Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[Peter Reinhold]

On 19.02.2013 01:10, Invalid Protocol wrote:

I assume that most community servers have few hidden slots reserved 
for
administrators or regular players. These slots are usually not used, 
except
few hours every evening. This means that a 24 public slots + 4 
reserved
slots has 24 players most of the time (when is full), and only in 
rare cases
it has more players (in very rare cases it may even have 28 players 
for a

short period of time). If you fix the "loophole" then how can we have
reserved slots? Are you going to add a penalty or even delist all 
servers

that have reserved slots?


This is the concern I have had during this whole debate, we run 24 man 
servers, with 2 "hidden" slots for admin joins and for a few friends of 
the servers, and rarely does the playercount go above 24, but it does 
happen.


You can debate about the friends-of-the-servers, but being able to have 
an admin join at any time is pretty important, and I would really hate 
it if we had to start kicking people out just to go check on a cheater.



/Peter


___
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] Reminder about server tags

[ics]

Would be better if the server would detect when playercount goes past 24 
and automatically adds increased_maxplayers tag and when it goes below 
25, it would remove that tag.


That way quickplay penalty for running more slots than it should will 
work as it should.


-ics

1nsane kirjoitti:

This is very important. If valve's fix doesn't account for this then we'll
have to start kicking players to accommodate reserve slot holders.

There should be absolutely no reason to kick anyone when we can make use of
reserved slots.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Invalid Protocol <
invalidprotocolvers...@gmail.com> wrote:


I assume that most community servers have few hidden slots reserved for
administrators or regular players. These slots are usually not used, except
few hours every evening. This means that a 24 public slots + 4 reserved
slots has 24 players most of the time (when is full), and only in rare
cases
it has more players (in very rare cases it may even have 28 players for a
short period of time). If you fix the "loophole" then how can we have
reserved slots? Are you going to add a penalty or even delist all servers
that have reserved slots?

-Original Message-
From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com
[mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher
Dunn
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:20 AM
To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

We banned some servers who had a maxplayers great than 24 but did not have
the increased_maxplayers tag.  It looks like it is possible that changing
sv_visiblemaxplayers dynamically can result in this tag not being set.
We'll undo those bans.

If the maxplayers column doesn't inform players, "This server will
generally
limit the max number of players to X" then what does the value mean?  The
only possible way I can imagine a player would interpret the consistent,
automated upward adjustment of the maxplayers value is that the server is
lying to them about what is happening on the server.

We'll fix this loophole.  Players are entitled to an accurate indication of
the max number of players allowed on the server.

-Original Message-
From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com
[mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of
Abdulrahman
Abdulkawi
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 2:54 PM
To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

I just checked my servers and they are actually NOT reporting the
increased_maxplayers server tag - I think it may have broke after an
update...


Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:50:24 -0500
From: sc2p...@gmail.com
To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

I've already talked to someone else who has servers delisted for the
same reason. There are also a few other communities running some
servers that have been delisted. I can't say whether they're for the
same tags or not, but we weren't the only ones affected by this.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Abdulrahman Abdulkawi

wrote:
Well said - I think this does need to be addressed by Valve
otherwise everything is just speculation / assumption.

Personally, I think the plugin may have glitched or along those
lines and the required tag (increased_maxplayers) was not
automatically added when the slots increased; this is if we're
reading the reason to the letter "server not reporting required
tags"; which if you did have the increased_maxplayers, then you did

report the required tags.

I guess if that's a problem, then so will changing any server tag

mid-game.

I hope that nobody else does get blacklisted, without any clear
confirmation for whether it is or is not permitted.


Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:20:15 -0500
From: 1nsane...@gmail.com
To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

Loophole? It's by design and valve knows it. This is an oversight
which

I'm

almost entirely convinced they'll fix soon.

Nowhere does it say that once you start your server you can't
change any settings to be quickplay eligble.

What if a server goes on a map quickplay doesn't support or is
outside of the chosen range of CP,CTF,whatever of the player
picked initially. What about servers that let you vote for crits
or vote for maps? There's

servers

that enable fast respawn after XX players join.

There's also other changes that quickplay disqualifies for so
those

servers

should also be blacklisted when they do it.
Why? Because it's exactly the same. They make the server quickplay

capable

initially and then change something that would make it non capable.

In fact actually changing maxplayers is not nearly as bad as those
other things because quickplay technically supports 32 player
servers. Just

gives

them a score penalty. Now filling your server with quickplay and

disabling

crits or changing maps... Well 

Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[HyperionGaming.org Admin]

>
> Regardless, the increased_maxplayers tag doesn't seem to be useful given
> that people can tell how many slots a server has at that point in time by
> looking at the number. The quickplay system also does not use this tag
> because it also uses the slot number to calculate how much of a penalty
> each server has. The server browser also allows players to specify by max
> player count.


Good to know. Thank you.
Regarding the 32 vs 24 slots discussion, myself and players on my servers
enjoy 32 slots Payload with everything else Vanilla (I do get complains
about random crits but eh...). I don't really like that 32 slots servers
are penalized, but at least, we're still eligible for quickplay. As others
mentioned, maybe adding a checkbox in the quickplay menu for 24+ slots
servers would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.

I'm just glad we got an answer regarding the dynamicslots plugin. That's
too bad, but we don't make the rules.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Todd Pettit  wrote:

> Agreed. Valve just needs to address the demand for fast respawn 32 player
> servers. Hopefully this event will spark their imagination.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: bottige...@gmail.com
> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" <
> hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 10:03:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
>
> As the author of the public "dynamicslots" plugin on sourcemod, I would
> like to point out a few things.
>
> 1) The reason I published this mod.
>
> Many people were already doing this before I released it and I wanted
> everyone to have an equal playing field.
>
> It seemed reasonable to me that server owners are allowed to change
> settings dynamically given that they were implemented by Valve that way.
> Having a server at 24 slots is not, nor should it ever be a contract that
> it will stay at 24 slots forever. There are many reasons to change these
> settings on the fly such as accommodating increased demand or managing an
> overloaded server. If Mr. Dunn decides to rescind this ability, then
> there's nothing we can do or argue about it in the future. But action
> should not have been taken against server owners who exercised this feature
> implemented by Valve themselves.
>
> I know there are very vocal people here that prefer everything default.
> There's likely nothing I can do to convince you, and your arguments would
> just sum up to the fact we were against the "spirit" of Valve's current
> goal for TF2 purity as the game designers intended it which happily
> coincides with your favored way to play the game.
>
> But perhaps you can try to imagine if roles were reversed and 32 slots and
> faster respawn was "vanilla" and 24 slots used to be the most popular mode
> until quickplay started funneling all the new players away from your
> server. You change your server to 32 slots fast respawn, and you have
> players on your server threatening to quit if you don't change it back to
> 24 slots, slow respawn. So you change it back and find the server empty all
> day because no one wants to seed an empty server while quickplay is filling
> every other server. Would you not do anything permissible to alleviate this
> situation or just give up?
>
> I've had many people personally complain to me about the decline of 32 slot
> servers and other modifications. They used to be the most popular modes
> before quickplay was invented. And it wasn't because of fake players.
> Server owners would have used vanilla servers if it gave them an edge in
> popularity. It wasn't because they were cheaper either. Resource usage goes
> up exponentially with the number of slots. I have told them to complain to
> Valve as we adapted with the times to conform to stricter requirements over
> the years. Whether they did not bother to do so, or wasn't enough to cause
> Valve to reconsider their goal for TF2 purity, I do not know. While Valve's
> goal seems to be for purity, our goal has always been to give players what
> they want.
>
> > If they never manage to find the Server List then well, you can only
> save so
> many souls.
>
> Depending on the general population not to be lazy never works.
>
> 2) The plugin did not fail to set increased_maxplayers. The plugin simply
> sets sv_visiblemaxplayers as a human manually would.
>
> This means that anyone who altered this convar manually would also have
> been banned. I remember when I tested this 2 years ago, the tag was
> properly and promptly set.
>
> Regardless, the increased_maxplayers tag doesn't seem to be useful given
> that people can tell how many slots a server has at that point in time by
> looking at the number. The quickplay system also does not use this tag
> because it also uses the slot number to calculate how much of a penalty
> each server has. The server browser also allows players to specify by max
> player count.
>
> 3) There are other aberrations besides the increased_maxplay

Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[Todd Pettit]

Agreed. Valve just needs to address the demand for fast respawn 32 player 
servers. Hopefully this event will spark their imagination.

- Original Message -
From: bottige...@gmail.com
To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 

Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 10:03:33 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

As the author of the public "dynamicslots" plugin on sourcemod, I would
like to point out a few things.

1) The reason I published this mod.

Many people were already doing this before I released it and I wanted
everyone to have an equal playing field.

It seemed reasonable to me that server owners are allowed to change
settings dynamically given that they were implemented by Valve that way.
Having a server at 24 slots is not, nor should it ever be a contract that
it will stay at 24 slots forever. There are many reasons to change these
settings on the fly such as accommodating increased demand or managing an
overloaded server. If Mr. Dunn decides to rescind this ability, then
there's nothing we can do or argue about it in the future. But action
should not have been taken against server owners who exercised this feature
implemented by Valve themselves.

I know there are very vocal people here that prefer everything default.
There's likely nothing I can do to convince you, and your arguments would
just sum up to the fact we were against the "spirit" of Valve's current
goal for TF2 purity as the game designers intended it which happily
coincides with your favored way to play the game.

But perhaps you can try to imagine if roles were reversed and 32 slots and
faster respawn was "vanilla" and 24 slots used to be the most popular mode
until quickplay started funneling all the new players away from your
server. You change your server to 32 slots fast respawn, and you have
players on your server threatening to quit if you don't change it back to
24 slots, slow respawn. So you change it back and find the server empty all
day because no one wants to seed an empty server while quickplay is filling
every other server. Would you not do anything permissible to alleviate this
situation or just give up?

I've had many people personally complain to me about the decline of 32 slot
servers and other modifications. They used to be the most popular modes
before quickplay was invented. And it wasn't because of fake players.
Server owners would have used vanilla servers if it gave them an edge in
popularity. It wasn't because they were cheaper either. Resource usage goes
up exponentially with the number of slots. I have told them to complain to
Valve as we adapted with the times to conform to stricter requirements over
the years. Whether they did not bother to do so, or wasn't enough to cause
Valve to reconsider their goal for TF2 purity, I do not know. While Valve's
goal seems to be for purity, our goal has always been to give players what
they want.

> If they never manage to find the Server List then well, you can only save so
many souls.

Depending on the general population not to be lazy never works.

2) The plugin did not fail to set increased_maxplayers. The plugin simply
sets sv_visiblemaxplayers as a human manually would.

This means that anyone who altered this convar manually would also have
been banned. I remember when I tested this 2 years ago, the tag was
properly and promptly set.

Regardless, the increased_maxplayers tag doesn't seem to be useful given
that people can tell how many slots a server has at that point in time by
looking at the number. The quickplay system also does not use this tag
because it also uses the slot number to calculate how much of a penalty
each server has. The server browser also allows players to specify by max
player count.

3) There are other aberrations besides the increased_maxplayers bug and
hopefully Valve will fix them before initiating another banwave.


On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Gordon Reynolds <
thisisgordonsem...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Please do not speak for the TF2 playerbase as a whole by saying people want
> 32 man servers. For every person you find who gets "bored" with 24 man, or
> doesn't like 24 people, I can find just as many that would suggest that
> line of reasoning is crazy. My entire server/community really enjoys 24 man
> servers, and if we ever found ourselves on a non-vanilla server we would
> melt and wither like ants under a vengeful magnifying glass god.
>
> Same goes for shorter respawn times. Just because you cannot wait your
> 5/10/30 seconds to respawn doesn't mean we need a complete rehaul of a 5+
> year old game's default modes.
>
> This is a really boring debate to have here, but 32 man servers with
> altered respawn times are (in my opinion) pretty terrible ideas. This is
> why we all run different servers though, to play what we want. If you want
> to get "free" traffic however, I don't think it's much of a downside to
> play by the rules set by Valve as the best way to play their game. If
> playe

Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[bottige...@gmail.com]

As the author of the public "dynamicslots" plugin on sourcemod, I would
like to point out a few things.

