually have to set maxplayers to 32 to host MvM (to make room for all the bots). That's why the mode is expensive CPU-wise, to not only simulate all those players but run their AI logic as well. We'll have more details on the recommended settings tomorrow. Regarding exactly what happens if a 24-player server switches to MvM: I actually don't think we have worked that out yet. I'm pretty sure on day one there will be lots of people trying out all sorts of things. Our approach to experimentation in MvM will be the same as in PvP: we encourage it, provided that players are opting in to any major deviations from the vanilla experience. Our servers will all be configured vanilla, and the matchmaking will enforce the 6 player limit, and the server browser will be the primary means for players to find those sorts of customizations. What will the most interesting customizations be? What will the standard tags be used that we request server operators to set in order to help players find the modifications they want or avoid the ones they don't like? We can't know that yet. That's something we expect you guys and your players to figure out. I will hazard a guess that raising the player count well above 6 would be detrimental the experience. There ratio of humans to bots would be off and the human defending team would not have enough challenge. (As an extreme example: imagine a 32-player server where everybody is defending an there are no bots.) Exactly how far it can be raised above 6 without totally breaking the game is speculation of course. I think a smart server operator will start out with the server configured relatively vanilla, and then watch how the game unfolds and listen to their players, and try to make smart decisions about which areas to experiment, rather than assuming the same sorts of adjustments your community prefers in PvP will automatically apply to this mode. A fun co-op mode with more than six players is likely to require entirely new missions. (The mission decides the pattern of enemy robots that come at you.) We have purposefully made it easy for players to create their own missions. (It's a lot easier than creating a whole new map!) But if you play with more than six players, with the missions we've made, I think the balance will be way off. - Fletch -Original Message- From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Saint K. Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:51 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Will we be able to restrict a MvM server to people in the steamgroup only, like in L4D2? Saint K. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher Dunn [fletch...@valvesoftware.com] Sent: 14 August 2012 08:52 To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list; Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.com) Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions MvM matchmaking will be restricted to 6 players at launch. The matchmaking also supports joining games in progress to fill an empty slot, in which case of course the current map will not be changed. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Agro Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 11:40 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Is MvM matchmaking going to be limited to 6 players or was the 6 players join, map changes logic just an indicator of server behavior to expect? - Reply message - From: Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.commailto:fletch...@valvesoftware.com To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list (hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.commailto:hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com) hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.commailto:hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com, Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.commailto:h...@list.valvesoftware.com) h...@list.valvesoftware.commailto:h...@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Date: Tue, Aug 14, 2012 06:39 Here are some answers to questions regarding hosting MvM servers: * Players can join your server through any means they can join PvP games: the server browser, ad hoc joins, or the new matchmaking system (quickplay beta). * To accept matchmaking traffic, you must select which sort of traffic you want. (Regular PvP traffic or MvM traffic.) Set tf_mm_servermode 2 to be placed in the MvM pool. * For MvM matchmaking, if 6 players are sent to your server to start a new game, it will switch to whatever map the players selected. * You will need a TF gameserver account to accept matchmaking traffic. * You can switch the server in and out of any matchmaking mode pool or
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
OK, a little investigating reveals that this statement I made: * You can switch the server in and out of any matchmaking mode pool or back to any regular game mode at any time. Is not really accurate! Sorry! If the server is EMPTY or has fewer than 6 players, yes, there are no problems with switching --- that is true. However, in general, switching from PvP to MvM is going to cause several problems. (I believe that what would actually happen is that the 7th, 8th, etc. players who connect on a map change will be forced into spectator. At any rate, we don't officially support that, so if you do it, you're on your own.) So, you should expect to segregate your servers into MvM and PvP. Don't just put the MvM maps into the mapcycle file, that won't work. (Actually, the mapcycle file is slightly different for MvM because you really are cycling through missions, not the maps. Likewise, players can vote to change the mission even if it's on the current map. We'll have more details on all this tomorrow.) -Original Message- From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher Dunn Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:00 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list; Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list (hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com) Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions We will not have Steam group functionality tomorrow. You actually have to set maxplayers to 32 to host MvM (to make room for all the bots). That's why the mode is expensive CPU-wise, to not only simulate all those players but run their AI logic as well. We'll have more details on the recommended settings tomorrow. Regarding exactly what happens if a 24-player server switches to MvM: I actually don't think we have worked that out yet. I'm pretty sure on day one there will be lots of people trying out all sorts of things. Our approach to experimentation in MvM will be the same as in PvP: we encourage it, provided that players are opting in to any major deviations from the vanilla experience. Our servers will all be configured vanilla, and the matchmaking will enforce the 6 player limit, and the server browser will be the primary means for players to find those sorts of customizations. What will the most interesting customizations be? What will the standard tags be used that we request server operators to set in order to help players find the modifications they want or avoid the ones they don't like? We can't know that yet. That's something we expect you guys and your players to figure out. I will hazard a guess that raising the player count well above 6 would be detrimental the experience. There ratio of humans to bots would be off and the human defending team would not have enough challenge. (As an extreme example: imagine a 32-player server where everybody is defending an there are no bots.) Exactly how far it can be raised above 6 without totally breaking the game is speculation of course. I think a smart server operator will start out with the server configured relatively vanilla, and then watch how the game unfolds and listen to their players, and try to make smart decisions about which areas to experiment, rather than assuming the same sorts of adjustments your community prefers in PvP will automatically apply to this mode. A fun co-op mode with more than six players is likely to require entirely new missions. (The mission decides the pattern of enemy robots that come at you.) We have purposefully made it easy for players to create their own missions. (It's a lot easier than creating a whole new map!) But if you play with more than six players, with the missions we've made, I think the balance will be way off. - Fletch -Original Message- From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Saint K. Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:51 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Will we be able to restrict a MvM server to people in the steamgroup only, like in L4D2? Saint K. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher Dunn [fletch...@valvesoftware.com] Sent: 14 August 2012 08:52 To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list; Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.com) Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions MvM matchmaking will be restricted to 6 players at launch. The matchmaking also supports joining games in progress to fill an empty slot, in which case of course the current map will not be changed. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Agro Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 11:40 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
You actually have to set maxplayers to 32 to host MvM (to make room for all the bots). Any chance of seeing the hard-limit raised well above the current 33 (to 65)? And just soft-limited to the current values. This would allow lots of room for experimentation in the future. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.com wrote: We will not have Steam group functionality tomorrow. You actually have to set maxplayers to 32 to host MvM (to make room for all the bots). That's why the mode is expensive CPU-wise, to not only simulate all those players but run their AI logic as well. We'll have more details on the recommended settings tomorrow. Regarding exactly what happens if a 24-player server switches to MvM: I actually don't think we have worked that out yet. I'm pretty sure on day one there will be lots of people trying out all sorts of things. Our approach to experimentation in MvM will be the same as in PvP: we encourage it, provided that players are opting in to any major deviations from the vanilla experience. Our servers will all be configured vanilla, and the matchmaking will enforce the 6 player limit, and the server browser will be the primary means for players to find those sorts of customizations. What will the most interesting customizations be? What will the standard tags be used that we request server operators to set in order to help players find the modifications they want or avoid the ones they don't like? We can't know that yet. That's something we expect you guys and your players to figure out. I will hazard a guess that raising the player count well above 6 would be detrimental the experience. There ratio of humans to bots would be off and the human defending team would not have enough challenge. (As an extreme example: imagine a 32-player server where everybody is defending an there are no bots.) Exactly how far it can be raised above 6 without totally breaking the game is speculation of course. I think a smart server operator will start out with the server configured relatively vanilla, and then watch how the game unfolds and listen to their players, and try to make smart decisions about which areas to experiment, rather than assuming the same sorts of adjustments your community prefers in PvP will automatically apply to this mode. A fun co-op mode with more than six players is likely to require entirely new missions. (The mission decides the pattern of enemy robots that come at you.) We have purposefully made it easy for players to create their own missions. (It's a lot easier than creating a whole new map!) But if you play with more than six players, with the missions we've made, I think the balance will be way off. - Fletch -Original Message- From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Saint K. Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:51 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Will we be able to restrict a MvM server to people in the steamgroup only, like in L4D2? Saint K. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher Dunn [fletch...@valvesoftware.com] Sent: 14 August 2012 08:52 To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list; Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.com) Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions MvM matchmaking will be restricted to 6 players at launch. The matchmaking also supports joining games in progress to fill an empty slot, in which case of course the current map will not be changed. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Agro Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 11:40 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Is MvM matchmaking going to be limited to 6 players or was the 6 players join, map changes logic just an indicator of server behavior to expect? - Reply message - From: Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.commailto:fletch...@valvesoftware.com To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list (hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.commailto:hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com) hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.commailto:hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com, Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.commailto:h...@list.valvesoftware.com) h...@list.valvesoftware.commailto:h...@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Date: Tue, Aug 14, 2012 06:39 Here are some answers to questions regarding hosting MvM servers: * Players can join your server through any means they can join PvP games: the server browser, ad hoc joins, or the new matchmaking system (quickplay beta). * To
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
Ohh GOD MY CPU! ITS MELTING On 8/14/2012 10:18 AM, Asher Baker wrote: You actually have to set maxplayers to 32 to host MvM (to make room for all the bots). Any chance of seeing the hard-limit raised well above the current 33 (to 65)? And just soft-limited to the current values. This would allow lots of room for experimentation in the future. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.com wrote: We will not have Steam group functionality tomorrow. You actually have to set maxplayers to 32 to host MvM (to make room for all the bots). That's why the mode is expensive CPU-wise, to not only simulate all those players but run their AI logic as well. We'll have more details on the recommended settings tomorrow. Regarding exactly what happens if a 24-player server switches to MvM: I actually don't think we have worked that out yet. I'm pretty sure on day one there will be lots of people trying out all sorts of things. Our approach to experimentation in MvM will be the same as in PvP: we encourage it, provided that players are opting in to any major deviations from the vanilla experience. Our servers will all be configured vanilla, and the matchmaking will enforce the 6 player limit, and the server browser will be the primary means for players to find those sorts of customizations. What will the most interesting customizations be? What will the standard tags be used that we request server operators to set in order to help players find the modifications they want or avoid the ones they don't like? We can't know that yet. That's something we expect you guys and your players to figure out. I will hazard a guess that raising the player count well above 6 would be detrimental the experience. There ratio of humans to bots would be off and the human defending team would not have enough challenge. (As an extreme example: imagine a 32-player server where everybody is defending an there are no bots.) Exactly how far it can be raised above 6 without totally breaking the game is speculation of course. I think a smart server operator will start out with the server configured relatively vanilla, and then watch how the game unfolds and listen to their players, and try to make smart decisions about which areas to experiment, rather than assuming the same sorts of adjustments your community prefers in PvP will automatically apply to this mode. A fun co-op mode with more than six players is likely to require entirely new missions. (The mission decides the pattern of enemy robots that come at you.) We have purposefully made it easy for players to create their own miss ions. (It's a lot easier than creating a whole new map!) But if you play with more than six players, with the missions we've made, I think the balance will be way off. - Fletch -Original Message- From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Saint K. Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:51 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Will we be able to restrict a MvM server to people in the steamgroup only, like in L4D2? Saint K. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher Dunn [fletch...@valvesoftware.com] Sent: 14 August 2012 08:52 To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list; Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.com) Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions MvM matchmaking will be restricted to 6 players at launch. The matchmaking also supports joining games in progress to fill an empty slot, in which case of course the current map will not be changed. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Agro Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 11:40 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Is MvM matchmaking going to be limited to 6 players or was the 6 players join, map changes logic just an indicator of server behavior to expect? - Reply message - From: Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.commailto:fletch...@valvesoftware.com To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list (hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.commailto:hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com) hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.commailto:hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com, Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.commailto:h...@list.valvesoftware.com) h...@list.valvesoftware.commailto:h...@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Date: Tue, Aug 14, 2012 06:39 Here are some answers to questions regarding hosting MvM servers: * Players can join your server through any means they can join PvP games: the server browser, ad hoc joins, or the new matchmaking system (quickplay beta). * To accept
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