1) The reason I published this mod.

Many people were already doing this before I released it and I wanted
everyone to have an equal playing field.

It seemed reasonable to me that server owners are allowed to change
settings dynamically given that they were implemented by Valve that way.
Having a server at 24 slots is not, nor should it ever be a contract that
it will stay at 24 slots forever. There are many reasons to change these
settings on the fly such as accommodating increased demand or managing an
overloaded server. If Mr. Dunn decides to rescind this ability, then
there's nothing we can do or argue about it in the future. But action
should not have been taken against server owners who exercised this feature
implemented by Valve themselves.

I know there are very vocal people here that prefer everything default.
There's likely nothing I can do to convince you, and your arguments would
just sum up to the fact we were against the "spirit" of Valve's current
goal for TF2 purity as the game designers intended it which happily
coincides with your favored way to play the game.

But perhaps you can try to imagine if roles were reversed and 32 slots and
faster respawn was "vanilla" and 24 slots used to be the most popular mode
until quickplay started funneling all the new players away from your
server. You change your server to 32 slots fast respawn, and you have
players on your server threatening to quit if you don't change it back to
24 slots, slow respawn. So you change it back and find the server empty all
day because no one wants to seed an empty server while quickplay is filling
every other server. Would you not do anything permissible to alleviate this
situation or just give up?

I've had many people personally complain to me about the decline of 32 slot
servers and other modifications. They used to be the most popular modes
before quickplay was invented. And it wasn't because of fake players.
Server owners would have used vanilla servers if it gave them an edge in
popularity. It wasn't because they were cheaper either. Resource usage goes
up exponentially with the number of slots. I have told them to complain to
Valve as we adapted with the times to conform to stricter requirements over
the years. Whether they did not bother to do so, or wasn't enough to cause
Valve to reconsider their goal for TF2 purity, I do not know. While Valve's
goal seems to be for purity, our goal has always been to give players what
they want.

> If they never manage to find the Server List then well, you can only save so
many souls.

Depending on the general population not to be lazy never works.

2) The plugin did not fail to set increased_maxplayers. The plugin simply
sets sv_visiblemaxplayers as a human manually would.

This means that anyone who altered this convar manually would also have
been banned. I remember when I tested this 2 years ago, the tag was
properly and promptly set.

Regardless, the increased_maxplayers tag doesn't seem to be useful given
that people can tell how many slots a server has at that point in time by
looking at the number. The quickplay system also does not use this tag
because it also uses the slot number to calculate how much of a penalty
each server has. The server browser also allows players to specify by max
player count.

3) There are other aberrations besides the increased_maxplayers bug and
hopefully Valve will fix them before initiating another banwave.


On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Gordon Reynolds <
thisisgordonsem...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Please do not speak for the TF2 playerbase as a whole by saying people want
> 32 man servers. For every person you find who gets "bored" with 24 man, or
> doesn't like 24 people, I can find just as many that would suggest that
> line of reasoning is crazy. My entire server/community really enjoys 24 man
> servers, and if we ever found ourselves on a non-vanilla server we would
> melt and wither like ants under a vengeful magnifying glass god.
>
> Same goes for shorter respawn times. Just because you cannot wait your
> 5/10/30 seconds to respawn doesn't mean we need a complete rehaul of a 5+
> year old game's default modes.
>
> This is a really boring debate to have here, but 32 man servers with
> altered respawn times are (in my opinion) pretty terrible ideas. This is
> why we all run different servers though, to play what we want. If you want
> to get "free" traffic however, I don't think it's much of a downside to
> play by the rules set by Valve as the best way to play their game. If
> players really get bored with 24 man servers then eventually they will go
> to the Server List and find someone offering something different.
>
> If they never manage to find the Server List then well, you can only save
> so many souls.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Todd Pettit 
> wrote:
>
> > How about banning use of plugins that don't comply a

[hlds_linux] HLTV under Linux - Segmentation fault

[c0m4r]

I'm trying to run HLTV with clean HLDS 5956 installation, correctly
downloaded from Steam Pipe via SteamCMD, under Debian Squeeze.

Startup line:

export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=`pwd`
./hltv -game cstrike -ip XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX -port XXX
or
./hltv -game cstrike
or
./hltv

Regardless of startup line every time there is segmentation fault after
connect or status command is entered.

--

Console initialized.
FileSystem initialized.
Network initialized.
[S_API FAIL] SteamAPI_Init() failed; SteamAPI_IsSteamRunning() failed.
Master module failed to initialize. (init failed)
ERROR! System::AddModule: couldn't initialize module master.
* FATAL ERROR *
Proxy::Init: add master module.
*** STOPPING SYSTEM ***
ERROR! System::AddModule: couldn't initialize module (null).
Type 'help' for a list of commands.
status
Segmentation fault



___
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] Reminder about server tags

[Todd Pettit]

I think Dr. McKay has the right answer. The choice should be offered in the 
quickplay menu so players can choose. If this was done for fast respawn times 
and player slots then the quickplay penalties could be eliminated altogether. 
Valve could still leave the warning message that alerts players the settings 
are not what they intended.

- Original Message -
From: "Essay Tew Phaun" 
To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 

Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 9:27:00 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

The choice would still ultimately be up to the player connecting. If it was
a 32 player server it would be communicated to them. My suggestion was to
remove the scoring penalty because a large portion of the TF2 player base
likes 32 player servers.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Gordon Reynolds <
thisisgordonsem...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Please do not speak for the TF2 playerbase as a whole by saying people want
> 32 man servers. For every person you find who gets "bored" with 24 man, or
> doesn't like 24 people, I can find just as many that would suggest that
> line of reasoning is crazy. My entire server/community really enjoys 24 man
> servers, and if we ever found ourselves on a non-vanilla server we would
> melt and wither like ants under a vengeful magnifying glass god.
>
> Same goes for shorter respawn times. Just because you cannot wait your
> 5/10/30 seconds to respawn doesn't mean we need a complete rehaul of a 5+
> year old game's default modes.
>
> This is a really boring debate to have here, but 32 man servers with
> altered respawn times are (in my opinion) pretty terrible ideas. This is
> why we all run different servers though, to play what we want. If you want
> to get "free" traffic however, I don't think it's much of a downside to
> play by the rules set by Valve as the best way to play their game. If
> players really get bored with 24 man servers then eventually they will go
> to the Server List and find someone offering something different.
>
> If they never manage to find the Server List then well, you can only save
> so many souls.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Todd Pettit 
> wrote:
>
> > How about banning use of plugins that don't comply and banning servers
> > that use it? I know you can rename them but many admins obviously are
> > completely ignoring this violation.
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Doctor McKay" 
> > To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" <
> > hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com>
> > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:57:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> >
> > Unfortunately, I would imagine that detecting servers that run respawn
> > plugins would be a lot more difficult than detecting servers that don't
> > properly report the increased_maxplayers tag. To detect the former, your
> > have to actually join. To detect the latter, you simply need to query the
> > server's info.
> >
> > In addition it wasn't a bug with the plugin, it was a bug with the server
> > itself. I fired up my local test server with maxplayers 32 and
> > sv_visiblemaxplayers 24. Then I changed sv_visiblemaxplayers to 32 and no
> > tag was added.
> >
> > Dr. McKay
> > http://www.doctormckay.com
> >
> > On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Todd Pettit  wrote:
> >
> > > Fletcher, can you please also do something about all the admins running
> > the fast respawn plugins that they have been getting away with forever
> now?
> > I see so many fast respawn servers without the appropriate tags getting
> > sent quickplay traffic?
> > >
> > > https://forums.alliedmods.net/showthread.php?t=69997&highlight=respawn
> > >
> >
> https://forums.alliedmods.net/showthread.php?t=73929&highlight=fast+respawn
> > >
> > > According to the server counts on sourcemod that is 488 servers
> > circumventing quickplay penalties. It is really quite ridiculous.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "Fletcher Dunn" 
> > > To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" <
> > hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:20:07 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> > >
> > > We banned some servers who had a maxplayers great than 24 but did not
> > have the increased_maxplayers tag.  It looks like it is possible that
> > changing sv_visiblemaxplayers dynamically can result in this tag not
> being
> > set.  We'll undo those bans.
> > >
> > > If the maxplayers column doesn't inform players, "This server will
> > generally limit the max number of players to X" then what does the value
> > mean?  The only possible way I can imagine a player would interpret the
> > consistent, automated upward adjustment of the maxplayers value is that
> the
> > server is lying to them about what is happening on the server.
> > >
> > > We'll fix this loophole.  Players are entitled to an accurate
> indication
> > of the max number of players allowed on th

Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[Essay Tew Phaun]

The choice would still ultimately be up to the player connecting. If it was
a 32 player server it would be communicated to them. My suggestion was to
remove the scoring penalty because a large portion of the TF2 player base
likes 32 player servers.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Gordon Reynolds <
thisisgordonsem...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Please do not speak for the TF2 playerbase as a whole by saying people want
> 32 man servers. For every person you find who gets "bored" with 24 man, or
> doesn't like 24 people, I can find just as many that would suggest that
> line of reasoning is crazy. My entire server/community really enjoys 24 man
> servers, and if we ever found ourselves on a non-vanilla server we would
> melt and wither like ants under a vengeful magnifying glass god.
>
> Same goes for shorter respawn times. Just because you cannot wait your
> 5/10/30 seconds to respawn doesn't mean we need a complete rehaul of a 5+
> year old game's default modes.
>
> This is a really boring debate to have here, but 32 man servers with
> altered respawn times are (in my opinion) pretty terrible ideas. This is
> why we all run different servers though, to play what we want. If you want
> to get "free" traffic however, I don't think it's much of a downside to
> play by the rules set by Valve as the best way to play their game. If
> players really get bored with 24 man servers then eventually they will go
> to the Server List and find someone offering something different.
>
> If they never manage to find the Server List then well, you can only save
> so many souls.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Todd Pettit 
> wrote:
>
> > How about banning use of plugins that don't comply and banning servers
> > that use it? I know you can rename them but many admins obviously are
> > completely ignoring this violation.
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Doctor McKay" 
> > To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" <
> > hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com>
> > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:57:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> >
> > Unfortunately, I would imagine that detecting servers that run respawn
> > plugins would be a lot more difficult than detecting servers that don't
> > properly report the increased_maxplayers tag. To detect the former, your
> > have to actually join. To detect the latter, you simply need to query the
> > server's info.
> >
> > In addition it wasn't a bug with the plugin, it was a bug with the server
> > itself. I fired up my local test server with maxplayers 32 and
> > sv_visiblemaxplayers 24. Then I changed sv_visiblemaxplayers to 32 and no
> > tag was added.
> >
> > Dr. McKay
> > http://www.doctormckay.com
> >
> > On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Todd Pettit  wrote:
> >
> > > Fletcher, can you please also do something about all the admins running
> > the fast respawn plugins that they have been getting away with forever
> now?
> > I see so many fast respawn servers without the appropriate tags getting
> > sent quickplay traffic?
> > >
> > > https://forums.alliedmods.net/showthread.php?t=69997&highlight=respawn
> > >
> >
> https://forums.alliedmods.net/showthread.php?t=73929&highlight=fast+respawn
> > >
> > > According to the server counts on sourcemod that is 488 servers
> > circumventing quickplay penalties. It is really quite ridiculous.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "Fletcher Dunn" 
> > > To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" <
> > hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:20:07 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> > >
> > > We banned some servers who had a maxplayers great than 24 but did not
> > have the increased_maxplayers tag.  It looks like it is possible that
> > changing sv_visiblemaxplayers dynamically can result in this tag not
> being
> > set.  We'll undo those bans.
> > >
> > > If the maxplayers column doesn't inform players, "This server will
> > generally limit the max number of players to X" then what does the value
> > mean?  The only possible way I can imagine a player would interpret the
> > consistent, automated upward adjustment of the maxplayers value is that
> the
> > server is lying to them about what is happening on the server.
> > >
> > > We'll fix this loophole.  Players are entitled to an accurate
> indication
> > of the max number of players allowed on the server.
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:
> > hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Abdulrahman
> > Abdulkawi
> > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 2:54 PM
> > > To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
> > > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> > >
> > > I just checked my servers and they are actually NOT reporting the
> > increased_maxplayers server tag - I think it may have broke after an
> > update...
> > >
> > >> Date: Mon,

Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[[BT]Black V]

I agree with you.
32 player can go jump


On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Gordon Reynolds <
thisisgordonsem...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Please do not speak for the TF2 playerbase as a whole by saying people want
> 32 man servers. For every person you find who gets "bored" with 24 man, or
> doesn't like 24 people, I can find just as many that would suggest that
> line of reasoning is crazy. My entire server/community really enjoys 24 man
> servers, and if we ever found ourselves on a non-vanilla server we would
> melt and wither like ants under a vengeful magnifying glass god.
>
> Same goes for shorter respawn times. Just because you cannot wait your
> 5/10/30 seconds to respawn doesn't mean we need a complete rehaul of a 5+
> year old game's default modes.
>
> This is a really boring debate to have here, but 32 man servers with
> altered respawn times are (in my opinion) pretty terrible ideas. This is
> why we all run different servers though, to play what we want. If you want
> to get "free" traffic however, I don't think it's much of a downside to
> play by the rules set by Valve as the best way to play their game. If
> players really get bored with 24 man servers then eventually they will go
> to the Server List and find someone offering something different.
>
> If they never manage to find the Server List then well, you can only save
> so many souls.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Todd Pettit 
> wrote:
>
> > How about banning use of plugins that don't comply and banning servers
> > that use it? I know you can rename them but many admins obviously are
> > completely ignoring this violation.
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Doctor McKay" 
> > To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" <
> > hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com>
> > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:57:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> >
> > Unfortunately, I would imagine that detecting servers that run respawn
> > plugins would be a lot more difficult than detecting servers that don't
> > properly report the increased_maxplayers tag. To detect the former, your
> > have to actually join. To detect the latter, you simply need to query the
> > server's info.
> >
> > In addition it wasn't a bug with the plugin, it was a bug with the server
> > itself. I fired up my local test server with maxplayers 32 and
> > sv_visiblemaxplayers 24. Then I changed sv_visiblemaxplayers to 32 and no
> > tag was added.
> >
> > Dr. McKay
> > http://www.doctormckay.com
> >
> > On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Todd Pettit  wrote:
> >
> > > Fletcher, can you please also do something about all the admins running
> > the fast respawn plugins that they have been getting away with forever
> now?
> > I see so many fast respawn servers without the appropriate tags getting
> > sent quickplay traffic?
> > >
> > > https://forums.alliedmods.net/showthread.php?t=69997&highlight=respawn
> > >
> >
> https://forums.alliedmods.net/showthread.php?t=73929&highlight=fast+respawn
> > >
> > > According to the server counts on sourcemod that is 488 servers
> > circumventing quickplay penalties. It is really quite ridiculous.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "Fletcher Dunn" 
> > > To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" <
> > hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:20:07 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> > >
> > > We banned some servers who had a maxplayers great than 24 but did not
> > have the increased_maxplayers tag.  It looks like it is possible that
> > changing sv_visiblemaxplayers dynamically can result in this tag not
> being
> > set.  We'll undo those bans.
> > >
> > > If the maxplayers column doesn't inform players, "This server will
> > generally limit the max number of players to X" then what does the value
> > mean?  The only possible way I can imagine a player would interpret the
> > consistent, automated upward adjustment of the maxplayers value is that
> the
> > server is lying to them about what is happening on the server.
> > >
> > > We'll fix this loophole.  Players are entitled to an accurate
> indication
> > of the max number of players allowed on the server.
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:
> > hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Abdulrahman
> > Abdulkawi
> > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 2:54 PM
> > > To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
> > > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> > >
> > > I just checked my servers and they are actually NOT reporting the
> > increased_maxplayers server tag - I think it may have broke after an
> > update...
> > >
> > >> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:50:24 -0500
> > >> From: sc2p...@gmail.com
> > >> To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
> > >> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> > >>
> > >> I've already talked to 

Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[Gordon Reynolds]

Please do not speak for the TF2 playerbase as a whole by saying people want
32 man servers. For every person you find who gets "bored" with 24 man, or
doesn't like 24 people, I can find just as many that would suggest that
line of reasoning is crazy. My entire server/community really enjoys 24 man
servers, and if we ever found ourselves on a non-vanilla server we would
melt and wither like ants under a vengeful magnifying glass god.

Same goes for shorter respawn times. Just because you cannot wait your
5/10/30 seconds to respawn doesn't mean we need a complete rehaul of a 5+
year old game's default modes.

This is a really boring debate to have here, but 32 man servers with
altered respawn times are (in my opinion) pretty terrible ideas. This is
why we all run different servers though, to play what we want. If you want
to get "free" traffic however, I don't think it's much of a downside to
play by the rules set by Valve as the best way to play their game. If
players really get bored with 24 man servers then eventually they will go
to the Server List and find someone offering something different.

If they never manage to find the Server List then well, you can only save
so many souls.


On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Todd Pettit  wrote:

> How about banning use of plugins that don't comply and banning servers
> that use it? I know you can rename them but many admins obviously are
> completely ignoring this violation.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Doctor McKay" 
> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" <
> hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:57:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
>
> Unfortunately, I would imagine that detecting servers that run respawn
> plugins would be a lot more difficult than detecting servers that don't
> properly report the increased_maxplayers tag. To detect the former, your
> have to actually join. To detect the latter, you simply need to query the
> server's info.
>
> In addition it wasn't a bug with the plugin, it was a bug with the server
> itself. I fired up my local test server with maxplayers 32 and
> sv_visiblemaxplayers 24. Then I changed sv_visiblemaxplayers to 32 and no
> tag was added.
>
> Dr. McKay
> http://www.doctormckay.com
>
> On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Todd Pettit  wrote:
>
> > Fletcher, can you please also do something about all the admins running
> the fast respawn plugins that they have been getting away with forever now?
> I see so many fast respawn servers without the appropriate tags getting
> sent quickplay traffic?
> >
> > https://forums.alliedmods.net/showthread.php?t=69997&highlight=respawn
> >
> https://forums.alliedmods.net/showthread.php?t=73929&highlight=fast+respawn
> >
> > According to the server counts on sourcemod that is 488 servers
> circumventing quickplay penalties. It is really quite ridiculous.
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Fletcher Dunn" 
> > To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" <
> hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com>
> > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:20:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> >
> > We banned some servers who had a maxplayers great than 24 but did not
> have the increased_maxplayers tag.  It looks like it is possible that
> changing sv_visiblemaxplayers dynamically can result in this tag not being
> set.  We'll undo those bans.
> >
> > If the maxplayers column doesn't inform players, "This server will
> generally limit the max number of players to X" then what does the value
> mean?  The only possible way I can imagine a player would interpret the
> consistent, automated upward adjustment of the maxplayers value is that the
> server is lying to them about what is happening on the server.
> >
> > We'll fix this loophole.  Players are entitled to an accurate indication
> of the max number of players allowed on the server.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:
> hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Abdulrahman
> Abdulkawi
> > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 2:54 PM
> > To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
> > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> >
> > I just checked my servers and they are actually NOT reporting the
> increased_maxplayers server tag - I think it may have broke after an
> update...
> >
> >> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:50:24 -0500
> >> From: sc2p...@gmail.com
> >> To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
> >> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> >>
> >> I've already talked to someone else who has servers delisted for the
> >> same reason. There are also a few other communities running some
> >> servers that have been delisted. I can't say whether they're for the
> >> same tags or not, but we weren't the only ones affected by this.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Abdulrahman Abdulkawi
> >>  >>> wrote:
> >

Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[Todd Pettit]

How about banning use of plugins that don't comply and banning servers that use 
it? I know you can rename them but many admins obviously are completely 
ignoring this violation.

- Original Message -
From: "Doctor McKay" 
To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 

Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:57:03 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

Unfortunately, I would imagine that detecting servers that run respawn plugins 
would be a lot more difficult than detecting servers that don't properly report 
the increased_maxplayers tag. To detect the former, your have to actually join. 
To detect the latter, you simply need to query the server's info.

In addition it wasn't a bug with the plugin, it was a bug with the server 
itself. I fired up my local test server with maxplayers 32 and 
sv_visiblemaxplayers 24. Then I changed sv_visiblemaxplayers to 32 and no tag 
was added.

Dr. McKay
http://www.doctormckay.com

On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Todd Pettit  wrote:

> Fletcher, can you please also do something about all the admins running the 
> fast respawn plugins that they have been getting away with forever now? I see 
> so many fast respawn servers without the appropriate tags getting sent 
> quickplay traffic?
> 
> https://forums.alliedmods.net/showthread.php?t=69997&highlight=respawn
> https://forums.alliedmods.net/showthread.php?t=73929&highlight=fast+respawn
> 
> According to the server counts on sourcemod that is 488 servers circumventing 
> quickplay penalties. It is really quite ridiculous.
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Fletcher Dunn" 
> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 
> 
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:20:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> 
> We banned some servers who had a maxplayers great than 24 but did not have 
> the increased_maxplayers tag.  It looks like it is possible that changing 
> sv_visiblemaxplayers dynamically can result in this tag not being set.  We'll 
> undo those bans.
> 
> If the maxplayers column doesn't inform players, "This server will generally 
> limit the max number of players to X" then what does the value mean?  The 
> only possible way I can imagine a player would interpret the consistent, 
> automated upward adjustment of the maxplayers value is that the server is 
> lying to them about what is happening on the server.
> 
> We'll fix this loophole.  Players are entitled to an accurate indication of 
> the max number of players allowed on the server.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com 
> [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Abdulrahman 
> Abdulkawi
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 2:54 PM
> To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> 
> I just checked my servers and they are actually NOT reporting the 
> increased_maxplayers server tag - I think it may have broke after an update...
> 
>> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:50:24 -0500
>> From: sc2p...@gmail.com
>> To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
>> 
>> I've already talked to someone else who has servers delisted for the 
>> same reason. There are also a few other communities running some 
>> servers that have been delisted. I can't say whether they're for the 
>> same tags or not, but we weren't the only ones affected by this.
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Abdulrahman Abdulkawi 
>> >> wrote:
>> 
>>> Well said - I think this does need to be addressed by Valve 
>>> otherwise everything is just speculation / assumption.
>>> 
>>> Personally, I think the plugin may have glitched or along those 
>>> lines and the required tag (increased_maxplayers) was not 
>>> automatically added when the slots increased; this is if we're 
>>> reading the reason to the letter "server not reporting required 
>>> tags"; which if you did have the increased_maxplayers, then you did report 
>>> the required tags.
>>> 
>>> I guess if that's a problem, then so will changing any server tag mid-game.
>>> 
>>> I hope that nobody else does get blacklisted, without any clear 
>>> confirmation for whether it is or is not permitted.
>>> 
 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:20:15 -0500
 From: 1nsane...@gmail.com
 To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
 Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
 
 Loophole? It's by design and valve knows it. This is an oversight 
 which
>>> I'm
 almost entirely convinced they'll fix soon.
 
 Nowhere does it say that once you start your server you can't 
 change any settings to be quickplay eligble.
 
 What if a server goes on a map quickplay doesn't support or is 
 outside of the chosen range of CP,CTF,whatever of the player 
 picked initially. What about servers that let you vote for crits 
 or vote for maps? There's
>>> serv

Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[1nsane]

This is very important. If valve's fix doesn't account for this then we'll
have to start kicking players to accommodate reserve slot holders.

There should be absolutely no reason to kick anyone when we can make use of
reserved slots.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Invalid Protocol <
invalidprotocolvers...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I assume that most community servers have few hidden slots reserved for
> administrators or regular players. These slots are usually not used, except
> few hours every evening. This means that a 24 public slots + 4 reserved
> slots has 24 players most of the time (when is full), and only in rare
> cases
> it has more players (in very rare cases it may even have 28 players for a
> short period of time). If you fix the "loophole" then how can we have
> reserved slots? Are you going to add a penalty or even delist all servers
> that have reserved slots?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com
> [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher
> Dunn
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:20 AM
> To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
>
> We banned some servers who had a maxplayers great than 24 but did not have
> the increased_maxplayers tag.  It looks like it is possible that changing
> sv_visiblemaxplayers dynamically can result in this tag not being set.
> We'll undo those bans.
>
> If the maxplayers column doesn't inform players, "This server will
> generally
> limit the max number of players to X" then what does the value mean?  The
> only possible way I can imagine a player would interpret the consistent,
> automated upward adjustment of the maxplayers value is that the server is
> lying to them about what is happening on the server.
>
> We'll fix this loophole.  Players are entitled to an accurate indication of
> the max number of players allowed on the server.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com
> [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of
> Abdulrahman
> Abdulkawi
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 2:54 PM
> To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
>
> I just checked my servers and they are actually NOT reporting the
> increased_maxplayers server tag - I think it may have broke after an
> update...
>
> > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:50:24 -0500
> > From: sc2p...@gmail.com
> > To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
> > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> >
> > I've already talked to someone else who has servers delisted for the
> > same reason. There are also a few other communities running some
> > servers that have been delisted. I can't say whether they're for the
> > same tags or not, but we weren't the only ones affected by this.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Abdulrahman Abdulkawi
> >  > > wrote:
> >
> > > Well said - I think this does need to be addressed by Valve
> > > otherwise everything is just speculation / assumption.
> > >
> > > Personally, I think the plugin may have glitched or along those
> > > lines and the required tag (increased_maxplayers) was not
> > > automatically added when the slots increased; this is if we're
> > > reading the reason to the letter "server not reporting required
> > > tags"; which if you did have the increased_maxplayers, then you did
> report the required tags.
> > >
> > > I guess if that's a problem, then so will changing any server tag
> mid-game.
> > >
> > > I hope that nobody else does get blacklisted, without any clear
> > > confirmation for whether it is or is not permitted.
> > >
> > > > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:20:15 -0500
> > > > From: 1nsane...@gmail.com
> > > > To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> > > >
> > > > Loophole? It's by design and valve knows it. This is an oversight
> > > > which
> > > I'm
> > > > almost entirely convinced they'll fix soon.
> > > >
> > > > Nowhere does it say that once you start your server you can't
> > > > change any settings to be quickplay eligble.
> > > >
> > > > What if a server goes on a map quickplay doesn't support or is
> > > > outside of the chosen range of CP,CTF,whatever of the player
> > > > picked initially. What about servers that let you vote for crits
> > > > or vote for maps? There's
> > > servers
> > > > that enable fast respawn after XX players join.
> > > >
> > > > There's also other changes that quickplay disqualifies for so
> > > > those
> > > servers
> > > > should also be blacklisted when they do it.
> > > > Why? Because it's exactly the same. They make the server quickplay
> > > capable
> > > > initially and then change something that would make it non capable.
> > > >
> > > > In fact actually changing maxplayers is not nearly as bad as those
> > > > other things because quickplay technically support

Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[Essay Tew Phaun]

Guess you'll have to rely on something like connect/CBaseServer if you'd
want to avoid the scoring penalty :(

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Invalid Protocol <
invalidprotocolvers...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I assume that most community servers have few hidden slots reserved for
> administrators or regular players. These slots are usually not used, except
> few hours every evening. This means that a 24 public slots + 4 reserved
> slots has 24 players most of the time (when is full), and only in rare
> cases
> it has more players (in very rare cases it may even have 28 players for a
> short period of time). If you fix the "loophole" then how can we have
> reserved slots? Are you going to add a penalty or even delist all servers
> that have reserved slots?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com
> [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher
> Dunn
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:20 AM
> To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
>
> We banned some servers who had a maxplayers great than 24 but did not have
> the increased_maxplayers tag.  It looks like it is possible that changing
> sv_visiblemaxplayers dynamically can result in this tag not being set.
> We'll undo those bans.
>
> If the maxplayers column doesn't inform players, "This server will
> generally
> limit the max number of players to X" then what does the value mean?  The
> only possible way I can imagine a player would interpret the consistent,
> automated upward adjustment of the maxplayers value is that the server is
> lying to them about what is happening on the server.
>
> We'll fix this loophole.  Players are entitled to an accurate indication of
> the max number of players allowed on the server.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com
> [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of
> Abdulrahman
> Abdulkawi
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 2:54 PM
> To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
>
> I just checked my servers and they are actually NOT reporting the
> increased_maxplayers server tag - I think it may have broke after an
> update...
>
> > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:50:24 -0500
> > From: sc2p...@gmail.com
> > To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
> > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> >
> > I've already talked to someone else who has servers delisted for the
> > same reason. There are also a few other communities running some
> > servers that have been delisted. I can't say whether they're for the
> > same tags or not, but we weren't the only ones affected by this.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Abdulrahman Abdulkawi
> >  > > wrote:
> >
> > > Well said - I think this does need to be addressed by Valve
> > > otherwise everything is just speculation / assumption.
> > >
> > > Personally, I think the plugin may have glitched or along those
> > > lines and the required tag (increased_maxplayers) was not
> > > automatically added when the slots increased; this is if we're
> > > reading the reason to the letter "server not reporting required
> > > tags"; which if you did have the increased_maxplayers, then you did
> report the required tags.
> > >
> > > I guess if that's a problem, then so will changing any server tag
> mid-game.
> > >
> > > I hope that nobody else does get blacklisted, without any clear
> > > confirmation for whether it is or is not permitted.
> > >
> > > > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:20:15 -0500
> > > > From: 1nsane...@gmail.com
> > > > To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> > > >
> > > > Loophole? It's by design and valve knows it. This is an oversight
> > > > which
> > > I'm
> > > > almost entirely convinced they'll fix soon.
> > > >
> > > > Nowhere does it say that once you start your server you can't
> > > > change any settings to be quickplay eligble.
> > > >
> > > > What if a server goes on a map quickplay doesn't support or is
> > > > outside of the chosen range of CP,CTF,whatever of the player
> > > > picked initially. What about servers that let you vote for crits
> > > > or vote for maps? There's
> > > servers
> > > > that enable fast respawn after XX players join.
> > > >
> > > > There's also other changes that quickplay disqualifies for so
> > > > those
> > > servers
> > > > should also be blacklisted when they do it.
> > > > Why? Because it's exactly the same. They make the server quickplay
> > > capable
> > > > initially and then change something that would make it non capable.
> > > >
> > > > In fact actually changing maxplayers is not nearly as bad as those
> > > > other things because quickplay technically supports 32 player
> > > > servers. Just
> > > gives
> > > > them a score penalty. Now filling your server with quickplay and
> > > 

Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[Invalid Protocol]

I assume that most community servers have few hidden slots reserved for
administrators or regular players. These slots are usually not used, except
few hours every evening. This means that a 24 public slots + 4 reserved
slots has 24 players most of the time (when is full), and only in rare cases
it has more players (in very rare cases it may even have 28 players for a
short period of time). If you fix the "loophole" then how can we have
reserved slots? Are you going to add a penalty or even delist all servers
that have reserved slots?

-Original Message-
From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com
[mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Fletcher
Dunn
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:20 AM
To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

We banned some servers who had a maxplayers great than 24 but did not have
the increased_maxplayers tag.  It looks like it is possible that changing
sv_visiblemaxplayers dynamically can result in this tag not being set.
We'll undo those bans.

If the maxplayers column doesn't inform players, "This server will generally
limit the max number of players to X" then what does the value mean?  The
only possible way I can imagine a player would interpret the consistent,
automated upward adjustment of the maxplayers value is that the server is
lying to them about what is happening on the server.

We'll fix this loophole.  Players are entitled to an accurate indication of
the max number of players allowed on the server.

-Original Message-
From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com
[mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Abdulrahman
Abdulkawi
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 2:54 PM
To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

I just checked my servers and they are actually NOT reporting the
increased_maxplayers server tag - I think it may have broke after an
update...

> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:50:24 -0500
> From: sc2p...@gmail.com
> To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> 
> I've already talked to someone else who has servers delisted for the 
> same reason. There are also a few other communities running some 
> servers that have been delisted. I can't say whether they're for the 
> same tags or not, but we weren't the only ones affected by this.
> 
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Abdulrahman Abdulkawi 
>  > wrote:
> 
> > Well said - I think this does need to be addressed by Valve 
> > otherwise everything is just speculation / assumption.
> >
> > Personally, I think the plugin may have glitched or along those 
> > lines and the required tag (increased_maxplayers) was not 
> > automatically added when the slots increased; this is if we're 
> > reading the reason to the letter "server not reporting required 
> > tags"; which if you did have the increased_maxplayers, then you did
report the required tags.
> >
> > I guess if that's a problem, then so will changing any server tag
mid-game.
> >
> > I hope that nobody else does get blacklisted, without any clear 
> > confirmation for whether it is or is not permitted.
> >
> > > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:20:15 -0500
> > > From: 1nsane...@gmail.com
> > > To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
> > > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> > >
> > > Loophole? It's by design and valve knows it. This is an oversight 
> > > which
> > I'm
> > > almost entirely convinced they'll fix soon.
> > >
> > > Nowhere does it say that once you start your server you can't 
> > > change any settings to be quickplay eligble.
> > >
> > > What if a server goes on a map quickplay doesn't support or is 
> > > outside of the chosen range of CP,CTF,whatever of the player 
> > > picked initially. What about servers that let you vote for crits 
> > > or vote for maps? There's
> > servers
> > > that enable fast respawn after XX players join.
> > >
> > > There's also other changes that quickplay disqualifies for so 
> > > those
> > servers
> > > should also be blacklisted when they do it.
> > > Why? Because it's exactly the same. They make the server quickplay
> > capable
> > > initially and then change something that would make it non capable.
> > >
> > > In fact actually changing maxplayers is not nearly as bad as those 
> > > other things because quickplay technically supports 32 player 
> > > servers. Just
> > gives
> > > them a score penalty. Now filling your server with quickplay and
> > disabling
> > > crits or changing maps... Well those things completely disqualify 
> > > a
> > server
> > > from quickplay and should clearly be blacklisted as well then.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Ross Bemrose 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Soo... you're abusing a loophole in the quickplay system 
> > > > then
> > getting
> > > > upset when your server gets delisted because of

Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[Frank]

I second this - to me 24 players is boring, if it isn't fast respawn its
boring as well. I go in to play not sit in spawn Q and watch everyone else
play.

-Original Message-
From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com
[mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Essay Tew
Phaun
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 7:00 PM
To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

I would like to make one final suggestion, though. I think it's apparent by
this point that a large portion of the TF2 community prefers the style of
gameplay that 32 player servers provide. I know it's not exactly balanced
nor in line with what Valve may test with, but It would be nice if that
scoring penalty were removed as the prompt a client gets when joining said
servers should be enough of a penalty. Clearly if they want to join the
server beyond that prompt, that should be enough.
___
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] Reminder about server tags

[Doctor McKay]

Or even better, add an option to the Quickplay dialog that allows clients to 
filter servers with increased maxplayers.