Out of the question. Valve doesn't do 3. Come on, you guys know this. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of T Marler Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:22 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions After working with our 3v3 koth stuff, I see a lot of 3's... HI VALVE - Original Message - From: Cameron Munroe cmun...@cameronmunroe.commailto:cmun...@cameronmunroe.com Date: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 11:21 am Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions To: tmar...@shaw.camailto:tmar...@shaw.ca, Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list h...@list.valvesoftware.commailto:h...@list.valvesoftware.com Awww my idea went out... Well now our idea. On 8/14/2012 10:20 AM, T Marler wrote: What about less than 6? Say... 3 Saxton Hales? - Original Message - From: Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.commailto:fletch...@valvesoftware.com Date: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 11:00 am Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list h...@list.valvesoftware.commailto:h...@list.valvesoftware.com, Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list (hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.commailto:hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com) hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.commailto:hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com We will not have Steam group functionality tomorrow. You actually have to set maxplayers to 32 to host MvM (to make room for all the bots). That's why the mode is expensive CPU-wise, to not only simulate all those players but run their AI logic as well. We'll have more details on the recommended settings tomorrow. Regarding exactly what happens if a 24-player server switches to MvM: I actually don't think we have worked that out yet. I'm pretty sure on day one there will be lots of people trying out all sorts of things. Our approach to experimentation in MvM will be the same as in PvP: we encourage it, provided that players are opting in to any major deviations from the vanilla experience. Our servers will all be configured vanilla, and the matchmaking will enforce the 6 player limit, and the server browser will be the primary means for players to find those sorts of customizations. What will the most interesting customizations be? What will the standard tags be used that we request server operators to set in order to help players find the modifications they want or avoid the ones they don't like? We can't know that yet. That's something we expect you guys and your players to figure out. I will hazard a guess that raising the player count well above 6 would be detrimental the experience. There ratio of humans to bots would be off and the human defending team would not have enough challenge. (As an extreme example: imagine a 32- player server where everybody is defending an there are no bots.) Exactly how far it can be raised above 6 without totally breaking the game is speculation of course. I think a smart server operator will start out with the server configured relatively vanilla, and then watch how the game unfolds and listen to their players, and try to make smart decisions about which areas to experiment, rather than assuming the same sorts of adjustments your community prefers in PvP will automatically apply to this mode. A fun co-op mode with more than six players is likely to require entirely new missions. (The mission decides the pattern of enemy robots that come at you.) We have purposefully made it easy for players to create their own missions. (It's a lot easier than creating a whole new map!) But if you play with more than six players, with the missions we've made, I think the balance will be way off. - Fletch -Original Message- From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.commailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds- boun...@list.valvesoftware.commailto:boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Saint K. Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:51 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Will we be able to restrict a MvM server to people in the steamgroup only, like in L4D2? Saint K. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.commailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [hlds- boun...@list.valvesoftware.commailto:boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher Dunn [fletch...@valvesoftware.com]Sent: 14 August 2012 08:52 To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list; Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.com)Subjectmailto:h...@list.valvesoftware.com)Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions MvM matchmaking will be restricted to 6 players at launch. The matchmaking also supports joining games
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
Is there any chance of FreeBSD updates in this version? If there you're using any custom configs for MvM will we be able to set them (similar to servercfgfile?) Thanks, Dan On 14 August 2012 18:28, Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.com wrote: Out of the question. Valve doesn't do 3. Come on, you guys know this. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of T Marler Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:22 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions After working with our 3v3 koth stuff, I see a lot of 3's... HI VALVE - Original Message - From: Cameron Munroe cmun...@cameronmunroe.commailto: cmun...@cameronmunroe.com Date: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 11:21 am Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions To: tmar...@shaw.camailto:tmar...@shaw.ca, Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list h...@list.valvesoftware.commailto: h...@list.valvesoftware.com Awww my idea went out... Well now our idea. On 8/14/2012 10:20 AM, T Marler wrote: What about less than 6? Say... 3 Saxton Hales? - Original Message - From: Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.commailto: fletch...@valvesoftware.com Date: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 11:00 am Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list h...@list.valvesoftware.commailto:h...@list.valvesoftware.com, Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list (hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.commailto: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com) hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.commailto: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com We will not have Steam group functionality tomorrow. You actually have to set maxplayers to 32 to host MvM (to make room for all the bots). That's why the mode is expensive CPU-wise, to not only simulate all those players but run their AI logic as well. We'll have more details on the recommended settings tomorrow. Regarding exactly what happens if a 24-player server switches to MvM: I actually don't think we have worked that out yet. I'm pretty sure on day one there will be lots of people trying out all sorts of things. Our approach to experimentation in MvM will be the same as in PvP: we encourage it, provided that players are opting in to any major deviations from the vanilla experience. Our servers will all be configured vanilla, and the matchmaking will enforce the 6 player limit, and the server browser will be the primary means for players to find those sorts of customizations. What will the most interesting customizations be? What will the standard tags be used that we request server operators to set in order to help players find the modifications they want or avoid the ones they don't like? We can't know that yet. That's something we expect you guys and your players to figure out. I will hazard a guess that raising the player count well above 6 would be detrimental the experience. There ratio of humans to bots would be off and the human defending team would not have enough challenge. (As an extreme example: imagine a 32- player server where everybody is defending an there are no bots.) Exactly how far it can be raised above 6 without totally breaking the game is speculation of course. I think a smart server operator will start out with the server configured relatively vanilla, and then watch how the game unfolds and listen to their players, and try to make smart decisions about which areas to experiment, rather than assuming the same sorts of adjustments your community prefers in PvP will automatically apply to this mode. A fun co-op mode with more than six players is likely to require entirely new missions. (The mission decides the pattern of enemy robots that come at you.) We have purposefully made it easy for players to create their own missions. (It's a lot easier than creating a whole new map!) But if you play with more than six players, with the missions we've made, I think the balance will be way off. - Fletch -Original Message- From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.commailto: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds- boun...@list.valvesoftware.commailto:boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Saint K. Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:51 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Will we be able to restrict a MvM server to people in the steamgroup only, like in L4D2? Saint K. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.commailto: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [hlds- boun...@list.valvesoftware.commailto:boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher Dunn [fletch...@valvesoftware.com]Sent: 14 August 2012 08:52
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
Thanks a lot for the info, as always Fletch! Saint K. From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher Dunn [fletch...@valvesoftware.com] Sent: 14 August 2012 19:00 To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list; Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list (hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com) Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions We will not have Steam group functionality tomorrow. You actually have to set maxplayers to 32 to host MvM (to make room for all the bots). That's why the mode is expensive CPU-wise, to not only simulate all those players but run their AI logic as well. We'll have more details on the recommended settings tomorrow. Regarding exactly what happens if a 24-player server switches to MvM: I actually don't think we have worked that out yet. I'm pretty sure on day one there will be lots of people trying out all sorts of things. Our approach to experimentation in MvM will be the same as in PvP: we encourage it, provided that players are opting in to any major deviations from the vanilla experience. Our servers will all be configured vanilla, and the matchmaking will enforce the 6 player limit, and the server browser will be the primary means for players to find those sorts of customizations. What will the most interesting customizations be? What will the standard tags be used that we request server operators to set in order to help players find the modifications they want or avoid the ones they don't like? We can't know that yet. That's something we expect you guys and your players to figure out. I will hazard a guess that raising the player count well above 6 would be detrimental the experience. There ratio of humans to bots would be off and the human defending team would not have enough challenge. (As an extreme example: imagine a 32-player server where everybody is defending an there are no bots.) Exactly how far it can be raised above 6 without totally breaking the game is speculation of course. I think a smart server operator will start out with the server configured relatively vanilla, and then watch how the game unfolds and listen to their players, and try to make smart decisions about which areas to experiment, rather than assuming the same sorts of adjustments your community prefers in PvP will automatically apply to this mode. A fun co-op mode with more than six players is likely to require entirely new missions. (The mission decides the pattern of enemy robots that come at you.) We have purposefully made it easy for players to create their own missions. (It's a lot easier than creating a whole new map!) But if you play with more than six players, with the missions we've made, I think the balance will be way off. - Fletch -Original Message- From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Saint K. Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:51 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Will we be able to restrict a MvM server to people in the steamgroup only, like in L4D2? Saint K. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher Dunn [fletch...@valvesoftware.com] Sent: 14 August 2012 08:52 To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list; Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.com) Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions MvM matchmaking will be restricted to 6 players at launch. The matchmaking also supports joining games in progress to fill an empty slot, in which case of course the current map will not be changed. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Agro Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 11:40 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Is MvM matchmaking going to be limited to 6 players or was the 6 players join, map changes logic just an indicator of server behavior to expect? - Reply message - From: Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.commailto:fletch...@valvesoftware.com To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list (hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.commailto:hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com) hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.commailto:hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com, Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.commailto:h...@list.valvesoftware.com) h...@list.valvesoftware.commailto:h...@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Date: Tue, Aug 14, 2012 06:39 Here are some answers to questions regarding hosting MvM servers: * Players can join your server through any means they can join PvP games: the server browser, ad hoc joins, or the new matchmaking system
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
So wait, will these servers have to be actual 32 slot servers to run MvM? Hasn't Valve always penalized for anything over 24 players? I just rented a few 10 slot servers thinking this would be adequate to host some MvM matches. Is there no way around this? ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
Pretty much its 32 players for the 26 bots that you will be up against. So no 10 player servers wont work. The penalize is really for PvP, which I do understand. On 8/14/2012 11:13 AM, slimecou...@live.com wrote: So wait, will these servers have to be actual 32 slot servers to run MvM? Hasn't Valve always penalized for anything over 24 players? I just rented a few 10 slot servers thinking this would be adequate to host some MvM matches. Is there no way around this? ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
The server will need to launch with -maxplayers 32 to host MvM properly. -Original Message- From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Cameron Munroe Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 11:16 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Pretty much its 32 players for the 26 bots that you will be up against. So no 10 player servers wont work. The penalize is really for PvP, which I do understand. On 8/14/2012 11:13 AM, slimecou...@live.com wrote: So wait, will these servers have to be actual 32 slot servers to run MvM? Hasn't Valve always penalized for anything over 24 players? I just rented a few 10 slot servers thinking this would be adequate to host some MvM matches. Is there no way around this? ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
Like Asher mentioned above, could you consider increasing the limit. So we could better experiment with this mode? Perhaps include a warning similar to how players are warned about joining servers higher than 24 slots. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.comwrote: We will not have Steam group functionality tomorrow. You actually have to set maxplayers to 32 to host MvM (to make room for all the bots). That's why the mode is expensive CPU-wise, to not only simulate all those players but run their AI logic as well. We'll have more details on the recommended settings tomorrow. Regarding exactly what happens if a 24-player server switches to MvM: I actually don't think we have worked that out yet. I'm pretty sure on day one there will be lots of people trying out all sorts of things. Our approach to experimentation in MvM will be the same as in PvP: we encourage it, provided that players are opting in to any major deviations from the vanilla experience. Our servers will all be configured vanilla, and the matchmaking will enforce the 6 player limit, and the server browser will be the primary means for players to find those sorts of customizations. What will the most interesting customizations be? What will the standard tags be used that we request server operators to set in order to help players find the modifications they want or avoid the ones they don't like? We can't know that yet. That's something we expect you guys and your players to figure out. I will hazard a guess that raising the player count well above 6 would be detrimental the experience. There ratio of humans to bots would be off and the human defending team would not have enough challenge. (As an extreme example: imagine a 32-player server where everybody is defending an there are no bots.) Exactly how far it can be raised above 6 without totally breaking the game is speculation of course. I think a smart server operator will start out with the server configured relatively vanilla, and then watch how the game unfolds and listen to their players, and try to make smart decisions about which areas to experiment, rather than assuming the same sorts of adjustments your community prefers in PvP will automatically apply to this mode. A fun co-op mode with more than six players is likely to require entirely new missions. (The mission decides the pattern of enemy robots that come at you.) We have purposefully made it easy for players to create their own missions. (It's a lot easier than creating a whole new map!) But if you play with more than six players, with the missions we've made, I think the balance will be way off. - Fletch -Original Message- From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Saint K. Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:51 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Will we be able to restrict a MvM server to people in the steamgroup only, like in L4D2? Saint K. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [ hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher Dunn [ fletch...@valvesoftware.com] Sent: 14 August 2012 08:52 To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list; Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.com) Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions MvM matchmaking will be restricted to 6 players at launch. The matchmaking also supports joining games in progress to fill an empty slot, in which case of course the current map will not be changed. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Agro Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 11:40 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Is MvM matchmaking going to be limited to 6 players or was the 6 players join, map changes logic just an indicator of server behavior to expect? - Reply message - From: Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.commailto: fletch...@valvesoftware.com To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list ( hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.commailto:hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com) hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.commailto: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com, Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.commailto: h...@list.valvesoftware.com) h...@list.valvesoftware.commailto: h...@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Date: Tue, Aug 14, 2012 06:39 Here are some answers to questions regarding hosting MvM servers: * Players can join your server through any means they can join PvP games: the server browser, ad hoc joins, or the new matchmaking system (quickplay beta). * To accept matchmaking traffic, you must select which sort of traffic you want. (Regular PvP traffic
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
I agree with 1nsane. On 14 August 2012 19:50, 1nsane 1nsane...@gmail.com wrote: Like Asher mentioned above, could you consider increasing the limit. So we could better experiment with this mode? Perhaps include a warning similar to how players are warned about joining servers higher than 24 slots. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.comwrote: We will not have Steam group functionality tomorrow. You actually have to set maxplayers to 32 to host MvM (to make room for all the bots). That's why the mode is expensive CPU-wise, to not only simulate all those players but run their AI logic as well. We'll have more details on the recommended settings tomorrow. Regarding exactly what happens if a 24-player server switches to MvM: I actually don't think we have worked that out yet. I'm pretty sure on day one there will be lots of people trying out all sorts of things. Our approach to experimentation in MvM will be the same as in PvP: we encourage it, provided that players are opting in to any major deviations from the vanilla experience. Our servers will all be configured vanilla, and the matchmaking will enforce the 6 player limit, and the server browser will be the primary means for players to find those sorts of customizations. What will the most interesting customizations be? What will the standard tags be used that we request server operators to set in order to help players find the modifications they want or avoid the ones they don't like? We can't know that yet. That's something we expect you guys and your players to figure out. I will hazard a guess that raising the player count well above 6 would be detrimental the experience. There ratio of humans to bots would be off and the human defending team would not have enough challenge. (As an extreme example: imagine a 32-player server where everybody is defending an there are no bots.) Exactly how far it can be raised above 6 without totally breaking the game is speculation of course. I think a smart server operator will start out with the server configured relatively vanilla, and then watch how the game unfolds and listen to their players, and try to make smart decisions about which areas to experiment, rather than assuming the same sorts of adjustments your community prefers in PvP will automatically apply to this mode. A fun co-op mode with more than six players is likely to require entirely new missions. (The mission decides the pattern of enemy robots that come at you.) We have purposefully made it easy for players to create their own missions. (It's a lot easier than creating a whole new map!) But if you play with more than six players, with the missions we've made, I think the balance will be way off. - Fletch -Original Message- From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Saint K. Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:51 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Will we be able to restrict a MvM server to people in the steamgroup only, like in L4D2? Saint K. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [ hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher Dunn [ fletch...@valvesoftware.com] Sent: 14 August 2012 08:52 To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list; Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.com) Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions MvM matchmaking will be restricted to 6 players at launch. The matchmaking also supports joining games in progress to fill an empty slot, in which case of course the current map will not be changed. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Agro Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 11:40 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Is MvM matchmaking going to be limited to 6 players or was the 6 players join, map changes logic just an indicator of server behavior to expect? - Reply message - From: Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.commailto: fletch...@valvesoftware.com To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list ( hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.commailto: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com) hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.commailto: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com, Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.commailto: h...@list.valvesoftware.com) h...@list.valvesoftware.commailto: h...@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Date: Tue, Aug 14, 2012 06:39 Here are some answers to questions regarding hosting MvM servers: * Players can join your server through any means they can join PvP games:
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
I third this. I think it'd open the door to making some interesting missions involving more players and more bots. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Nomaan Ahmad n0man@gmail.com wrote: I agree with 1nsane. On 14 August 2012 19:50, 1nsane 1nsane...@gmail.com wrote: Like Asher mentioned above, could you consider increasing the limit. So we could better experiment with this mode? Perhaps include a warning similar to how players are warned about joining servers higher than 24 slots. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.comwrote: We will not have Steam group functionality tomorrow. You actually have to set maxplayers to 32 to host MvM (to make room for all the bots). That's why the mode is expensive CPU-wise, to not only simulate all those players but run their AI logic as well. We'll have more details on the recommended settings tomorrow. Regarding exactly what happens if a 24-player server switches to MvM: I actually don't think we have worked that out yet. I'm pretty sure on day one there will be lots of people trying out all sorts of things. Our approach to experimentation in MvM will be the same as in PvP: we encourage it, provided that players are opting in to any major deviations from the vanilla experience. Our servers will all be configured vanilla, and the matchmaking will enforce the 6 player limit, and the server browser will be the primary means for players to find those sorts of customizations. What will the most interesting customizations be? What will the standard tags be used that we request server operators to set in order to help players find the modifications they want or avoid the ones they don't like? We can't know that yet. That's something we expect you guys and your players to figure out. I will hazard a guess that raising the player count well above 6 would be detrimental the experience. There ratio of humans to bots would be off and the human defending team would not have enough challenge. (As an extreme example: imagine a 32-player server where everybody is defending an there are no bots.) Exactly how far it can be raised above 6 without totally breaking the game is speculation of course. I think a smart server operator will start out with the server configured relatively vanilla, and then watch how the game unfolds and listen to their players, and try to make smart decisions about which areas to experiment, rather than assuming the same sorts of adjustments your community prefers in PvP will automatically apply to this mode. A fun co-op mode with more than six players is likely to require entirely new missions. (The mission decides the pattern of enemy robots that come at you.) We have purposefully made it easy for players to create their own missions. (It's a lot easier than creating a whole new map!) But if you play with more than six players, with the missions we've made, I think the balance will be way off. - Fletch -Original Message- From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Saint K. Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:51 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Will we be able to restrict a MvM server to people in the steamgroup only, like in L4D2? Saint K. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [ hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher Dunn [ fletch...@valvesoftware.com] Sent: 14 August 2012 08:52 To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list; Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.com) Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions MvM matchmaking will be restricted to 6 players at launch. The matchmaking also supports joining games in progress to fill an empty slot, in which case of course the current map will not be changed. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Agro Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 11:40 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Is MvM matchmaking going to be limited to 6 players or was the 6 players join, map changes logic just an indicator of server behavior to expect? - Reply message - From: Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.commailto: fletch...@valvesoftware.com To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list ( hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.commailto: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com) hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.commailto: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com, Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.commailto:
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
You guys act as if changing the hard limit is easy. There's all sorts of resource management issues that would need to be resolved and a lot of the engine would need adjustment. Let's wait to play the game before we start thinking about overhauling things to change it. On Aug 14, 2012 3:16 PM, Ryan Stecker voidedwea...@gmail.com wrote: I third this. I think it'd open the door to making some interesting missions involving more players and more bots. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Nomaan Ahmad n0man@gmail.com wrote: I agree with 1nsane. On 14 August 2012 19:50, 1nsane 1nsane...@gmail.com wrote: Like Asher mentioned above, could you consider increasing the limit. So we could better experiment with this mode? Perhaps include a warning similar to how players are warned about joining servers higher than 24 slots. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.comwrote: We will not have Steam group functionality tomorrow. You actually have to set maxplayers to 32 to host MvM (to make room for all the bots). That's why the mode is expensive CPU-wise, to not only simulate all those players but run their AI logic as well. We'll have more details on the recommended settings tomorrow. Regarding exactly what happens if a 24-player server switches to MvM: I actually don't think we have worked that out yet. I'm pretty sure on day one there will be lots of people trying out all sorts of things. Our approach to experimentation in MvM will be the same as in PvP: we encourage it, provided that players are opting in to any major deviations from the vanilla experience. Our servers will all be configured vanilla, and the matchmaking will enforce the 6 player limit, and the server browser will be the primary means for players to find those sorts of customizations. What will the most interesting customizations be? What will the standard tags be used that we request server operators to set in order to help players find the modifications they want or avoid the ones they don't like? We can't know that yet. That's something we expect you guys and your players to figure out. I will hazard a guess that raising the player count well above 6 would be detrimental the experience. There ratio of humans to bots would be off and the human defending team would not have enough challenge. (As an extreme example: imagine a 32-player server where everybody is defending an there are no bots.) Exactly how far it can be raised above 6 without totally breaking the game is speculation of course. I think a smart server operator will start out with the server configured relatively vanilla, and then watch how the game unfolds and listen to their players, and try to make smart decisions about which areas to experiment, rather than assuming the same sorts of adjustments your community prefers in PvP will automatically apply to this mode. A fun co-op mode with more than six players is likely to require entirely new missions. (The mission decides the pattern of enemy robots that come at you.) We have purposefully made it easy for players to create their own missions. (It's a lot easier than creating a whole new map!) But if you play with more than six players, with the missions we've made, I think the balance will be way off. - Fletch -Original Message- From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Saint K. Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:51 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Will we be able to restrict a MvM server to people in the steamgroup only, like in L4D2? Saint K. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [ hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher Dunn [ fletch...@valvesoftware.com] Sent: 14 August 2012 08:52 To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list; Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.com) Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions MvM matchmaking will be restricted to 6 players at launch. The matchmaking also supports joining games in progress to fill an empty slot, in which case of course the current map will not be changed. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Agro Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 11:40 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Is MvM matchmaking going to be limited to 6 players or was the 6 players join, map changes logic just an
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
I dont think anyone is acting like its easy... Servers can already have more than 33 slots, its just that the tf2 client doesn't allow players to get on servers with more than 33 slots. On 14 August 2012 20:19, Nerdboy nerdb...@gmail.com wrote: You guys act as if changing the hard limit is easy. There's all sorts of resource management issues that would need to be resolved and a lot of the engine would need adjustment. Let's wait to play the game before we start thinking about overhauling things to change it. On Aug 14, 2012 3:16 PM, Ryan Stecker voidedwea...@gmail.com wrote: I third this. I think it'd open the door to making some interesting missions involving more players and more bots. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Nomaan Ahmad n0man@gmail.com wrote: I agree with 1nsane. On 14 August 2012 19:50, 1nsane 1nsane...@gmail.com wrote: Like Asher mentioned above, could you consider increasing the limit. So we could better experiment with this mode? Perhaps include a warning similar to how players are warned about joining servers higher than 24 slots. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.comwrote: We will not have Steam group functionality tomorrow. You actually have to set maxplayers to 32 to host MvM (to make room for all the bots). That's why the mode is expensive CPU-wise, to not only simulate all those players but run their AI logic as well. We'll have more details on the recommended settings tomorrow. Regarding exactly what happens if a 24-player server switches to MvM: I actually don't think we have worked that out yet. I'm pretty sure on day one there will be lots of people trying out all sorts of things. Our approach to experimentation in MvM will be the same as in PvP: we encourage it, provided that players are opting in to any major deviations from the vanilla experience. Our servers will all be configured vanilla, and the matchmaking will enforce the 6 player limit, and the server browser will be the primary means for players to find those sorts of customizations. What will the most interesting customizations be? What will the standard tags be used that we request server operators to set in order to help players find the modifications they want or avoid the ones they don't like? We can't know that yet. That's something we expect you guys and your players to figure out. I will hazard a guess that raising the player count well above 6 would be detrimental the experience. There ratio of humans to bots would be off and the human defending team would not have enough challenge. (As an extreme example: imagine a 32-player server where everybody is defending an there are no bots.) Exactly how far it can be raised above 6 without totally breaking the game is speculation of course. I think a smart server operator will start out with the server configured relatively vanilla, and then watch how the game unfolds and listen to their players, and try to make smart decisions about which areas to experiment, rather than assuming the same sorts of adjustments your community prefers in PvP will automatically apply to this mode. A fun co-op mode with more than six players is likely to require entirely new missions. (The mission decides the pattern of enemy robots that come at you.) We have purposefully made it easy for players to create their own missions. (It's a lot easier than creating a whole new map!) But if you play with more than six players, with the missions we've made, I think the balance will be way off. - Fletch -Original Message- From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Saint K. Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:51 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Will we be able to restrict a MvM server to people in the steamgroup only, like in L4D2? Saint K. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [ hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher Dunn [ fletch...@valvesoftware.com] Sent: 14 August 2012 08:52 To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list; Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.com) Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions MvM matchmaking will be restricted to 6 players at launch. The matchmaking also supports joining games in progress to fill an empty slot, in which case of course the current map will not be changed.