Dr. McKay
http://www.doctormckay.com

On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Essay Tew Phaun  wrote:

> I would like to make one final suggestion, though. I think it's apparent by
> this point that a large portion of the TF2 community prefers the style of
> gameplay that 32 player servers provide. I know it's not exactly balanced
> nor in line with what Valve may test with, but It would be nice if that
> scoring penalty were removed as the prompt a client gets when joining said
> servers should be enough of a penalty. Clearly if they want to join the
> server beyond that prompt, that should be enough.
> ___
> 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] Mandatory Team Fortress 2 update released

[Eric Smith]

We've released a mandatory update for Team Fortress 2. The notes for the update 
are below.

-Eric

--

Team Fortress 2
- Added new promo items
   - The Brütal Bouffant
   - The Shred Alert
- Fixed UGC Season 8 medals not using the correct colors
- Updated the material for the Buck Turner All-Stars

___
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] Reminder about server tags

[Essay Tew Phaun]

I would like to make one final suggestion, though. I think it's apparent by
this point that a large portion of the TF2 community prefers the style of
gameplay that 32 player servers provide. I know it's not exactly balanced
nor in line with what Valve may test with, but It would be nice if that
scoring penalty were removed as the prompt a client gets when joining said
servers should be enough of a penalty. Clearly if they want to join the
server beyond that prompt, that should be enough.
___
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] Reminder about server tags

[Doctor McKay]

Unfortunately, I would imagine that detecting servers that run respawn plugins 
would be a lot more difficult than detecting servers that don't properly report 
the increased_maxplayers tag. To detect the former, your have to actually join. 
To detect the latter, you simply need to query the server's info.

In addition it wasn't a bug with the plugin, it was a bug with the server 
itself. I fired up my local test server with maxplayers 32 and 
sv_visiblemaxplayers 24. Then I changed sv_visiblemaxplayers to 32 and no tag 
was added.

Dr. McKay
http://www.doctormckay.com

On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Todd Pettit  wrote:

> Fletcher, can you please also do something about all the admins running the 
> fast respawn plugins that they have been getting away with forever now? I see 
> so many fast respawn servers without the appropriate tags getting sent 
> quickplay traffic?
> 
> https://forums.alliedmods.net/showthread.php?t=69997&highlight=respawn
> https://forums.alliedmods.net/showthread.php?t=73929&highlight=fast+respawn
> 
> According to the server counts on sourcemod that is 488 servers circumventing 
> quickplay penalties. It is really quite ridiculous.
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Fletcher Dunn" 
> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 
> 
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:20:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> 
> We banned some servers who had a maxplayers great than 24 but did not have 
> the increased_maxplayers tag.  It looks like it is possible that changing 
> sv_visiblemaxplayers dynamically can result in this tag not being set.  We'll 
> undo those bans.
> 
> If the maxplayers column doesn't inform players, "This server will generally 
> limit the max number of players to X" then what does the value mean?  The 
> only possible way I can imagine a player would interpret the consistent, 
> automated upward adjustment of the maxplayers value is that the server is 
> lying to them about what is happening on the server.
> 
> We'll fix this loophole.  Players are entitled to an accurate indication of 
> the max number of players allowed on the server.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com 
> [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Abdulrahman 
> Abdulkawi
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 2:54 PM
> To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> 
> I just checked my servers and they are actually NOT reporting the 
> increased_maxplayers server tag - I think it may have broke after an update...
> 
>> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:50:24 -0500
>> From: sc2p...@gmail.com
>> To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
>> 
>> I've already talked to someone else who has servers delisted for the 
>> same reason. There are also a few other communities running some 
>> servers that have been delisted. I can't say whether they're for the 
>> same tags or not, but we weren't the only ones affected by this.
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Abdulrahman Abdulkawi 
>> >> wrote:
>> 
>>> Well said - I think this does need to be addressed by Valve 
>>> otherwise everything is just speculation / assumption.
>>> 
>>> Personally, I think the plugin may have glitched or along those 
>>> lines and the required tag (increased_maxplayers) was not 
>>> automatically added when the slots increased; this is if we're 
>>> reading the reason to the letter "server not reporting required 
>>> tags"; which if you did have the increased_maxplayers, then you did report 
>>> the required tags.
>>> 
>>> I guess if that's a problem, then so will changing any server tag mid-game.
>>> 
>>> I hope that nobody else does get blacklisted, without any clear 
>>> confirmation for whether it is or is not permitted.
>>> 
 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:20:15 -0500
 From: 1nsane...@gmail.com
 To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
 Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
 
 Loophole? It's by design and valve knows it. This is an oversight 
 which
>>> I'm
 almost entirely convinced they'll fix soon.
 
 Nowhere does it say that once you start your server you can't 
 change any settings to be quickplay eligble.
 
 What if a server goes on a map quickplay doesn't support or is 
 outside of the chosen range of CP,CTF,whatever of the player 
 picked initially. What about servers that let you vote for crits 
 or vote for maps? There's
>>> servers
 that enable fast respawn after XX players join.
 
 There's also other changes that quickplay disqualifies for so 
 those
>>> servers
 should also be blacklisted when they do it.
 Why? Because it's exactly the same. They make the server quickplay
>>> capable
 initially and then change something that would make it non capable.
 
 In fact actually c

[hlds_linux] Mandatory Team Fortress 2 update coming

[Eric Smith]

We're working on a mandatory update for Team Fortress 2. We should have it 
ready soon.

-Eric


___
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] Reminder about server tags

[Todd Pettit]

Fletcher, can you please also do something about all the admins running the 
fast respawn plugins that they have been getting away with forever now? I see 
so many fast respawn servers without the appropriate tags getting sent 
quickplay traffic?

https://forums.alliedmods.net/showthread.php?t=69997&highlight=respawn
https://forums.alliedmods.net/showthread.php?t=73929&highlight=fast+respawn

According to the server counts on sourcemod that is 488 servers circumventing 
quickplay penalties. It is really quite ridiculous.


- Original Message -
From: "Fletcher Dunn" 
To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 

Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:20:07 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

We banned some servers who had a maxplayers great than 24 but did not have the 
increased_maxplayers tag.  It looks like it is possible that changing 
sv_visiblemaxplayers dynamically can result in this tag not being set.  We'll 
undo those bans.

If the maxplayers column doesn't inform players, "This server will generally 
limit the max number of players to X" then what does the value mean?  The only 
possible way I can imagine a player would interpret the consistent, automated 
upward adjustment of the maxplayers value is that the server is lying to them 
about what is happening on the server.

We'll fix this loophole.  Players are entitled to an accurate indication of the 
max number of players allowed on the server.

-Original Message-
From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com 
[mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Abdulrahman 
Abdulkawi
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 2:54 PM
To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

I just checked my servers and they are actually NOT reporting the 
increased_maxplayers server tag - I think it may have broke after an update...

> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:50:24 -0500
> From: sc2p...@gmail.com
> To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> 
> I've already talked to someone else who has servers delisted for the 
> same reason. There are also a few other communities running some 
> servers that have been delisted. I can't say whether they're for the 
> same tags or not, but we weren't the only ones affected by this.
> 
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Abdulrahman Abdulkawi 
>  > wrote:
> 
> > Well said - I think this does need to be addressed by Valve 
> > otherwise everything is just speculation / assumption.
> >
> > Personally, I think the plugin may have glitched or along those 
> > lines and the required tag (increased_maxplayers) was not 
> > automatically added when the slots increased; this is if we're 
> > reading the reason to the letter "server not reporting required 
> > tags"; which if you did have the increased_maxplayers, then you did report 
> > the required tags.
> >
> > I guess if that's a problem, then so will changing any server tag mid-game.
> >
> > I hope that nobody else does get blacklisted, without any clear 
> > confirmation for whether it is or is not permitted.
> >
> > > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:20:15 -0500
> > > From: 1nsane...@gmail.com
> > > To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
> > > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> > >
> > > Loophole? It's by design and valve knows it. This is an oversight 
> > > which
> > I'm
> > > almost entirely convinced they'll fix soon.
> > >
> > > Nowhere does it say that once you start your server you can't 
> > > change any settings to be quickplay eligble.
> > >
> > > What if a server goes on a map quickplay doesn't support or is 
> > > outside of the chosen range of CP,CTF,whatever of the player 
> > > picked initially. What about servers that let you vote for crits 
> > > or vote for maps? There's
> > servers
> > > that enable fast respawn after XX players join.
> > >
> > > There's also other changes that quickplay disqualifies for so 
> > > those
> > servers
> > > should also be blacklisted when they do it.
> > > Why? Because it's exactly the same. They make the server quickplay
> > capable
> > > initially and then change something that would make it non capable.
> > >
> > > In fact actually changing maxplayers is not nearly as bad as those 
> > > other things because quickplay technically supports 32 player 
> > > servers. Just
> > gives
> > > them a score penalty. Now filling your server with quickplay and
> > disabling
> > > crits or changing maps... Well those things completely disqualify 
> > > a
> > server
> > > from quickplay and should clearly be blacklisted as well then.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Ross Bemrose 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Soo... you're abusing a loophole in the quickplay system 
> > > > then
> > getting
> > > > upset when your server gets delisted because of it?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > To unsubsc

Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[Essay Tew Phaun]

Understood, we've removed the dynamic slots plugin from all of our servers.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Fletcher Dunn
wrote:

> We banned some servers who had a maxplayers great than 24 but did not have
> the increased_maxplayers tag.  It looks like it is possible that changing
> sv_visiblemaxplayers dynamically can result in this tag not being set.
>  We'll undo those bans.
>
> If the maxplayers column doesn't inform players, "This server will
> generally limit the max number of players to X" then what does the value
> mean?  The only possible way I can imagine a player would interpret the
> consistent, automated upward adjustment of the maxplayers value is that the
> server is lying to them about what is happening on the server.
>
> We'll fix this loophole.  Players are entitled to an accurate indication
> of the max number of players allowed on the server.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:
> hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Abdulrahman
> Abdulkawi
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 2:54 PM
> To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
>
> I just checked my servers and they are actually NOT reporting the
> increased_maxplayers server tag - I think it may have broke after an
> update...
>
> > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:50:24 -0500
> > From: sc2p...@gmail.com
> > To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
> > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> >
> > I've already talked to someone else who has servers delisted for the
> > same reason. There are also a few other communities running some
> > servers that have been delisted. I can't say whether they're for the
> > same tags or not, but we weren't the only ones affected by this.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Abdulrahman Abdulkawi
> >  > > wrote:
> >
> > > Well said - I think this does need to be addressed by Valve
> > > otherwise everything is just speculation / assumption.
> > >
> > > Personally, I think the plugin may have glitched or along those
> > > lines and the required tag (increased_maxplayers) was not
> > > automatically added when the slots increased; this is if we're
> > > reading the reason to the letter "server not reporting required
> > > tags"; which if you did have the increased_maxplayers, then you did
> report the required tags.
> > >
> > > I guess if that's a problem, then so will changing any server tag
> mid-game.
> > >
> > > I hope that nobody else does get blacklisted, without any clear
> > > confirmation for whether it is or is not permitted.
> > >
> > > > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:20:15 -0500
> > > > From: 1nsane...@gmail.com
> > > > To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> > > >
> > > > Loophole? It's by design and valve knows it. This is an oversight
> > > > which
> > > I'm
> > > > almost entirely convinced they'll fix soon.
> > > >
> > > > Nowhere does it say that once you start your server you can't
> > > > change any settings to be quickplay eligble.
> > > >
> > > > What if a server goes on a map quickplay doesn't support or is
> > > > outside of the chosen range of CP,CTF,whatever of the player
> > > > picked initially. What about servers that let you vote for crits
> > > > or vote for maps? There's
> > > servers
> > > > that enable fast respawn after XX players join.
> > > >
> > > > There's also other changes that quickplay disqualifies for so
> > > > those
> > > servers
> > > > should also be blacklisted when they do it.
> > > > Why? Because it's exactly the same. They make the server quickplay
> > > capable
> > > > initially and then change something that would make it non capable.
> > > >
> > > > In fact actually changing maxplayers is not nearly as bad as those
> > > > other things because quickplay technically supports 32 player
> > > > servers. Just
> > > gives
> > > > them a score penalty. Now filling your server with quickplay and
> > > disabling
> > > > crits or changing maps... Well those things completely disqualify
> > > > a
> > > server
> > > > from quickplay and should clearly be blacklisted as well then.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Ross Bemrose 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Soo... you're abusing a loophole in the quickplay system
> > > > > then
> > > getting
> > > > > upset when your server gets delisted because of it?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > 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] Reminder about server tags

[Fletcher Dunn]

We banned some servers who had a maxplayers great than 24 but did not have the 
increased_maxplayers tag.  It looks like it is possible that changing 
sv_visiblemaxplayers dynamically can result in this tag not being set.  We'll 
undo those bans.