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
Current maps aren't designed for more so raising the limit right away isn't really usefull thing to do. -ics 14.8.2012 22:19, Nerdboy kirjoitti: You guys act as if changing the hard limit is easy. There's all sorts of resource management issues that would need to be resolved and a lot of the engine would need adjustment. Let's wait to play the game before we start thinking about overhauling things to change it. On Aug 14, 2012 3:16 PM, Ryan Stecker voidedwea...@gmail.com wrote: I third this. I think it'd open the door to making some interesting missions involving more players and more bots. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Nomaan Ahmad n0man@gmail.com wrote: I agree with 1nsane. On 14 August 2012 19:50, 1nsane 1nsane...@gmail.com wrote: Like Asher mentioned above, could you consider increasing the limit. So we could better experiment with this mode? Perhaps include a warning similar to how players are warned about joining servers higher than 24 slots. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.comwrote: We will not have Steam group functionality tomorrow. You actually have to set maxplayers to 32 to host MvM (to make room for all the bots). That's why the mode is expensive CPU-wise, to not only simulate all those players but run their AI logic as well. We'll have more details on the recommended settings tomorrow. Regarding exactly what happens if a 24-player server switches to MvM: I actually don't think we have worked that out yet. I'm pretty sure on day one there will be lots of people trying out all sorts of things. Our approach to experimentation in MvM will be the same as in PvP: we encourage it, provided that players are opting in to any major deviations from the vanilla experience. Our servers will all be configured vanilla, and the matchmaking will enforce the 6 player limit, and the server browser will be the primary means for players to find those sorts of customizations. What will the most interesting customizations be? What will the standard tags be used that we request server operators to set in order to help players find the modifications they want or avoid the ones they don't like? We can't know that yet. That's something we expect you guys and your players to figure out. I will hazard a guess that raising the player count well above 6 would be detrimental the experience. There ratio of humans to bots would be off and the human defending team would not have enough challenge. (As an extreme example: imagine a 32-player server where everybody is defending an there are no bots.) Exactly how far it can be raised above 6 without totally breaking the game is speculation of course. I think a smart server operator will start out with the server configured relatively vanilla, and then watch how the game unfolds and listen to their players, and try to make smart decisions about which areas to experiment, rather than assuming the same sorts of adjustments your community prefers in PvP will automatically apply to this mode. A fun co-op mode with more than six players is likely to require entirely new missions. (The mission decides the pattern of enemy robots that come at you.) We have purposefully made it easy for players to create their own missions. (It's a lot easier than creating a whole new map!) But if you play with more than six players, with the missions we've made, I think the balance will be way off. - Fletch -Original Message- From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Saint K. Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:51 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Will we be able to restrict a MvM server to people in the steamgroup only, like in L4D2? Saint K. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [ hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher Dunn [ fletch...@valvesoftware.com] Sent: 14 August 2012 08:52 To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list; Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.com) Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions MvM matchmaking will be restricted to 6 players at launch. The matchmaking also supports joining games in progress to fill an empty slot, in which case of course the current map will not be changed. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Agro Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 11:40 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Is MvM matchmaking going to be limited to 6 players or was the 6 players join, map changes logic just an indicator of server behavior to expect? - Reply message - From: Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.commailto: fletch...@valvesoftware.com To: Half-Life
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
Things go unstable when there are more than 33 slots. Also there are engine restrictions that cannot be raised just like that. One thing is that entity limit of 2047. When one more is created in-game, crash happens. -ics 14.8.2012 22:24, Nomaan Ahmad kirjoitti: I dont think anyone is acting like its easy... Servers can already have more than 33 slots, its just that the tf2 client doesn't allow players to get on servers with more than 33 slots. On 14 August 2012 20:19, Nerdboy nerdb...@gmail.com wrote: You guys act as if changing the hard limit is easy. There's all sorts of resource management issues that would need to be resolved and a lot of the engine would need adjustment. Let's wait to play the game before we start thinking about overhauling things to change it. On Aug 14, 2012 3:16 PM, Ryan Stecker voidedwea...@gmail.com wrote: I third this. I think it'd open the door to making some interesting missions involving more players and more bots. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Nomaan Ahmad n0man@gmail.com wrote: I agree with 1nsane. On 14 August 2012 19:50, 1nsane 1nsane...@gmail.com wrote: Like Asher mentioned above, could you consider increasing the limit. So we could better experiment with this mode? Perhaps include a warning similar to how players are warned about joining servers higher than 24 slots. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.comwrote: We will not have Steam group functionality tomorrow. You actually have to set maxplayers to 32 to host MvM (to make room for all the bots). That's why the mode is expensive CPU-wise, to not only simulate all those players but run their AI logic as well. We'll have more details on the recommended settings tomorrow. Regarding exactly what happens if a 24-player server switches to MvM: I actually don't think we have worked that out yet. I'm pretty sure on day one there will be lots of people trying out all sorts of things. Our approach to experimentation in MvM will be the same as in PvP: we encourage it, provided that players are opting in to any major deviations from the vanilla experience. Our servers will all be configured vanilla, and the matchmaking will enforce the 6 player limit, and the server browser will be the primary means for players to find those sorts of customizations. What will the most interesting customizations be? What will the standard tags be used that we request server operators to set in order to help players find the modifications they want or avoid the ones they don't like? We can't know that yet. That's something we expect you guys and your players to figure out. I will hazard a guess that raising the player count well above 6 would be detrimental the experience. There ratio of humans to bots would be off and the human defending team would not have enough challenge. (As an extreme example: imagine a 32-player server where everybody is defending an there are no bots.) Exactly how far it can be raised above 6 without totally breaking the game is speculation of course. I think a smart server operator will start out with the server configured relatively vanilla, and then watch how the game unfolds and listen to their players, and try to make smart decisions about which areas to experiment, rather than assuming the same sorts of adjustments your community prefers in PvP will automatically apply to this mode. A fun co-op mode with more than six players is likely to require entirely new missions. (The mission decides the pattern of enemy robots that come at you.) We have purposefully made it easy for players to create their own missions. (It's a lot easier than creating a whole new map!) But if you play with more than six players, with the missions we've made, I think the balance will be way off. - Fletch -Original Message- From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Saint K. Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:51 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Will we be able to restrict a MvM server to people in the steamgroup only, like in L4D2? Saint K. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [ hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher Dunn [ fletch...@valvesoftware.com] Sent: 14 August 2012 08:52 To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list; Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.com) Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions MvM matchmaking will be restricted to 6 players at launch. The matchmaking also supports joining games in progress to fill an empty slot, in which case of course the current map will not be changed. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Agro Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012
Re: [hlds_linux] csgo server errors after latest update
Anyone? Still annoys me. I'm on Ubuntu 12.04 x64, verified and validated serveral times with no success. From: michs...@live.no To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:43:07 +0200 Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] csgo server errors after latest update I've ran it several times, nothing happens, just tells me it's up to date. From: sai...@specialattack.net To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:37:49 +0200 Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] csgo server errors after latest update Did you try app_update 740 validate ? Saint K. From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Michael Johansen [michs...@live.no] Sent: 11 August 2012 22:36 To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: [hlds_linux] csgo server errors after latest update Hi Getting this when I try to start a fresh install of csgo:http://pastie.org/private/yobr0kiwyc4qoq3fetyta No idea why it happens, I have the coredumps if needed. ___ 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 ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
I think the biggest challenge with doubling the player count (meaning number of mercs running around, whether AI or human) is just plain old performance, both server and client. -Original Message- From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of ics Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 12:34 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Things go unstable when there are more than 33 slots. Also there are engine restrictions that cannot be raised just like that. One thing is that entity limit of 2047. When one more is created in-game, crash happens. -ics 14.8.2012 22:24, Nomaan Ahmad kirjoitti: I dont think anyone is acting like its easy... Servers can already have more than 33 slots, its just that the tf2 client doesn't allow players to get on servers with more than 33 slots. On 14 August 2012 20:19, Nerdboy nerdb...@gmail.com wrote: You guys act as if changing the hard limit is easy. There's all sorts of resource management issues that would need to be resolved and a lot of the engine would need adjustment. Let's wait to play the game before we start thinking about overhauling things to change it. On Aug 14, 2012 3:16 PM, Ryan Stecker voidedwea...@gmail.com wrote: I third this. I think it'd open the door to making some interesting missions involving more players and more bots. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Nomaan Ahmad n0man@gmail.com wrote: I agree with 1nsane. On 14 August 2012 19:50, 1nsane 1nsane...@gmail.com wrote: Like Asher mentioned above, could you consider increasing the limit. So we could better experiment with this mode? Perhaps include a warning similar to how players are warned about joining servers higher than 24 slots. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.comwrote: We will not have Steam group functionality tomorrow. You actually have to set maxplayers to 32 to host MvM (to make room for all the bots). That's why the mode is expensive CPU-wise, to not only simulate all those players but run their AI logic as well. We'll have more details on the recommended settings tomorrow. Regarding exactly what happens if a 24-player server switches to MvM: I actually don't think we have worked that out yet. I'm pretty sure on day one there will be lots of people trying out all sorts of things. Our approach to experimentation in MvM will be the same as in PvP: we encourage it, provided that players are opting in to any major deviations from the vanilla experience. Our servers will all be configured vanilla, and the matchmaking will enforce the 6 player limit, and the server browser will be the primary means for players to find those sorts of customizations. What will the most interesting customizations be? What will the standard tags be used that we request server operators to set in order to help players find the modifications they want or avoid the ones they don't like? We can't know that yet. That's something we expect you guys and your players to figure out. I will hazard a guess that raising the player count well above 6 would be detrimental the experience. There ratio of humans to bots would be off and the human defending team would not have enough challenge. (As an extreme example: imagine a 32-player server where everybody is defending an there are no bots.) Exactly how far it can be raised above 6 without totally breaking the game is speculation of course. I think a smart server operator will start out with the server configured relatively vanilla, and then watch how the game unfolds and listen to their players, and try to make smart decisions about which areas to experiment, rather than assuming the same sorts of adjustments your community prefers in PvP will automatically apply to this mode. A fun co-op mode with more than six players is likely to require entirely new missions. (The mission decides the pattern of enemy robots that come at you.) We have purposefully made it easy for players to create their own missions. (It's a lot easier than creating a whole new map!) But if you play with more than six players, with the missions we've made, I think the balance will be way off. - Fletch -Original Message- From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Saint K. Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:51 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Will we be able to restrict a MvM server to people in the steamgroup only, like in L4D2? Saint K. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [ hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher Dunn [ fletch...@valvesoftware.com] Sent: 14
Re: [hlds_linux] TF MvM hosting questions
On 14/08/2012 15:08, Frank wrote: Ok so 6 player limit - is that solid cause right now? I stretch like many others a 24 player server to 32 which still runs fine and if you have the horsepower in the server then why not. I believe a question was asked about the CPU usage - please compare? CPU = 24 player on current game modes compared to CPU = 6Player on this game mode can you throw some numbers? I really appreciate the info already given because what you will have is a ton of excited players wanting to play yet those of us that can support some servers up as of now are just sitting here scratching our heads. 6 is all the fingers on one hand and one toe. HTH Or should we read this incredible confusion you have over what 6 players means as saying I want to up the player numbers to get more donations -- Dan ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] TF MvM hosting questions
It's more of why only 6 when we had more previously. Same thing went over when L4D/L4D2 came out. People wanted more than 4player coop. Thats why some people invented the 10vs10 versus servers with plugins etc. Just that the game isn't the same anymore after that. As some are aware, srcds maxplayer counts are constantly decreasing. 64css, 32 dods, 24 tf2, 4-8 l4d-series, 4 alien swarm, 2 portal2. I also know that some just love big mayhem, it's fun sometimes but not always. People are different and want different things for different reasons. -ics 14.8.2012 23:44, dan kirjoitti: On 14/08/2012 15:08, Frank wrote: Ok so 6 player limit - is that solid cause right now? I stretch like many others a 24 player server to 32 which still runs fine and if you have the horsepower in the server then why not. I believe a question was asked about the CPU usage - please compare? CPU = 24 player on current game modes compared to CPU = 6Player on this game mode can you throw some numbers? I really appreciate the info already given because what you will have is a ton of excited players wanting to play yet those of us that can support some servers up as of now are just sitting here scratching our heads. 6 is all the fingers on one hand and one toe. HTH Or should we read this incredible confusion you have over what 6 players means as saying I want to up the player numbers to get more donations ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
Yes but as Fletcher noted, it comes down eventually to performance. -ics 14.8.2012 23:48, Dr. McKay kirjoitti: CS:S runs on the same engine and it supports 65 (or something along those lines, I know nothing about CS:S) players. Just throwing that out there. Dr. McKay http://www.doctormckay.com On Aug 14, 2012, at 3:33 PM, ics i...@ics-base.net wrote: Things go unstable when there are more than 33 slots. Also there are engine restrictions that cannot be raised just like that. One thing is that entity limit of 2047. When one more is created in-game, crash happens. -ics 14.8.2012 22:24, Nomaan Ahmad kirjoitti: I dont think anyone is acting like its easy... Servers can already have more than 33 slots, its just that the tf2 client doesn't allow players to get on servers with more than 33 slots. On 14 August 2012 20:19, Nerdboy nerdb...@gmail.com wrote: You guys act as if changing the hard limit is easy. There's all sorts of resource management issues that would need to be resolved and a lot of the engine would need adjustment. Let's wait to play the game before we start thinking about overhauling things to change it. On Aug 14, 2012 3:16 PM, Ryan Stecker voidedwea...@gmail.com wrote: I third this. I think it'd open the door to making some interesting missions involving more players and more bots. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Nomaan Ahmad n0man@gmail.com wrote: I agree with 1nsane. On 14 August 2012 19:50, 1nsane 1nsane...@gmail.com wrote: Like Asher mentioned above, could you consider increasing the limit. So we could better experiment with this mode? Perhaps include a warning similar to how players are warned about joining servers higher than 24 slots. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.comwrote: We will not have Steam group functionality tomorrow. You actually have to set maxplayers to 32 to host MvM (to make room for all the bots). That's why the mode is expensive CPU-wise, to not only simulate all those players but run their AI logic as well. We'll have more details on the recommended settings tomorrow. Regarding exactly what happens if a 24-player server switches to MvM: I actually don't think we have worked that out yet. I'm pretty sure on day one there will be lots of people trying out all sorts of things. Our approach to experimentation in MvM will be the same as in PvP: we encourage it, provided that players are opting in to any major deviations from the vanilla experience. Our servers will all be configured vanilla, and the matchmaking will enforce the 6 player limit, and the server browser will be the primary means for players to find those sorts of customizations. What will the most interesting customizations be? What will the standard tags be used that we request server operators to set in order to help players find the modifications they want or avoid the ones they don't like? We can't know that yet. That's something we expect you guys and your players to figure out. I will hazard a guess that raising the player count well above 6 would be detrimental the experience. There ratio of humans to bots would be off and the human defending team would not have enough challenge. (As an extreme example: imagine a 32-player server where everybody is defending an there are no bots.) Exactly how far it can be raised above 6 without totally breaking the game is speculation of course. I think a smart server operator will start out with the server configured relatively vanilla, and then watch how the game unfolds and listen to their players, and try to make smart decisions about which areas to experiment, rather than assuming the same sorts of adjustments your community prefers in PvP will automatically apply to this mode. A fun co-op mode with more than six players is likely to require entirely new missions. (The mission decides the pattern of enemy robots that come at you.) We have purposefully made it easy for players to create their own missions. (It's a lot easier than creating a whole new map!) But if you play with more than six players, with the missions we've made, I think the balance will be way off. - Fletch -Original Message- From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Saint K. Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:51 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Will we be able to restrict a MvM server to people in the steamgroup only, like in L4D2? Saint K. From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [ hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher Dunn [ fletch...@valvesoftware.com] Sent: 14 August 2012 08:52 To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list; Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list (h...@list.valvesoftware.com) Subject: Re: [hlds] TF
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
On 14/08/2012 21:15, Fletcher Dunn wrote: I think the biggest challenge with doubling the player count (meaning number of mercs running around, whether AI or human) is just plain old performance, both server and client. I'd say by far the biggest challenge would be solving the problem that adding more players makes the game complete rubbish to play. You'd need a complete redesign of most of the game - weapon attributes, maps and so on. In TF2's case 24 is pushing it (although I suppose trading and sniping have both been ways Valve have designed TF2 to get 9v9 or less, even with 24 players on a server) -- Dan ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
What do you mean by rubbish to play? CPUs have gotten more powerful over the years too. If some is running on tf2's minimum requirement I think they should upgrade in order to play on bigger servers. Same goes to server operators, they need to host their games it on high end servers if they want more slots. On 14 August 2012 22:04, dan needa...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14/08/2012 21:15, Fletcher Dunn wrote: I think the biggest challenge with doubling the player count (meaning number of mercs running around, whether AI or human) is just plain old performance, both server and client. I'd say by far the biggest challenge would be solving the problem that adding more players makes the game complete rubbish to play. You'd need a complete redesign of most of the game - weapon attributes, maps and so on. In TF2's case 24 is pushing it (although I suppose trading and sniping have both been ways Valve have designed TF2 to get 9v9 or less, even with 24 players on a server) -- Dan __**_ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.**com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**hlds_linuxhttps://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
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
Note that more players in-game at one time isn't the only reason more slots would be nice. Maybe adding more robots would be interesting, too? Dr. McKay http://www.doctormckay.com -Original Message- From: dan Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 5:04 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions On 14/08/2012 21:15, Fletcher Dunn wrote: I think the biggest challenge with doubling the player count (meaning number of mercs running around, whether AI or human) is just plain old performance, both server and client. I'd say by far the biggest challenge would be solving the problem that adding more players makes the game complete rubbish to play. You'd need a complete redesign of most of the game - weapon attributes, maps and so on. In TF2's case 24 is pushing it (although I suppose trading and sniping have both been ways Valve have designed TF2 to get 9v9 or less, even with 24 players on a server) -- Dan ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
I think he was referring to game balance being broken on 24 player games. On 14.08.2012 14:19, Nomaan Ahmad wrote: What do you mean by rubbish to play? CPUs have gotten more powerful over the years too. If some is running on tf2's minimum requirement I think they should upgrade in order to play on bigger servers. Same goes to server operators, they need to host their games it on high end servers if they want more slots. On 14 August 2012 22:04, dan needa...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14/08/2012 21:15, Fletcher Dunn wrote: I think the biggest challenge with doubling the player count (meaning number of mercs running around, whether AI or human) is just plain old performance, both server and client. I'd say by far the biggest challenge would be solving the problem that adding more players makes the game complete rubbish to play. You'd need a complete redesign of most of the game - weapon attributes, maps and so on. In TF2's case 24 is pushing it (although I suppose trading and sniping have both been ways Valve have designed TF2 to get 9v9 or less, even with 24 players on a server) -- Dan ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
Some servers ops will know how to make it balanced... class limiting is one of them. On 14 August 2012 22:33, Russell Smith ve...@tinylittlerobots.us wrote: I think he was referring to game balance being broken on 24 player games. On 14.08.2012 14:19, Nomaan Ahmad wrote: What do you mean by rubbish to play? CPUs have gotten more powerful over the years too. If some is running on tf2's minimum requirement I think they should upgrade in order to play on bigger servers. Same goes to server operators, they need to host their games it on high end servers if they want more slots. On 14 August 2012 22:04, dan needa...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14/08/2012 21:15, Fletcher Dunn wrote: I think the biggest challenge with doubling the player count (meaning number of mercs running around, whether AI or human) is just plain old performance, both server and client. I'd say by far the biggest challenge would be solving the problem that adding more players makes the game complete rubbish to play. You'd need a complete redesign of most of the game - weapon attributes, maps and so on. In TF2's case 24 is pushing it (although I suppose trading and sniping have both been ways Valve have designed TF2 to get 9v9 or less, even with 24 players on a server) -- Dan __**_ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.**com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**hlds_linuxhttps://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
Re: [hlds_linux] TF MvM hosting questions
No confusion just a little more drawn out for what seems that everyone wants and that is higher player support - although I think at this point from the information provided we will have to suck it up at a 6player limit if co-op is going to be a resource hog. 6 is all the fingers on one hand and one toe. HTH Or should we read this incredible confusion you have over what 6 players means as saying I want to up the player numbers to get more donations -- Dan ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
Can we do reserved lobbies like with keys? So all friends go to the same community server? Sent from my iPhone 4 On Aug 14, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Nomaan Ahmad n0man@gmail.com wrote: Some servers ops will know how to make it balanced... class limiting is one of them. On 14 August 2012 22:33, Russell Smith ve...@tinylittlerobots.us wrote: I think he was referring to game balance being broken on 24 player games. On 14.08.2012 14:19, Nomaan Ahmad wrote: What do you mean by rubbish to play? CPUs have gotten more powerful over the years too. If some is running on tf2's minimum requirement I think they should upgrade in order to play on bigger servers. Same goes to server operators, they need to host their games it on high end servers if they want more slots. On 14 August 2012 22:04, dan needa...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14/08/2012 21:15, Fletcher Dunn wrote: I think the biggest challenge with doubling the player count (meaning number of mercs running around, whether AI or human) is just plain old performance, both server and client. I'd say by far the biggest challenge would be solving the problem that adding more players makes the game complete rubbish to play. You'd need a complete redesign of most of the game - weapon attributes, maps and so on. In TF2's case 24 is pushing it (although I suppose trading and sniping have both been ways Valve have designed TF2 to get 9v9 or less, even with 24 players on a server) -- Dan __**_ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.**com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**hlds_linuxhttps://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
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
If you mean steam group servers like Left 4 Dead has, Fletcher said earlier that this functionality wouldn't be in tomorrow's update. Hopefully it will be added down the line though. On 14.08.2012 14:46, DontWannaName! wrote: Can we do reserved lobbies like with keys? So all friends go to the same community server? Sent from my iPhone 4 ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
Is there any way to point the lobby to a specific server at all? Cvar? Sent from my iPhone 4 On Aug 14, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Russell Smith ve...@tinylittlerobots.us wrote: If you mean steam group servers like Left 4 Dead has, Fletcher said earlier that this functionality wouldn't be in tomorrow's update. Hopefully it will be added down the line though. On 14.08.2012 14:46, DontWannaName! wrote: Can we do reserved lobbies like with keys? So all friends go to the same community server? Sent from my iPhone 4 ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
Don't necessarily need that. The biggest focus here should be on having bigger co-op games. Like what was done to Left 4 Dead/2 when a number of people thought 4 players co-op was just not enough. Limit/leave the TF2 game client support at 33 humans, but allow the server to have more players (bots). This way no old gamemodes/maps need re balancing. You won't be seeing 40+ player 2fort matches. And so custom maps and or modes would then be made by the community to support higher player/bot counts. Just some ideas. This could be something to experiment with and see what works with the new game mode. We don't need to drag old maps/gamemodes into this, if that's causing issues. Just some extra unofficial support to tinker with :P. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM, dan needa...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14/08/2012 21:15, Fletcher Dunn wrote: I think the biggest challenge with doubling the player count (meaning number of mercs running around, whether AI or human) is just plain old performance, both server and client. I'd say by far the biggest challenge would be solving the problem that adding more players makes the game complete rubbish to play. You'd need a complete redesign of most of the game - weapon attributes, maps and so on. In TF2's case 24 is pushing it (although I suppose trading and sniping have both been ways Valve have designed TF2 to get 9v9 or less, even with 24 players on a server) -- Dan __**_ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.**com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**hlds_linuxhttps://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
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
Not sure about lobbies, but he mentioned you can still join from the server browser. On 14.08.2012 14:57, DontWannaName! wrote: Is there any way to point the lobby to a specific server at all? Cvar? Sent from my iPhone 4 On Aug 14, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Russell Smith ve...@tinylittlerobots.us wrote: If you mean steam group servers like Left 4 Dead has, Fletcher said earlier that this functionality wouldn't be in tomorrow's update. Hopefully it will be added down the line though. On 14.08.2012 14:46, DontWannaName! wrote: Can we do reserved lobbies like with keys? So all friends go to the same community server? Sent from my iPhone 4 ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] TF MvM hosting questions
On 14/08/2012 21:48, ics wrote: It's more of why only 6 when we had more previously. Same thing went over when L4D/L4D2 came out. People wanted more than 4player coop. Thats why some people invented the 10vs10 versus servers with plugins etc. Just that the game isn't the same anymore after that. Same thing before anyone had played it? I doubt that. I can't really see any worthwhile fretting about how many players the game mode could or should have before it's released, unless it's related to the real reason server admins want lots of players :) As some are aware, srcds maxplayer counts are constantly decreasing. 64css, 32 dods, 24 tf2, 4-8 l4d-series, 4 alien swarm, 2 portal2. I also know that some just love big mayhem, it's fun sometimes but not always. People are different and want different things for different reasons. Well yes, the fewer players, the more shots you need to kill and the bigger the penalty for death, in general, the bigger the disparity in skill will be shown between players and teams. So it's not really a surprise that people who cannot play very well want a configuration that hides that fact. So, 32 man, instant spawn removes nearly all the penalty for being killed and has so many players that skill has little or no bearing. If you factor in the saigns premium stuff as well, you have a server that you can score over 300 points an hour on with your monitor switched off. The only problem I see with games like L4D2 and Dota 2 is they have an issue where the player numbers are too small and the game design such that if someone leaves a pub game the game is ruined for everyone. Some are designed in a such a way that make someone joining part way through the game not really a realistic prospect either. L4D2, less so perhaps because it has the bots, but they aren't usually a substitute, especially on the harder difficulties. (Although when I played L4D2 we generally joined as 2 player co-op, killed the bots and went through like that) But I've not run L4D2 for years. I guess the only reason I might is the linux client. All of these games are great for organised matches (clans, pcws, lobbies and so on) but the people that organise these things will tell you, often the reason they go for 6v6 is simply the issues you have trying to get 6 people all available at the same time to commit to playing a game. This should tell any game designer that a pub or casual game mode that has the same commitment requirements is badly designed and flawed. The problem with this is, natural spite and angry, depressed gamers leads to asinine solutions that try to solve this problem by punishing people for leaving instead of fixing the game design instead. I leave TF2 games all the time, for multiple reasons, quite often the reason is, the game on that server is dull. But often it's something in real life and often something that I had no reason to foresee when I joined the server. If TF2 were designed in such a way that I got punished for leaving a server I wouldn't have played thousands and thousands of hours of it. Anyone that really cares about their game being organised and planned, does comp and has that organisation, the same people playing from start to finish etc - nothing is lost for them in TF2. So, that's the potential loss for low player counts - firstly you can't hide the fact you suck and secondly you can't always come and go in a casual way. Vanilla TF2 has enough players that a reasonable churn rate during a round doesn't really hurt the game too much. Perhaps the most annoying aspect of that freedom is auto balance. But, imo, it's a lot better than the converse (and I think the few dumb plugins that really try to enforce autobalance and stop switching or switch non-dead players demonstrate that once you try to bully and punish your player base, your game and server sucks more as a result) But, we haven't played this yet to see what the 6 players means in terms of casual or pub play, joining or leaving, or in terms of balance and so on. Deciding you don't like 6 players at this stage cannot have anything to do with the game. -- Dan ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