If the maxplayers column doesn't inform players, "This server will generally 
limit the max number of players to X" then what does the value mean?  The only 
possible way I can imagine a player would interpret the consistent, automated 
upward adjustment of the maxplayers value is that the server is lying to them 
about what is happening on the server.

We'll fix this loophole.  Players are entitled to an accurate indication of the 
max number of players allowed on the server.

-Original Message-
From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com 
[mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Abdulrahman 
Abdulkawi
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 2:54 PM
To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

I just checked my servers and they are actually NOT reporting the 
increased_maxplayers server tag - I think it may have broke after an update...

> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:50:24 -0500
> From: sc2p...@gmail.com
> To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> 
> I've already talked to someone else who has servers delisted for the 
> same reason. There are also a few other communities running some 
> servers that have been delisted. I can't say whether they're for the 
> same tags or not, but we weren't the only ones affected by this.
> 
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Abdulrahman Abdulkawi 
>  > wrote:
> 
> > Well said - I think this does need to be addressed by Valve 
> > otherwise everything is just speculation / assumption.
> >
> > Personally, I think the plugin may have glitched or along those 
> > lines and the required tag (increased_maxplayers) was not 
> > automatically added when the slots increased; this is if we're 
> > reading the reason to the letter "server not reporting required 
> > tags"; which if you did have the increased_maxplayers, then you did report 
> > the required tags.
> >
> > I guess if that's a problem, then so will changing any server tag mid-game.
> >
> > I hope that nobody else does get blacklisted, without any clear 
> > confirmation for whether it is or is not permitted.
> >
> > > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:20:15 -0500
> > > From: 1nsane...@gmail.com
> > > To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
> > > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> > >
> > > Loophole? It's by design and valve knows it. This is an oversight 
> > > which
> > I'm
> > > almost entirely convinced they'll fix soon.
> > >
> > > Nowhere does it say that once you start your server you can't 
> > > change any settings to be quickplay eligble.
> > >
> > > What if a server goes on a map quickplay doesn't support or is 
> > > outside of the chosen range of CP,CTF,whatever of the player 
> > > picked initially. What about servers that let you vote for crits 
> > > or vote for maps? There's
> > servers
> > > that enable fast respawn after XX players join.
> > >
> > > There's also other changes that quickplay disqualifies for so 
> > > those
> > servers
> > > should also be blacklisted when they do it.
> > > Why? Because it's exactly the same. They make the server quickplay
> > capable
> > > initially and then change something that would make it non capable.
> > >
> > > In fact actually changing maxplayers is not nearly as bad as those 
> > > other things because quickplay technically supports 32 player 
> > > servers. Just
> > gives
> > > them a score penalty. Now filling your server with quickplay and
> > disabling
> > > crits or changing maps... Well those things completely disqualify 
> > > a
> > server
> > > from quickplay and should clearly be blacklisted as well then.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Ross Bemrose 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Soo... you're abusing a loophole in the quickplay system 
> > > > then
> > getting
> > > > upset when your server gets delisted because of it?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > 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

Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[Abdulrahman Abdulkawi]

I just checked my servers and they are actually NOT reporting the 
increased_maxplayers server tag - I think it may have broke after an update...

> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:50:24 -0500
> From: sc2p...@gmail.com
> To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> 
> I've already talked to someone else who has servers delisted for the same
> reason. There are also a few other communities running some servers that
> have been delisted. I can't say whether they're for the same tags or not,
> but we weren't the only ones affected by this.
> 
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Abdulrahman Abdulkawi  > wrote:
> 
> > Well said - I think this does need to be addressed by Valve otherwise
> > everything is just speculation / assumption.
> >
> > Personally, I think the plugin may have glitched or along those lines and
> > the required tag (increased_maxplayers) was not automatically added when
> > the slots increased; this is if we're reading the reason to the letter
> > "server not reporting required tags"; which if you did have the
> > increased_maxplayers, then you did report the required tags.
> >
> > I guess if that's a problem, then so will changing any server tag mid-game.
> >
> > I hope that nobody else does get blacklisted, without any clear
> > confirmation for whether it is or is not permitted.
> >
> > > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:20:15 -0500
> > > From: 1nsane...@gmail.com
> > > To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
> > > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> > >
> > > Loophole? It's by design and valve knows it. This is an oversight which
> > I'm
> > > almost entirely convinced they'll fix soon.
> > >
> > > Nowhere does it say that once you start your server you can't change any
> > > settings to be quickplay eligble.
> > >
> > > What if a server goes on a map quickplay doesn't support or is outside of
> > > the chosen range of CP,CTF,whatever of the player picked initially. What
> > > about servers that let you vote for crits or vote for maps? There's
> > servers
> > > that enable fast respawn after XX players join.
> > >
> > > There's also other changes that quickplay disqualifies for so those
> > servers
> > > should also be blacklisted when they do it.
> > > Why? Because it's exactly the same. They make the server quickplay
> > capable
> > > initially and then change something that would make it non capable.
> > >
> > > In fact actually changing maxplayers is not nearly as bad as those other
> > > things because quickplay technically supports 32 player servers. Just
> > gives
> > > them a score penalty. Now filling your server with quickplay and
> > disabling
> > > crits or changing maps... Well those things completely disqualify a
> > server
> > > from quickplay and should clearly be blacklisted as well then.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Ross Bemrose 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Soo... you're abusing a loophole in the quickplay system then
> > getting
> > > > upset when your server gets delisted because of it?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > 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] Reminder about server tags

[Essay Tew Phaun]

I've already talked to someone else who has servers delisted for the same
reason. There are also a few other communities running some servers that
have been delisted. I can't say whether they're for the same tags or not,
but we weren't the only ones affected by this.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Abdulrahman Abdulkawi  wrote:

> Well said - I think this does need to be addressed by Valve otherwise
> everything is just speculation / assumption.
>
> Personally, I think the plugin may have glitched or along those lines and
> the required tag (increased_maxplayers) was not automatically added when
> the slots increased; this is if we're reading the reason to the letter
> "server not reporting required tags"; which if you did have the
> increased_maxplayers, then you did report the required tags.
>
> I guess if that's a problem, then so will changing any server tag mid-game.
>
> I hope that nobody else does get blacklisted, without any clear
> confirmation for whether it is or is not permitted.
>
> > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:20:15 -0500
> > From: 1nsane...@gmail.com
> > To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
> > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> >
> > Loophole? It's by design and valve knows it. This is an oversight which
> I'm
> > almost entirely convinced they'll fix soon.
> >
> > Nowhere does it say that once you start your server you can't change any
> > settings to be quickplay eligble.
> >
> > What if a server goes on a map quickplay doesn't support or is outside of
> > the chosen range of CP,CTF,whatever of the player picked initially. What
> > about servers that let you vote for crits or vote for maps? There's
> servers
> > that enable fast respawn after XX players join.
> >
> > There's also other changes that quickplay disqualifies for so those
> servers
> > should also be blacklisted when they do it.
> > Why? Because it's exactly the same. They make the server quickplay
> capable
> > initially and then change something that would make it non capable.
> >
> > In fact actually changing maxplayers is not nearly as bad as those other
> > things because quickplay technically supports 32 player servers. Just
> gives
> > them a score penalty. Now filling your server with quickplay and
> disabling
> > crits or changing maps... Well those things completely disqualify a
> server
> > from quickplay and should clearly be blacklisted as well then.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Ross Bemrose 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Soo... you're abusing a loophole in the quickplay system then
> getting
> > > upset when your server gets delisted because of it?
> > >
> > >
> > ___
> > 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] Enter key not bindable

[Scipizoa]

client side on ubuntu 12.10 i can't bind it as a key at all,  I tried 
posting on the forums but   no ones replying there, but i figure this is 
a better place to question this as to this is where both client/server 
sides updates are discussed and such. and maybe a dev working on the 
linux tf2 wil see this and hopeful have an answer for me


On 02/18/2013 04:40 PM, Gordon Reynolds wrote:

You can't hit enter in the server terminal or is this a client-side issue?


On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Scipizoa  wrote:


Ok I'm sorry if this mailing list is for servers only but this is probably
the best way for me to get this answered,  is there any reason why i cannot
bind the enter key to anything in TF2 on ubuntu 12.10?[I used to have
ubuntu 12.04 when the public beta for linux started and thought it was just
a beta thing]
___
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] Reminder about server tags

[Abdulrahman Abdulkawi]

Well said - I think this does need to be addressed by Valve otherwise 
everything is just speculation / assumption.

Personally, I think the plugin may have glitched or along those lines and the 
required tag (increased_maxplayers) was not automatically added when the slots 
increased; this is if we're reading the reason to the letter "server not 
reporting required tags"; which if you did have the increased_maxplayers, then 
you did report the required tags.

I guess if that's a problem, then so will changing any server tag mid-game.

I hope that nobody else does get blacklisted, without any clear confirmation 
for whether it is or is not permitted.

> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:20:15 -0500
> From: 1nsane...@gmail.com
> To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> 
> Loophole? It's by design and valve knows it. This is an oversight which I'm
> almost entirely convinced they'll fix soon.
> 
> Nowhere does it say that once you start your server you can't change any
> settings to be quickplay eligble.
> 
> What if a server goes on a map quickplay doesn't support or is outside of
> the chosen range of CP,CTF,whatever of the player picked initially. What
> about servers that let you vote for crits or vote for maps? There's servers
> that enable fast respawn after XX players join.
> 
> There's also other changes that quickplay disqualifies for so those servers
> should also be blacklisted when they do it.
> Why? Because it's exactly the same. They make the server quickplay capable
> initially and then change something that would make it non capable.
> 
> In fact actually changing maxplayers is not nearly as bad as those other
> things because quickplay technically supports 32 player servers. Just gives
> them a score penalty. Now filling your server with quickplay and disabling
> crits or changing maps... Well those things completely disqualify a server
> from quickplay and should clearly be blacklisted as well then.
> 
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Ross Bemrose  wrote:
> 
> > Soo... you're abusing a loophole in the quickplay system then getting
> > upset when your server gets delisted because of it?
> >
> >
> ___
> 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] Reminder about server tags

[Essay Tew Phaun]

Excellent points that I actually didn't even consider. I'll say it again,
if Valve *really* doesn't want servers doing this than they need not do
more than simply say so. I know some server owners would perhaps tempt fate
but it would have taken us all of 2 minutes to remove the plugins from the
servers. There just isn't much to go off of here and flat out delisting
servers without communicating these things very well just doesn't feel
right to me, so I'm still standing by my thoughts that this is a mistake on
their part. Either way it winds up going, I'll be sure to provide the
answer here if Valve only responds to me privately. I think other server
owners should know the reason so that they don't risk being delisted.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:20 PM, 1nsane <1nsane...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Loophole? It's by design and valve knows it. This is an oversight which I'm
> almost entirely convinced they'll fix soon.
>
> Nowhere does it say that once you start your server you can't change any
> settings to be quickplay eligble.
>
> What if a server goes on a map quickplay doesn't support or is outside of
> the chosen range of CP,CTF,whatever of the player picked initially. What
> about servers that let you vote for crits or vote for maps? There's servers
> that enable fast respawn after XX players join.
>
> There's also other changes that quickplay disqualifies for so those servers
> should also be blacklisted when they do it.
> Why? Because it's exactly the same. They make the server quickplay capable
> initially and then change something that would make it non capable.
>
> In fact actually changing maxplayers is not nearly as bad as those other
> things because quickplay technically supports 32 player servers. Just gives
> them a score penalty. Now filling your server with quickplay and disabling
> crits or changing maps... Well those things completely disqualify a server
> from quickplay and should clearly be blacklisted as well then.
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Ross Bemrose  wrote:
>
> > Soo... you're abusing a loophole in the quickplay system then getting
> > upset when your server gets delisted because of it?
> >
> >
> ___
> 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] Reminder about server tags

[1nsane]

Loophole? It's by design and valve knows it. This is an oversight which I'm
almost entirely convinced they'll fix soon.