What is the use case for that? Friends could just join the server directly, there doesn't seem to be a need to form a party at all. -Original Message- From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of DontWannaName! Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:57 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list Cc: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Is there any way to point the lobby to a specific server at all? Cvar? Sent from my iPhone 4 On Aug 14, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Russell Smith ve...@tinylittlerobots.us wrote: If you mean steam group servers like Left 4 Dead has, Fletcher said earlier that this functionality wouldn't be in tomorrow's update. Hopefully it will be added down the line though. On 14.08.2012 14:46, DontWannaName! wrote: Can we do reserved lobbies like with keys? So all friends go to the same community server? Sent from my iPhone 4 ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
This use case I think would be solved by adding steam group lobby functionality. It is going to suck initially for communities to set up a server for this and have it immediately fill with random players, locking out community players who want to try it out. On 14.08.2012 15:19, Fletcher Dunn wrote: What is the use case for that? Friends could just join the server directly, there doesn't seem to be a need to form a party at all. -Original Message- From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of DontWannaName! Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:57 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list Cc: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Is there any way to point the lobby to a specific server at all? Cvar? Sent from my iPhone 4 On Aug 14, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Russell Smith ve...@tinylittlerobots.us wrote: If you mean steam group servers like Left 4 Dead has, Fletcher said earlier that this functionality wouldn't be in tomorrow's update. Hopefully it will be added down the line though. On 14.08.2012 14:46, DontWannaName! wrote: Can we do reserved lobbies like with keys? So all friends go to the same community server? Sent from my iPhone 4 ___ 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 ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
Choosing the map or maybe chatting for example before starting a game? Sent from my iPhone 4 On Aug 14, 2012, at 3:19 PM, Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.com wrote: What is the use case for that? Friends could just join the server directly, there doesn't seem to be a need to form a party at all. -Original Message- From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of DontWannaName! Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:57 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list Cc: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Is there any way to point the lobby to a specific server at all? Cvar? Sent from my iPhone 4 On Aug 14, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Russell Smith ve...@tinylittlerobots.us wrote: If you mean steam group servers like Left 4 Dead has, Fletcher said earlier that this functionality wouldn't be in tomorrow's update. Hopefully it will be added down the line though. On 14.08.2012 14:46, DontWannaName! wrote: Can we do reserved lobbies like with keys? So all friends go to the same community server? Sent from my iPhone 4 ___ 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 ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
A lobby can specify the mission whereas manually joining leaves you such with what's there. Also, steam community-based access control would be a lot less hassle than passwords Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.com wrote: What is the use case for that? Friends could just join the server directly, there doesn't seem to be a need to form a party at all. -Original Message- From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of DontWannaName! Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:57 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list Cc: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions Is there any way to point the lobby to a specific server at all? Cvar? Sent from my iPhone 4 On Aug 14, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Russell Smith ve...@tinylittlerobots.us wrote: If you mean steam group servers like Left 4 Dead has, Fletcher said earlier that this functionality wouldn't be in tomorrow's update. Hopefully it will be added down the line though. On 14.08.2012 14:46, DontWannaName! wrote: Can we do reserved lobbies like with keys? So all friends go to the same community server? Sent from my iPhone 4 _ 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 ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
On 14/08/2012 22:40, Nomaan Ahmad wrote: Some servers ops will know how to make it balanced... class limiting is one of them. No they don't. Class limiting is a flawed approach. It suggests that if you assign forced roles that the game will be good. It won't be. It just means the 2 or 3 engineers you have will be halfwits and the one guy that can play engineer has to watch these halfwits in frustration. The only time highlander and class limits works is when you have organised teams and matches and then you can say Bill, you be the medic...John, you play engineer and so on. Yes it sucks if you have 5 spies and 5 snipers on a team, but the truth is, forcing these guys to play a different class won't help. It's far better to let people play what class they want and use that data to see they are all buffoons. They'll see it when they lose and you'll see it when you join so you can, if you want, just hit 'change server' and find a round that will be better. Of course, from a server admin point of view the idea the best way to find a good round is to hit 'change server' isn't that appealing, hence the flawed attempts to try and mess things around instead. You can't turn a buffoon into a good player by making him play a different class, nor a team of buffoons into a good team using the same method. As I said in another post, generally speaking, increasing the number of players, reducing the number of shots you need to kill or removing the penalty for death are all designed to hide differences in skill between players and teams. Or in other words, people play on 32 man, instant spawn servers (and Robin runs around with his OP rocket launcher or people pay saigns for silly weapons and abilities) because it helps hide the fact they suck. With 12v12 with respawn timers (and things like nocrit) you will see which players on the server can play better than the others and which team is better - especially if both teams are motivated towards the objective. Their skill will be more evident (although as the comp players will tell you, 6v6 is better than 12v12 for that) But, unfortunately, it will generally result in average and below players spending a lot of time spectating and losing rounds. Which obviously for them is a worse experience than having a 3 hour round that no one wins (or that one team can trivially win because there are some trivial ways to win with instant spawn, especially when you have weapons like the dead ringer) It's a lot easier to configure a server badly than it is to get better at playing it too. So it's no real surprise there's a player base happy to play on servers configured this way. -- Dan ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
For the love of god please let us protect our sv_steamgroup id from being added to everyone elses steamgroup, l4d2 is rife with it!, there has always been a simple solution to this and requested several times yet no response -Original Message- From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Russell Smith Sent: 14 August 2012 22:54 To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions If you mean steam group servers like Left 4 Dead has, Fletcher said earlier that this functionality wouldn't be in tomorrow's update. Hopefully it will be added down the line though. On 14.08.2012 14:46, DontWannaName! wrote: Can we do reserved lobbies like with keys? So all friends go to the same community server? Sent from my iPhone 4 ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
Special game modes sometimes benefit from class limits (such as Vs. Saxton Hale limiting Engineers and Spies), but I agree that a standard game doesn't benefit from it. On 8/14/2012 6:33 PM, dan wrote: On 14/08/2012 22:40, Nomaan Ahmad wrote: Some servers ops will know how to make it balanced... class limiting is one of them. No they don't. Class limiting is a flawed approach. It suggests that if you assign forced roles that the game will be good. It won't be. It just means the 2 or 3 engineers you have will be halfwits and the one guy that can play engineer has to watch these halfwits in frustration. The only time highlander and class limits works is when you have organised teams and matches and then you can say Bill, you be the medic...John, you play engineer and so on. Yes it sucks if you have 5 spies and 5 snipers on a team, but the truth is, forcing these guys to play a different class won't help. It's far better to let people play what class they want and use that data to see they are all buffoons. They'll see it when they lose and you'll see it when you join so you can, if you want, just hit 'change server' and find a round that will be better. Of course, from a server admin point of view the idea the best way to find a good round is to hit 'change server' isn't that appealing, hence the flawed attempts to try and mess things around instead. You can't turn a buffoon into a good player by making him play a different class, nor a team of buffoons into a good team using the same method. As I said in another post, generally speaking, increasing the number of players, reducing the number of shots you need to kill or removing the penalty for death are all designed to hide differences in skill between players and teams. Or in other words, people play on 32 man, instant spawn servers (and Robin runs around with his OP rocket launcher or people pay saigns for silly weapons and abilities) because it helps hide the fact they suck. With 12v12 with respawn timers (and things like nocrit) you will see which players on the server can play better than the others and which team is better - especially if both teams are motivated towards the objective. Their skill will be more evident (although as the comp players will tell you, 6v6 is better than 12v12 for that) But, unfortunately, it will generally result in average and below players spending a lot of time spectating and losing rounds. Which obviously for them is a worse experience than having a 3 hour round that no one wins (or that one team can trivially win because there are some trivial ways to win with instant spawn, especially when you have weapons like the dead ringer) It's a lot easier to configure a server badly than it is to get better at playing it too. So it's no real surprise there's a player base happy to play on servers configured this way. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] TF MvM hosting questions
Thank you Dan this is exactly how I felt. But, we haven't played this yet to see what the 6 players means in terms of casual or pub play, joining or leaving, or in terms of balance and so on. Deciding you don't like 6 players at this stage cannot have anything to do with the game. -- Dan ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] New WebAPI: Is my server listed on the master server?
Fletcher, Two of my servers just did it again. Neither of the servers restarted or crashed. When I type status i'm getting an incorrect Public IP. This all seemed to happen ~10mins ago when I lost connection to steam friends. I've also been noticing my servers bouncing up/down from the master server list. This is indicated in both the API URL and by doing a simple refresh in-game. Chris On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.comwrote: Try typing status is the reported public IP the same as what you expect? -Original Message- From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Chris Oryschak Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 2:58 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] New WebAPI: Is my server listed on the master server? Is their a reason why a server would drop off from the master server list? Is there a way to manually make it re-register itself? The reason i'm asking is because I host 8 servers on one box. Over the night 3 servers dropped off master server list. Performing a server restart to srcds brought the server back up to be listed. I left one server in this weird state incase someone at valve wants to look into it. Two servers are running on the IP: 142.54.178.234 One is on port 27015 and the other is 27016 As you see from the API, its working correctly and only seeing the server on port 27016. http://api.steampowered.com/ISteamApps/GetServersAtAddress/v0001?addr=142.54.178.234format=json The server on 27015 isn't showing up at all.. though if you toss the IP in HLSW you will see its up and runnning. Any idea on why this happens? Thanks, Python On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Jesse Molina je...@opendreams.net wrote: Works as-expected for me. My host has eight srcds servers running on multiple IPs. However, one of the TF2 servers which I help host was being listed on the primary host's IP, instead of the secondary IP which it is configured to be using. It's that well-known steamclient reconnect bug. Once I restated the server, it instantly went back to the right IP and this was reflected in the webapi service. I have eight srcds servers running on this host; TF2, CSS, HL2MP, L4D, and L4D2. Only this one TF2 server has ever done this (based on logs over the last 18 months), and it is noteworthy that it is the only one which uses standard ports. All the other servers use non-standard ports piled onto a single IP. Maybe coincidental, maybe not. Hosts primary IP, should be nothing here ever: http://api.steampowered.com/**ISteamApps/**GetServersAtAddress/v0001?* * addr=66.113.99.98format=xmlhttp://api.steampowered.com/ISteamApps/Ge tServersAtAddress/v0001?addr=66.113.99.98format=xml Assigned IP of the occasionally-errant TF2 server: http://api.steampowered.com/**ISteamApps/**GetServersAtAddress/v0001?* * addr=66.113.99.99format=xmlhttp://api.steampowered.com/ISteamApps/Ge tServersAtAddress/v0001?addr=66.113.99.99format=xml Everything else on this host: http://api.steampowered.com/**ISteamApps/**GetServersAtAddress/v0001?* * addr=66.113.99.100format=xmlhttp://api.steampowered.com/ISteamApps/G etServersAtAddress/v0001?addr=66.113.99.100format=xml Here is a little bit of info on the process before I restarted it. lsof shows the .98 IP being used, when it should not be. tmux session: server-tf2-ALPHA: 1 windows (created Fri Aug 3 18:05:23 2012) [153x67] Process command arguments: ./srcds_linux -game tf -ip 66.113.99.99 +clientport 27005 +hostport 27015 +tv_port 27025 -steamport 26005 +replay_port 27040 -strictportbind +-pidfile /xxx/server.pid -maxplayers 26 +map pl_badwater Process started at: Fri Aug 3 18:05:23 2012 Process started elapsed-time ago: 5-19:25:25 Process CPU in-use time: 1-17:58:10 lsof says the following network sockets are in use by PID 12453: COMMAND PID USER FD TYPEDEVICE SIZE/OFF NODE NAME srcds_lin 12453 hlds7u IPv4 519822253 0t0 UDP 66.113.99.99:27015 srcds_lin 12453 hlds8u IPv4 519822254 0t0 UDP 66.113.99.99:27005 srcds_lin 12453 hlds9u IPv4 519822255 0t0 UDP 66.113.99.99:27025 srcds_lin 12453 hlds 10u IPv4 519822256 0t0 TCP 66.113.99.99:27015 (LISTEN) srcds_lin 12453 hlds 20u IPv4 776732447 0t0 TCP 66.113.99.98:34339 -81.171.**115.37:27017 http://81.171.115.37:27017 (ESTABLISHED) --- bad ephemeral connection srcds_lin 12453 hlds 22u IPv4 800648048 0t0 TCP 66.113.99.99:27015 -81.169.**139.249:57477 http://81.169.139.249:57477 (ESTABLISHED) srcds_lin 12453 hlds 30u IPv4 519838391 0t0 UDP 66.113.99.99:26006 Kyle Sanderson wrote: Is everyone's server being listed via the API? It looks like only one server per machine that I have is actually
Re: [hlds_linux] New WebAPI: Is my server listed on the master server?