Nowhere does it say that once you start your server you can't change any
settings to be quickplay eligble.

What if a server goes on a map quickplay doesn't support or is outside of
the chosen range of CP,CTF,whatever of the player picked initially. What
about servers that let you vote for crits or vote for maps? There's servers
that enable fast respawn after XX players join.

There's also other changes that quickplay disqualifies for so those servers
should also be blacklisted when they do it.
Why? Because it's exactly the same. They make the server quickplay capable
initially and then change something that would make it non capable.

In fact actually changing maxplayers is not nearly as bad as those other
things because quickplay technically supports 32 player servers. Just gives
them a score penalty. Now filling your server with quickplay and disabling
crits or changing maps... Well those things completely disqualify a server
from quickplay and should clearly be blacklisted as well then.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Ross Bemrose  wrote:

> Soo... you're abusing a loophole in the quickplay system then getting
> upset when your server gets delisted because of it?
>
>
___
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] Reminder about server tags

[Ross Bemrose]

Soo... you're abusing a loophole in the quickplay system then 
getting upset when your server gets delisted because of it?


On 2/18/2013 4:46 PM, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:

Right, but where is it expressed that it's against the rules? When it's
above 24 players it's advertised with the proper tag. I definitely don't
see it as any worse than joining some RTD server within the Quickplay pool.
Most of all, had Valve simply said "Don't do this". We would of removed it.
It's not that big of a deal to remove it really, had I thought they were
ever going to delist servers for it.

I'm still having trouble figuring out how this could be intended, because
there are a bunch of servers listed right now that are breaking this "rule".

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Gordon Reynolds <
thisisgordonsem...@gmail.com> wrote:


"The *only* reason we were doing it was to avoid the initial hit to our
quickplay score. The intention isn't to trick players, though I can see how
one may think that was the intention."

Yeah that's the problem right here, nobody believes it was your intention
to do wrong, but you ARE hosting a 32 man server, and then trying to still
score on the no-penalty quickplay traffic until you get more than 24
players. That's using the system to get more players into your server than
you'd normally get otherwise - because they might think they are here for a
good ol' 12 on 12 action. Not a 12 on 12 until more show up kind of game.


On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Essay Tew Phaun 
wrote:


It's pretty simple to me, let server owners know it's a violation of the
policy and most will remove it. I've removed it from all of the servers.
The *only* reason we were doing it was to avoid the initial hit to our
quickplay score. The intention isn't to trick players, though I can see

how

one may think that was the intention. My problem is that the subject has
been brought up a few times and we've never gotten a direct answer on it
and by definition, it does not break the policy. The server is advertised
properly by the tag when the server goes beyond 24 players. We don't set
tags anywhere because we don't need to, when you enable/disable features
the server usually handles that for you. It seems really strange to me

that

you would automatically delist a server like that without answering the
question about whether this is a violation or not and without making it

so

when servers go above 24 players the tag is changed immediately.

I don't like the idea that we're not breaking the rules the way they
currently exist yet we've had a server delisted. I don't like the idea

that

we were never given a direct answer yet we had a server delisted. I also
see tons of servers right now running 32 players without the tag. It is
very very very bothersome that I've reported servers in the past who were
grossly breaking the policy of truth rules and it took them months to get
delisted, yet one of our servers is now breaking a rule that was never
clarified as breaking a rule? I have big problems with that, because I
would have not had a problem removing the dynamic slot changer had this
been expressed as a violation by Valve. The tag is changed when the

player

counts rise but because it's not done immediately (Don't ask me why this
is) a lot of servers were blacklisted for those few moments where the tag
doesn't exist?

I really believe this has to be a mistake, because there are a bunch of
servers right now as I type this that are breaking tag rules and are not
delisted. It's not enough that we have to work as a community as hard as

we

do to keep our servers full on a daily basis with client crashes and

server

crashes, now we've got a server delisted that really doesn't break any
rules.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 2:51 PM, HyperionGaming.org Admin <
ad...@hyperiongaming.org> wrote:


Exactly. Valve never talked about the dynamicslots plugin as a

violation

before. If the plugin is now considered as "cheating" and can get

servers

blacklisted, then it's quite simple: don't use it. Right now, we still
don't know if that's the reason his server was delisted. Hopefully,

someone

from Valve will clear up the issue either here or privately. And if

they

do, please let us know the verdict.

Question: If you start the server with 32 slots, use the dynamicslots
plugin to show 24 slots until 20 players join, are you still getting

the

32

slots quickplay penalty while there are less than 20 players on the

server?

If so, then I guess it's cheating the system, but I was under the
impression that quickplay was based on max slots not visible slots. I

might

be wrong.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Todd Pettit 
wrote:


I am starting to believe valve probably intentionally made the
_increasedmaxplayers not change with sv_visiblemaxplayers setting to

keep

us from "tricking" manipulating quickplay to send more players to a

32

player server. My problem with that is valve never said anything

about

it

or told people it co

Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[Essay Tew Phaun]

Right, but where is it expressed that it's against the rules? When it's
above 24 players it's advertised with the proper tag. I definitely don't
see it as any worse than joining some RTD server within the Quickplay pool.
Most of all, had Valve simply said "Don't do this". We would of removed it.
It's not that big of a deal to remove it really, had I thought they were
ever going to delist servers for it.

I'm still having trouble figuring out how this could be intended, because
there are a bunch of servers listed right now that are breaking this "rule".

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Gordon Reynolds <
thisisgordonsem...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "The *only* reason we were doing it was to avoid the initial hit to our
> quickplay score. The intention isn't to trick players, though I can see how
> one may think that was the intention."
>
> Yeah that's the problem right here, nobody believes it was your intention
> to do wrong, but you ARE hosting a 32 man server, and then trying to still
> score on the no-penalty quickplay traffic until you get more than 24
> players. That's using the system to get more players into your server than
> you'd normally get otherwise - because they might think they are here for a
> good ol' 12 on 12 action. Not a 12 on 12 until more show up kind of game.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Essay Tew Phaun 
> wrote:
>
> > It's pretty simple to me, let server owners know it's a violation of the
> > policy and most will remove it. I've removed it from all of the servers.
> > The *only* reason we were doing it was to avoid the initial hit to our
> > quickplay score. The intention isn't to trick players, though I can see
> how
> > one may think that was the intention. My problem is that the subject has
> > been brought up a few times and we've never gotten a direct answer on it
> > and by definition, it does not break the policy. The server is advertised
> > properly by the tag when the server goes beyond 24 players. We don't set
> > tags anywhere because we don't need to, when you enable/disable features
> > the server usually handles that for you. It seems really strange to me
> that
> > you would automatically delist a server like that without answering the
> > question about whether this is a violation or not and without making it
> so
> > when servers go above 24 players the tag is changed immediately.
> >
> > I don't like the idea that we're not breaking the rules the way they
> > currently exist yet we've had a server delisted. I don't like the idea
> that
> > we were never given a direct answer yet we had a server delisted. I also
> > see tons of servers right now running 32 players without the tag. It is
> > very very very bothersome that I've reported servers in the past who were
> > grossly breaking the policy of truth rules and it took them months to get
> > delisted, yet one of our servers is now breaking a rule that was never
> > clarified as breaking a rule? I have big problems with that, because I
> > would have not had a problem removing the dynamic slot changer had this
> > been expressed as a violation by Valve. The tag is changed when the
> player
> > counts rise but because it's not done immediately (Don't ask me why this
> > is) a lot of servers were blacklisted for those few moments where the tag
> > doesn't exist?
> >
> > I really believe this has to be a mistake, because there are a bunch of
> > servers right now as I type this that are breaking tag rules and are not
> > delisted. It's not enough that we have to work as a community as hard as
> we
> > do to keep our servers full on a daily basis with client crashes and
> server
> > crashes, now we've got a server delisted that really doesn't break any
> > rules.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 2:51 PM, HyperionGaming.org Admin <
> > ad...@hyperiongaming.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Exactly. Valve never talked about the dynamicslots plugin as a
> violation
> > > before. If the plugin is now considered as "cheating" and can get
> servers
> > > blacklisted, then it's quite simple: don't use it. Right now, we still
> > > don't know if that's the reason his server was delisted. Hopefully,
> > someone
> > > from Valve will clear up the issue either here or privately. And if
> they
> > > do, please let us know the verdict.
> > >
> > > Question: If you start the server with 32 slots, use the dynamicslots
> > > plugin to show 24 slots until 20 players join, are you still getting
> the
> > 32
> > > slots quickplay penalty while there are less than 20 players on the
> > server?
> > > If so, then I guess it's cheating the system, but I was under the
> > > impression that quickplay was based on max slots not visible slots. I
> > might
> > > be wrong.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Todd Pettit 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am starting to believe valve probably intentionally made the
> > > > _increasedmaxplayers not change with sv_visiblemaxplayers setting to
> > keep
> > > > us from "tricking" manipulating quickplay

Re: [hlds_linux] Enter key not bindable

[Gordon Reynolds]

You can't hit enter in the server terminal or is this a client-side issue?


On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Scipizoa  wrote:

> Ok I'm sorry if this mailing list is for servers only but this is probably
> the best way for me to get this answered,  is there any reason why i cannot
> bind the enter key to anything in TF2 on ubuntu 12.10?[I used to have
> ubuntu 12.04 when the public beta for linux started and thought it was just
> a beta thing]
> ___
> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> please visit:
> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
>



-- 
- Gordon Reynolds
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[Gordon Reynolds]

"The *only* reason we were doing it was to avoid the initial hit to our
quickplay score. The intention isn't to trick players, though I can see how
one may think that was the intention."

Yeah that's the problem right here, nobody believes it was your intention
to do wrong, but you ARE hosting a 32 man server, and then trying to still
score on the no-penalty quickplay traffic until you get more than 24
players. That's using the system to get more players into your server than
you'd normally get otherwise - because they might think they are here for a
good ol' 12 on 12 action. Not a 12 on 12 until more show up kind of game.