Two of my servers are doing this. The gms doesn't see them even though they are running. They are reporting the wrong ip in console on startup as well. Sent from my iPhone 4 On Aug 14, 2012, at 4:34 PM, Chris Oryschak ch...@oryschak.com wrote: Fletcher, Two of my servers just did it again. Neither of the servers restarted or crashed. When I type status i'm getting an incorrect Public IP. This all seemed to happen ~10mins ago when I lost connection to steam friends. I've also been noticing my servers bouncing up/down from the master server list. This is indicated in both the API URL and by doing a simple refresh in-game. Chris On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.comwrote: Try typing status is the reported public IP the same as what you expect? -Original Message- From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Chris Oryschak Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 2:58 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] New WebAPI: Is my server listed on the master server? Is their a reason why a server would drop off from the master server list? Is there a way to manually make it re-register itself? The reason i'm asking is because I host 8 servers on one box. Over the night 3 servers dropped off master server list. Performing a server restart to srcds brought the server back up to be listed. I left one server in this weird state incase someone at valve wants to look into it. Two servers are running on the IP: 142.54.178.234 One is on port 27015 and the other is 27016 As you see from the API, its working correctly and only seeing the server on port 27016. http://api.steampowered.com/ISteamApps/GetServersAtAddress/v0001?addr=142.54.178.234format=json The server on 27015 isn't showing up at all.. though if you toss the IP in HLSW you will see its up and runnning. Any idea on why this happens? Thanks, Python On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Jesse Molina je...@opendreams.net wrote: Works as-expected for me. My host has eight srcds servers running on multiple IPs. However, one of the TF2 servers which I help host was being listed on the primary host's IP, instead of the secondary IP which it is configured to be using. It's that well-known steamclient reconnect bug. Once I restated the server, it instantly went back to the right IP and this was reflected in the webapi service. I have eight srcds servers running on this host; TF2, CSS, HL2MP, L4D, and L4D2. Only this one TF2 server has ever done this (based on logs over the last 18 months), and it is noteworthy that it is the only one which uses standard ports. All the other servers use non-standard ports piled onto a single IP. Maybe coincidental, maybe not. Hosts primary IP, should be nothing here ever: http://api.steampowered.com/**ISteamApps/**GetServersAtAddress/v0001?* * addr=66.113.99.98format=xmlhttp://api.steampowered.com/ISteamApps/Ge tServersAtAddress/v0001?addr=66.113.99.98format=xml Assigned IP of the occasionally-errant TF2 server: http://api.steampowered.com/**ISteamApps/**GetServersAtAddress/v0001?* * addr=66.113.99.99format=xmlhttp://api.steampowered.com/ISteamApps/Ge tServersAtAddress/v0001?addr=66.113.99.99format=xml Everything else on this host: http://api.steampowered.com/**ISteamApps/**GetServersAtAddress/v0001?* * addr=66.113.99.100format=xmlhttp://api.steampowered.com/ISteamApps/G etServersAtAddress/v0001?addr=66.113.99.100format=xml Here is a little bit of info on the process before I restarted it. lsof shows the .98 IP being used, when it should not be. tmux session: server-tf2-ALPHA: 1 windows (created Fri Aug 3 18:05:23 2012) [153x67] Process command arguments: ./srcds_linux -game tf -ip 66.113.99.99 +clientport 27005 +hostport 27015 +tv_port 27025 -steamport 26005 +replay_port 27040 -strictportbind +-pidfile /xxx/server.pid -maxplayers 26 +map pl_badwater Process started at: Fri Aug 3 18:05:23 2012 Process started elapsed-time ago: 5-19:25:25 Process CPU in-use time: 1-17:58:10 lsof says the following network sockets are in use by PID 12453: COMMAND PID USER FD TYPEDEVICE SIZE/OFF NODE NAME srcds_lin 12453 hlds7u IPv4 519822253 0t0 UDP 66.113.99.99:27015 srcds_lin 12453 hlds8u IPv4 519822254 0t0 UDP 66.113.99.99:27005 srcds_lin 12453 hlds9u IPv4 519822255 0t0 UDP 66.113.99.99:27025 srcds_lin 12453 hlds 10u IPv4 519822256 0t0 TCP 66.113.99.99:27015 (LISTEN) srcds_lin 12453 hlds 20u IPv4 776732447 0t0 TCP 66.113.99.98:34339 -81.171.**115.37:27017 http://81.171.115.37:27017 (ESTABLISHED) --- bad ephemeral connection srcds_lin 12453 hlds 22u IPv4 800648048 0t0 TCP 66.113.99.99:27015 -81.169.**139.249:57477 http://81.169.139.249:57477 (ESTABLISHED)
Re: [hlds_linux] New WebAPI: Is my server listed on the master server?
The public IP shown in your server console is the address from which Steam is receiving communication from your server. When we just now did regular Steam maintenance, your server might have switched to TCP to talk to Steam. If you specify a particular interface, that setting can get lost due to a bug, if it retries and falls back to TCP. Or it might be a NAT problem. -Original Message- From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Chris Oryschak Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:34 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] New WebAPI: Is my server listed on the master server? Fletcher, Two of my servers just did it again. Neither of the servers restarted or crashed. When I type status i'm getting an incorrect Public IP. This all seemed to happen ~10mins ago when I lost connection to steam friends. I've also been noticing my servers bouncing up/down from the master server list. This is indicated in both the API URL and by doing a simple refresh in-game. Chris On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.comwrote: Try typing status is the reported public IP the same as what you expect? -Original Message- From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Chris Oryschak Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 2:58 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] New WebAPI: Is my server listed on the master server? Is their a reason why a server would drop off from the master server list? Is there a way to manually make it re-register itself? The reason i'm asking is because I host 8 servers on one box. Over the night 3 servers dropped off master server list. Performing a server restart to srcds brought the server back up to be listed. I left one server in this weird state incase someone at valve wants to look into it. Two servers are running on the IP: 142.54.178.234 One is on port 27015 and the other is 27016 As you see from the API, its working correctly and only seeing the server on port 27016. http://api.steampowered.com/ISteamApps/GetServersAtAddress/v0001?addr= 142.54.178.234format=json The server on 27015 isn't showing up at all.. though if you toss the IP in HLSW you will see its up and runnning. Any idea on why this happens? Thanks, Python On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Jesse Molina je...@opendreams.net wrote: Works as-expected for me. My host has eight srcds servers running on multiple IPs. However, one of the TF2 servers which I help host was being listed on the primary host's IP, instead of the secondary IP which it is configured to be using. It's that well-known steamclient reconnect bug. Once I restated the server, it instantly went back to the right IP and this was reflected in the webapi service. I have eight srcds servers running on this host; TF2, CSS, HL2MP, L4D, and L4D2. Only this one TF2 server has ever done this (based on logs over the last 18 months), and it is noteworthy that it is the only one which uses standard ports. All the other servers use non-standard ports piled onto a single IP. Maybe coincidental, maybe not. Hosts primary IP, should be nothing here ever: http://api.steampowered.com/**ISteamApps/**GetServersAtAddress/v0001 ?* * addr=66.113.99.98format=xmlhttp://api.steampowered.com/ISteamApps/ Ge tServersAtAddress/v0001?addr=66.113.99.98format=xml Assigned IP of the occasionally-errant TF2 server: http://api.steampowered.com/**ISteamApps/**GetServersAtAddress/v0001 ?* * addr=66.113.99.99format=xmlhttp://api.steampowered.com/ISteamApps/ Ge tServersAtAddress/v0001?addr=66.113.99.99format=xml Everything else on this host: http://api.steampowered.com/**ISteamApps/**GetServersAtAddress/v0001 ?* * addr=66.113.99.100format=xmlhttp://api.steampowered.com/ISteamApps /G etServersAtAddress/v0001?addr=66.113.99.100format=xml Here is a little bit of info on the process before I restarted it. lsof shows the .98 IP being used, when it should not be. tmux session: server-tf2-ALPHA: 1 windows (created Fri Aug 3 18:05:23 2012) [153x67] Process command arguments: ./srcds_linux -game tf -ip 66.113.99.99 +clientport 27005 +hostport 27015 +tv_port 27025 -steamport 26005 +replay_port 27040 -strictportbind +-pidfile /xxx/server.pid -maxplayers 26 +map pl_badwater Process started at: Fri Aug 3 18:05:23 2012 Process started elapsed-time ago: 5-19:25:25 Process CPU in-use time: 1-17:58:10 lsof says the following network sockets are in use by PID 12453: COMMAND PID USER FD TYPEDEVICE SIZE/OFF NODE NAME srcds_lin 12453 hlds7u IPv4 519822253 0t0 UDP 66.113.99.99:27015 srcds_lin 12453 hlds8u IPv4 519822254 0t0 UDP
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
Class restriction was just an example... we need to experiment before you can stay its rubbish tbh... There are other things server operators can try but we need some unofficial support to allow increased slots. Its up to the communities how they want their servers.. If you dont like servers with more than 24 slots or you lag on them... simple, don't play on them. If their servers are unbalanced or configured badly, I'm sure players will leave and they wont have populated server anyway. Or do you carry on playing on them? I know I don't... On 14 August 2012 23:33, dan needa...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14/08/2012 22:40, Nomaan Ahmad wrote: Some servers ops will know how to make it balanced... class limiting is one of them. No they don't. Class limiting is a flawed approach. It suggests that if you assign forced roles that the game will be good. It won't be. It just means the 2 or 3 engineers you have will be halfwits and the one guy that can play engineer has to watch these halfwits in frustration. The only time highlander and class limits works is when you have organised teams and matches and then you can say Bill, you be the medic...John, you play engineer and so on. Yes it sucks if you have 5 spies and 5 snipers on a team, but the truth is, forcing these guys to play a different class won't help. It's far better to let people play what class they want and use that data to see they are all buffoons. They'll see it when they lose and you'll see it when you join so you can, if you want, just hit 'change server' and find a round that will be better. Of course, from a server admin point of view the idea the best way to find a good round is to hit 'change server' isn't that appealing, hence the flawed attempts to try and mess things around instead. You can't turn a buffoon into a good player by making him play a different class, nor a team of buffoons into a good team using the same method. As I said in another post, generally speaking, increasing the number of players, reducing the number of shots you need to kill or removing the penalty for death are all designed to hide differences in skill between players and teams. Or in other words, people play on 32 man, instant spawn servers (and Robin runs around with his OP rocket launcher or people pay saigns for silly weapons and abilities) because it helps hide the fact they suck. With 12v12 with respawn timers (and things like nocrit) you will see which players on the server can play better than the others and which team is better - especially if both teams are motivated towards the objective. Their skill will be more evident (although as the comp players will tell you, 6v6 is better than 12v12 for that) But, unfortunately, it will generally result in average and below players spending a lot of time spectating and losing rounds. Which obviously for them is a worse experience than having a 3 hour round that no one wins (or that one team can trivially win because there are some trivial ways to win with instant spawn, especially when you have weapons like the dead ringer) It's a lot easier to configure a server badly than it is to get better at playing it too. So it's no real surprise there's a player base happy to play on servers configured this way. -- Dan __**_ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.**com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**hlds_linuxhttps://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
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
True but there just is a limit to the amount of players you can support. Sure they could enable 64 players but it's completely broken, out of resources, not designed for that. There comes a time in brainstorming where you just have to draw the line. People were able to set up vs. Saxton Hale, and Prop Hunt, and all sorts of other fun gamemodes that didn't require a raising of what is essentially a hard limit. I feel like the people asking for more slots don't understand the many important reasons there is this arbitrary limit. I don't think this is Valve stomping on the server owner, if anything they've bent over backwards trying to keep the community modding and server operators happy. We haven't even been shown day 2 of MVM and people are already clamoring for the code behind MVM be changed to better fit all this crazy theorycrafting about what the gamemode MIGHT be like. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Nomaan Ahmad n0man@gmail.com wrote: Class restriction was just an example... we need to experiment before you can stay its rubbish tbh... There are other things server operators can try but we need some unofficial support to allow increased slots. Its up to the communities how they want their servers.. If you dont like servers with more than 24 slots or you lag on them... simple, don't play on them. If their servers are unbalanced or configured badly, I'm sure players will leave and they wont have populated server anyway. Or do you carry on playing on them? I know I don't... On 14 August 2012 23:33, dan needa...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14/08/2012 22:40, Nomaan Ahmad wrote: Some servers ops will know how to make it balanced... class limiting is one of them. No they don't. Class limiting is a flawed approach. It suggests that if you assign forced roles that the game will be good. It won't be. It just means the 2 or 3 engineers you have will be halfwits and the one guy that can play engineer has to watch these halfwits in frustration. The only time highlander and class limits works is when you have organised teams and matches and then you can say Bill, you be the medic...John, you play engineer and so on. Yes it sucks if you have 5 spies and 5 snipers on a team, but the truth is, forcing these guys to play a different class won't help. It's far better to let people play what class they want and use that data to see they are all buffoons. They'll see it when they lose and you'll see it when you join so you can, if you want, just hit 'change server' and find a round that will be better. Of course, from a server admin point of view the idea the best way to find a good round is to hit 'change server' isn't that appealing, hence the flawed attempts to try and mess things around instead. You can't turn a buffoon into a good player by making him play a different class, nor a team of buffoons into a good team using the same method. As I said in another post, generally speaking, increasing the number of players, reducing the number of shots you need to kill or removing the penalty for death are all designed to hide differences in skill between players and teams. Or in other words, people play on 32 man, instant spawn servers (and Robin runs around with his OP rocket launcher or people pay saigns for silly weapons and abilities) because it helps hide the fact they suck. With 12v12 with respawn timers (and things like nocrit) you will see which players on the server can play better than the others and which team is better - especially if both teams are motivated towards the objective. Their skill will be more evident (although as the comp players will tell you, 6v6 is better than 12v12 for that) But, unfortunately, it will generally result in average and below players spending a lot of time spectating and losing rounds. Which obviously for them is a worse experience than having a 3 hour round that no one wins (or that one team can trivially win because there are some trivial ways to win with instant spawn, especially when you have weapons like the dead ringer) It's a lot easier to configure a server badly than it is to get better at playing it too. So it's no real surprise there's a player base happy to play on servers configured this way. -- 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 ___ 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:
Re: [hlds_linux] New WebAPI: Is my server listed on the master server?
Valve's servers, at least the ones responsible for TF2's matchmaking and TF2's items, are currently down. I assume this is related. It's funny, because there was a post on SPUF not long ago stating that today's maintenance is finished... On 8/14/2012 8:37 PM, Alan Kennedy wrote: Mines are doing the same thing at 200.51.203.241. They are popping in and out randomly. A moment ago i've got the for of them listed. A couple of seconds later, one dissapeared and so on. :( -- 3DGames Argentina http://www.3dgames.com.ar Libertad 41, 5to Piso - Capital Federal Tel: 4-332-4709 - Original Message - From: DontWannaName! ad...@topnotchclan.com To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com Cc: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:38:28 PM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] New WebAPI: Is my server listed on the master server? Two of my servers are doing this. The gms doesn't see them even though they are running. They are reporting the wrong ip in console on startup as well. Sent from my iPhone 4 On Aug 14, 2012, at 4:34 PM, Chris Oryschak ch...@oryschak.com wrote: Fletcher, Two of my servers just did it again. Neither of the servers restarted or crashed. When I type status i'm getting an incorrect Public IP. This all seemed to happen ~10mins ago when I lost connection to steam friends. I've also been noticing my servers bouncing up/down from the master server list. This is indicated in both the API URL and by doing a simple refresh in-game. Chris On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.comwrote: Try typing status is the reported public IP the same as what you expect? -Original Message- From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Chris Oryschak Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 2:58 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] New WebAPI: Is my server listed on the master server? Is their a reason why a server would drop off from the master server list? Is there a way to manually make it re-register itself? The reason i'm asking is because I host 8 servers on one box. Over the night 3 servers dropped off master server list. Performing a server restart to srcds brought the server back up to be listed. I left one server in this weird state incase someone at valve wants to look into it. Two servers are running on the IP: 142.54.178.234 One is on port 27015 and the other is 27016 As you see from the API, its working correctly and only seeing the server on port 27016. http://api.steampowered.com/ISteamApps/GetServersAtAddress/v0001?addr=142.54.178.234format=json The server on 27015 isn't showing up at all.. though if you toss the IP in HLSW you will see its up and runnning. Any idea on why this happens? Thanks, Python On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Jesse Molina je...@opendreams.net wrote: Works as-expected for me. My host has eight srcds servers running on multiple IPs. However, one of the TF2 servers which I help host was being listed on the primary host's IP, instead of the secondary IP which it is configured to be using. It's that well-known steamclient reconnect bug. Once I restated the server, it instantly went back to the right IP and this was reflected in the webapi service. I have eight srcds servers running on this host; TF2, CSS, HL2MP, L4D, and L4D2. Only this one TF2 server has ever done this (based on logs over the last 18 months), and it is noteworthy that it is the only one which uses standard ports. All the other servers use non-standard ports piled onto a single IP. Maybe coincidental, maybe not. Hosts primary IP, should be nothing here ever: http://api.steampowered.com/**ISteamApps/**GetServersAtAddress/v0001?* * addr=66.113.99.98format=xmlhttp://api.steampowered.com/ISteamApps/Ge tServersAtAddress/v0001?addr=66.113.99.98format=xml Assigned IP of the occasionally-errant TF2 server: http://api.steampowered.com/**ISteamApps/**GetServersAtAddress/v0001?* * addr=66.113.99.99format=xmlhttp://api.steampowered.com/ISteamApps/Ge tServersAtAddress/v0001?addr=66.113.99.99format=xml Everything else on this host: http://api.steampowered.com/**ISteamApps/**GetServersAtAddress/v0001?* * addr=66.113.99.100format=xmlhttp://api.steampowered.com/ISteamApps/G etServersAtAddress/v0001?addr=66.113.99.100format=xml Here is a little bit of info on the process before I restarted it. lsof shows the .98 IP being used, when it should not be. tmux session: server-tf2-ALPHA: 1 windows (created Fri Aug 3 18:05:23 2012) [153x67] Process command arguments: ./srcds_linux -game tf -ip 66.113.99.99 +clientport 27005 +hostport 27015 +tv_port 27025 -steamport 26005 +replay_port 27040 -strictportbind +-pidfile /xxx/server.pid -maxplayers 26 +map pl_badwater Process started at: Fri Aug 3
Re: [hlds_linux] New WebAPI: Is my server listed on the master server?
Now, my new test server is seeing repeated challenges from the auth system at the rate of one a minute. On 8/14/2012 8:37 PM, Alan Kennedy wrote: Mines are doing the same thing at 200.51.203.241. They are popping in and out randomly. A moment ago i've got the for of them listed. A couple of seconds later, one dissapeared and so on. :( -- 3DGames Argentina http://www.3dgames.com.ar Libertad 41, 5to Piso - Capital Federal Tel: 4-332-4709 - Original Message - From: DontWannaName! ad...@topnotchclan.com To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com Cc: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:38:28 PM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] New WebAPI: Is my server listed on the master server? Two of my servers are doing this. The gms doesn't see them even though they are running. They are reporting the wrong ip in console on startup as well. Sent from my iPhone 4 On Aug 14, 2012, at 4:34 PM, Chris Oryschak ch...@oryschak.com wrote: Fletcher, Two of my servers just did it again. Neither of the servers restarted or crashed. When I type status i'm getting an incorrect Public IP. This all seemed to happen ~10mins ago when I lost connection to steam friends. I've also been noticing my servers bouncing up/down from the master server list. This is indicated in both the API URL and by doing a simple refresh in-game. Chris On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.comwrote: Try typing status is the reported public IP the same as what you expect? -Original Message- From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Chris Oryschak Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 2:58 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] New WebAPI: Is my server listed on the master server? Is their a reason why a server would drop off from the master server list? Is there a way to manually make it re-register itself? The reason i'm asking is because I host 8 servers on one box. Over the night 3 servers dropped off master server list. Performing a server restart to srcds brought the server back up to be listed. I left one server in this weird state incase someone at valve wants to look into it. Two servers are running on the IP: 142.54.178.234 One is on port 27015 and the other is 27016 As you see from the API, its working correctly and only seeing the server on port 27016. http://api.steampowered.com/ISteamApps/GetServersAtAddress/v0001?addr=142.54.178.234format=json The server on 27015 isn't showing up at all.. though if you toss the IP in HLSW you will see its up and runnning. Any idea on why this happens? Thanks, Python On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Jesse Molina je...@opendreams.net wrote: Works as-expected for me. My host has eight srcds servers running on multiple IPs. However, one of the TF2 servers which I help host was being listed on the primary host's IP, instead of the secondary IP which it is configured to be using. It's that well-known steamclient reconnect bug. Once I restated the server, it instantly went back to the right IP and this was reflected in the webapi service. I have eight srcds servers running on this host; TF2, CSS, HL2MP, L4D, and L4D2. Only this one TF2 server has ever done this (based on logs over the last 18 months), and it is noteworthy that it is the only one which uses standard ports. All the other servers use non-standard ports piled onto a single IP. Maybe coincidental, maybe not. Hosts primary IP, should be nothing here ever: http://api.steampowered.com/**ISteamApps/**GetServersAtAddress/v0001?* * addr=66.113.99.98format=xmlhttp://api.steampowered.com/ISteamApps/Ge tServersAtAddress/v0001?addr=66.113.99.98format=xml Assigned IP of the occasionally-errant TF2 server: http://api.steampowered.com/**ISteamApps/**GetServersAtAddress/v0001?* * addr=66.113.99.99format=xmlhttp://api.steampowered.com/ISteamApps/Ge tServersAtAddress/v0001?addr=66.113.99.99format=xml Everything else on this host: http://api.steampowered.com/**ISteamApps/**GetServersAtAddress/v0001?* * addr=66.113.99.100format=xmlhttp://api.steampowered.com/ISteamApps/G etServersAtAddress/v0001?addr=66.113.99.100format=xml Here is a little bit of info on the process before I restarted it. lsof shows the .98 IP being used, when it should not be. tmux session: server-tf2-ALPHA: 1 windows (created Fri Aug 3 18:05:23 2012) [153x67] Process command arguments: ./srcds_linux -game tf -ip 66.113.99.99 +clientport 27005 +hostport 27015 +tv_port 27025 -steamport 26005 +replay_port 27040 -strictportbind +-pidfile /xxx/server.pid -maxplayers 26 +map pl_badwater Process started at: Fri Aug 3 18:05:23 2012 Process started elapsed-time ago: 5-19:25:25 Process CPU in-use time: 1-17:58:10 lsof says the following network sockets are in
Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] TF MvM hosting questions
Actually, day two is already here. http://www.teamfortress.com/mvm/mercs/ Any ideas what the map names will be so we can setup some servers that will restart when the updates comes out and instantly load up on the new maps? On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:38 PM, doc drga...@gmail.com wrote: True but there just is a limit to the amount of players you can support. Sure they could enable 64 players but it's completely broken, out of resources, not designed for that. There comes a time in brainstorming where you just have to draw the line. People were able to set up vs. Saxton Hale, and Prop Hunt, and all sorts of other fun gamemodes that didn't require a raising of what is essentially a hard limit. I feel like the people asking for more slots don't understand the many important reasons there is this arbitrary limit. I don't think this is Valve stomping on the server owner, if anything they've bent over backwards trying to keep the community modding and server operators happy. We haven't even been shown day 2 of MVM and people are already clamoring for the code behind MVM be changed to better fit all this crazy theorycrafting about what the gamemode MIGHT be like. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Nomaan Ahmad n0man@gmail.com wrote: Class restriction was just an example... we need to experiment before you can stay its rubbish tbh... There are other things server operators can try but we need some unofficial support to allow increased slots. Its up to the communities how they want their servers.. If you dont like servers with more than 24 slots or you lag on them... simple, don't play on them. If their servers are unbalanced or configured badly, I'm sure players will leave and they wont have populated server anyway. Or do you carry on playing on them? I know I don't... On 14 August 2012 23:33, dan needa...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14/08/2012 22:40, Nomaan Ahmad wrote: Some servers ops will know how to make it balanced... class limiting is one of them. No they don't. Class limiting is a flawed approach. It suggests that if you assign forced roles that the game will be good. It won't be. It just means the 2 or 3 engineers you have will be halfwits and the one guy that can play engineer has to watch these halfwits in frustration. The only time highlander and class limits works is when you have organised teams and matches and then you can say Bill, you be the medic...John, you play engineer and so on. Yes it sucks if you have 5 spies and 5 snipers on a team, but the truth is, forcing these guys to play a different class won't help. It's far better to let people play what class they want and use that data to see they are all buffoons. They'll see it when they lose and you'll see it when you join so you can, if you want, just hit 'change server' and find a round that will be better. Of course, from a server admin point of view the idea the best way to find a good round is to hit 'change server' isn't that appealing, hence the flawed attempts to try and mess things around instead. You can't turn a buffoon into a good player by making him play a different class, nor a team of buffoons into a good team using the same method. As I said in another post, generally speaking, increasing the number of players, reducing the number of shots you need to kill or removing the penalty for death are all designed to hide differences in skill between players and teams. Or in other words, people play on 32 man, instant spawn servers (and Robin runs around with his OP rocket launcher or people pay saigns for silly weapons and abilities) because it helps hide the fact they suck. With 12v12 with respawn timers (and things like nocrit) you will see which players on the server can play better than the others and which team is better - especially if both teams are motivated towards the objective. Their skill will be more evident (although as the comp players will tell you, 6v6 is better than 12v12 for that) But, unfortunately, it will generally result in average and below players spending a lot of time spectating and losing rounds. Which obviously for them is a worse experience than having a 3 hour round that no one wins (or that one team can trivially win because there are some trivial ways to win with instant spawn, especially when you have weapons like the dead ringer) It's a lot easier to configure a server badly than it is to get better at playing it too. So it's no real surprise there's a player base happy to play on servers configured this way. -- 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
Re: [hlds_linux] TF MvM hosting questions
Great, thanks for the info, Fletch! I'll be stress-testing my machine and network tonight to see if I can host a few. On Aug 13, 2012 10:40 PM, Fletcher Dunn fletch...@valvesoftware.com wrote: Here are some answers to questions regarding hosting MvM servers: * Players can join your server through any means they can join PvP games: the server browser, ad hoc joins, or the new matchmaking system (quickplay beta). * To accept matchmaking traffic, you must select which sort of traffic you want. (Regular PvP traffic or MvM traffic.) Set tf_mm_servermode 2 to be placed in the MvM pool. * For MvM matchmaking, if 6 players are sent to your server to start a new game, it will switch to whatever map the players selected. * You will need a TF gameserver account to accept matchmaking traffic. * You can switch the server in and out of any matchmaking mode pool or back to any regular game mode at any time. * The CPU usage for a 6 player MvM game is about the same as for a regular TF server. (Yep, this mode requires significantly more CPU cycles per player than the PvP mode, that's an unfortunate fact.) Given the surge of players that comes with any major release, and the player / server ratio of this game mode, the demand for MvM servers will probably be high. We expect that a large number of players will want to try out the new mode, so we will be converting most of our servers to host MvM, and then adjust the allocation based on what players are playing. I, for one, DO NOT welcome our new robot overlords! - Fletch ___ 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