On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Essay Tew Phaun  wrote:

> It's pretty simple to me, let server owners know it's a violation of the
> policy and most will remove it. I've removed it from all of the servers.
> The *only* reason we were doing it was to avoid the initial hit to our
> quickplay score. The intention isn't to trick players, though I can see how
> one may think that was the intention. My problem is that the subject has
> been brought up a few times and we've never gotten a direct answer on it
> and by definition, it does not break the policy. The server is advertised
> properly by the tag when the server goes beyond 24 players. We don't set
> tags anywhere because we don't need to, when you enable/disable features
> the server usually handles that for you. It seems really strange to me that
> you would automatically delist a server like that without answering the
> question about whether this is a violation or not and without making it so
> when servers go above 24 players the tag is changed immediately.
>
> I don't like the idea that we're not breaking the rules the way they
> currently exist yet we've had a server delisted. I don't like the idea that
> we were never given a direct answer yet we had a server delisted. I also
> see tons of servers right now running 32 players without the tag. It is
> very very very bothersome that I've reported servers in the past who were
> grossly breaking the policy of truth rules and it took them months to get
> delisted, yet one of our servers is now breaking a rule that was never
> clarified as breaking a rule? I have big problems with that, because I
> would have not had a problem removing the dynamic slot changer had this
> been expressed as a violation by Valve. The tag is changed when the player
> counts rise but because it's not done immediately (Don't ask me why this
> is) a lot of servers were blacklisted for those few moments where the tag
> doesn't exist?
>
> I really believe this has to be a mistake, because there are a bunch of
> servers right now as I type this that are breaking tag rules and are not
> delisted. It's not enough that we have to work as a community as hard as we
> do to keep our servers full on a daily basis with client crashes and server
> crashes, now we've got a server delisted that really doesn't break any
> rules.
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 2:51 PM, HyperionGaming.org Admin <
> ad...@hyperiongaming.org> wrote:
>
> > Exactly. Valve never talked about the dynamicslots plugin as a violation
> > before. If the plugin is now considered as "cheating" and can get servers
> > blacklisted, then it's quite simple: don't use it. Right now, we still
> > don't know if that's the reason his server was delisted. Hopefully,
> someone
> > from Valve will clear up the issue either here or privately. And if they
> > do, please let us know the verdict.
> >
> > Question: If you start the server with 32 slots, use the dynamicslots
> > plugin to show 24 slots until 20 players join, are you still getting the
> 32
> > slots quickplay penalty while there are less than 20 players on the
> server?
> > If so, then I guess it's cheating the system, but I was under the
> > impression that quickplay was based on max slots not visible slots. I
> might
> > be wrong.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Todd Pettit 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I am starting to believe valve probably intentionally made the
> > > _increasedmaxplayers not change with sv_visiblemaxplayers setting to
> keep
> > > us from "tricking" manipulating quickplay to send more players to a 32
> > > player server. My problem with that is valve never said anything about
> it
> > > or told people it considers the practice the dynamicslots plugin a
> > > violation. Instead they choose to once again simply alienate and cost
> > money
> > > to dozens of admins. I say this without ever having been affected. I
> just
> > > think if valve had simply stated that the practice of changing the
> > > sv_visiblemaxplayers mid-game or specifically stated it considers the
> > > dynamicslots plugin a violation then this conversation would be moot.
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "1nsane" <1nsane...@gmail.com>
> > > To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" <
> > > hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:38:10 PM
> > > Subje

Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[Essay Tew Phaun]

It's pretty simple to me, let server owners know it's a violation of the
policy and most will remove it. I've removed it from all of the servers.
The *only* reason we were doing it was to avoid the initial hit to our
quickplay score. The intention isn't to trick players, though I can see how
one may think that was the intention. My problem is that the subject has
been brought up a few times and we've never gotten a direct answer on it
and by definition, it does not break the policy. The server is advertised
properly by the tag when the server goes beyond 24 players. We don't set
tags anywhere because we don't need to, when you enable/disable features
the server usually handles that for you. It seems really strange to me that
you would automatically delist a server like that without answering the
question about whether this is a violation or not and without making it so
when servers go above 24 players the tag is changed immediately.

I don't like the idea that we're not breaking the rules the way they
currently exist yet we've had a server delisted. I don't like the idea that
we were never given a direct answer yet we had a server delisted. I also
see tons of servers right now running 32 players without the tag. It is
very very very bothersome that I've reported servers in the past who were
grossly breaking the policy of truth rules and it took them months to get
delisted, yet one of our servers is now breaking a rule that was never
clarified as breaking a rule? I have big problems with that, because I
would have not had a problem removing the dynamic slot changer had this
been expressed as a violation by Valve. The tag is changed when the player
counts rise but because it's not done immediately (Don't ask me why this
is) a lot of servers were blacklisted for those few moments where the tag
doesn't exist?

I really believe this has to be a mistake, because there are a bunch of
servers right now as I type this that are breaking tag rules and are not
delisted. It's not enough that we have to work as a community as hard as we
do to keep our servers full on a daily basis with client crashes and server
crashes, now we've got a server delisted that really doesn't break any
rules.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 2:51 PM, HyperionGaming.org Admin <
ad...@hyperiongaming.org> wrote:

> Exactly. Valve never talked about the dynamicslots plugin as a violation
> before. If the plugin is now considered as "cheating" and can get servers
> blacklisted, then it's quite simple: don't use it. Right now, we still
> don't know if that's the reason his server was delisted. Hopefully, someone
> from Valve will clear up the issue either here or privately. And if they
> do, please let us know the verdict.
>
> Question: If you start the server with 32 slots, use the dynamicslots
> plugin to show 24 slots until 20 players join, are you still getting the 32
> slots quickplay penalty while there are less than 20 players on the server?
> If so, then I guess it's cheating the system, but I was under the
> impression that quickplay was based on max slots not visible slots. I might
> be wrong.
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Todd Pettit 
> wrote:
>
> > I am starting to believe valve probably intentionally made the
> > _increasedmaxplayers not change with sv_visiblemaxplayers setting to keep
> > us from "tricking" manipulating quickplay to send more players to a 32
> > player server. My problem with that is valve never said anything about it
> > or told people it considers the practice the dynamicslots plugin a
> > violation. Instead they choose to once again simply alienate and cost
> money
> > to dozens of admins. I say this without ever having been affected. I just
> > think if valve had simply stated that the practice of changing the
> > sv_visiblemaxplayers mid-game or specifically stated it considers the
> > dynamicslots plugin a violation then this conversation would be moot.
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "1nsane" <1nsane...@gmail.com>
> > To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" <
> > hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com>
> > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:38:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> >
> > Then you'd also have to keep the server always at 32 players or else when
> > you use sv_visiblemaxplayers the tag can get removed.
> >
> > I see servers on the server list now at 32 players and no
> > increased_maxplayers tag set. This is odd.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Gordon Reynolds <
> > thisisgordonsem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You should not be delisted, but you DO run a 32 man server, and
> advertise
> > > it as a 24 man server. You do correctly change the tags once you near
> 24,
> > > but it is false advertisement. If I'm looking for a vanilla 24 man
> > server,
> > > end up on your server, and then 10 minutes later I notice there are 32
> > > people, I'm going to be a little miffed.
> > >
> > > This isn't breaking the letter of the policy but i

Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[HyperionGaming.org Admin]

Exactly. Valve never talked about the dynamicslots plugin as a violation
before. If the plugin is now considered as "cheating" and can get servers
blacklisted, then it's quite simple: don't use it. Right now, we still
don't know if that's the reason his server was delisted. Hopefully, someone
from Valve will clear up the issue either here or privately. And if they
do, please let us know the verdict.

Question: If you start the server with 32 slots, use the dynamicslots
plugin to show 24 slots until 20 players join, are you still getting the 32
slots quickplay penalty while there are less than 20 players on the server?
If so, then I guess it's cheating the system, but I was under the
impression that quickplay was based on max slots not visible slots. I might
be wrong.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Todd Pettit  wrote:

> I am starting to believe valve probably intentionally made the
> _increasedmaxplayers not change with sv_visiblemaxplayers setting to keep
> us from "tricking" manipulating quickplay to send more players to a 32
> player server. My problem with that is valve never said anything about it
> or told people it considers the practice the dynamicslots plugin a
> violation. Instead they choose to once again simply alienate and cost money
> to dozens of admins. I say this without ever having been affected. I just
> think if valve had simply stated that the practice of changing the
> sv_visiblemaxplayers mid-game or specifically stated it considers the
> dynamicslots plugin a violation then this conversation would be moot.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "1nsane" <1nsane...@gmail.com>
> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" <
> hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:38:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
>
> Then you'd also have to keep the server always at 32 players or else when
> you use sv_visiblemaxplayers the tag can get removed.
>
> I see servers on the server list now at 32 players and no
> increased_maxplayers tag set. This is odd.
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Gordon Reynolds <
> thisisgordonsem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You should not be delisted, but you DO run a 32 man server, and advertise
> > it as a 24 man server. You do correctly change the tags once you near 24,
> > but it is false advertisement. If I'm looking for a vanilla 24 man
> server,
> > end up on your server, and then 10 minutes later I notice there are 32
> > people, I'm going to be a little miffed.
> >
> > This isn't breaking the letter of the policy but it might be treading
> along
> > the "spirit" of it. Just keep the increased_maxplayers tag on at all
> times,
> > because you -are- running a 32 man server.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:59 AM, StevoTVR  wrote:
> >
> > > It does sound like a violation of the policy's intent. What is the
> > > difference between a 32 slot server and one that allows people to join
> > > until there are 32 players? I think people would expect the displayed
> > > player limit to stay the same during the session. The only reason I can
> > > think of for why you do that is to make your server appear to be
> > something
> > > that it isn't.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/18/2013 8:06 AM, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:
> > >
> > >> It doesn't violate it. Whether it's "ideal" to do so is another thing
> > >> entirely. The tag is dependent upon sv_visiblemaxplayers which can be
> > >> changed at any time. If you're going to have some automated system
> going
> > >> around delisting servers then you should at least make sure the
> features
> > >> enabled/disabled set the flags *immediately*. Other features set those
> > >> flags immediately, such as bots. In my opinion, they should have
> linked
> > >> "increased_maxplayers" to maxplayers and not sv_visiblemaxplayers.
> Then
> > if
> > >> you want to lower the visible players you can set sv_visiblemaxplayers
> > to
> > >> something lower than 32 and remove the increased_maxplayers tag. It
> > >> shouldn't work in the opposite way, especially if they're going to
> > delist
> > >> servers for it.
> > >>
> > >> TL;DR: It doesn't violate any policy the way it currently works. When
> > >> sv_visiblemaxplayers is changed, the tag "increased_maxplayers" is
> > added.
> > >> The problem is that it isn't changed immediately and if my guess is
> > >> correct, their automated tag checker has delisted some servers that
> > didn't
> > >> have this tag set at the time of the check.
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:34 AM, dan  wrote:
> > >>
> > >>  On 17/02/2013 21:32, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>  The servers are all started as 32 player servers,
> sv_visiblemaxplayers
> >  is
> >  set to 24 players. Once 23 players join the sv_visiblemaxplayers is
> > set
> >  to
> >  32 players. The tag "increased_maxplayers" is then applied. This
> > isn't a
> >  violation of the tag rules, which is what it's showing we were
> > delisted
> >  f

[hlds_linux] question

[Valantis Levas]

> 
> can someone tell me the best cvars and command line options for hlds with 28 
> players with the best fps? i have high connection and gameserver but i want 
> to know about tha settings cvars.. thanks


___
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] Reminder about server tags

[Todd Pettit]

I am starting to believe valve probably intentionally made the 
_increasedmaxplayers not change with sv_visiblemaxplayers setting to keep us 
from "tricking" manipulating quickplay to send more players to a 32 player 
server. My problem with that is valve never said anything about it or told 
people it considers the practice the dynamicslots plugin a violation. Instead 
they choose to once again simply alienate and cost money to dozens of admins. I 
say this without ever having been affected. I just think if valve had simply 
stated that the practice of changing the sv_visiblemaxplayers mid-game or 
specifically stated it considers the dynamicslots plugin a violation then this 
conversation would be moot.

- Original Message -
From: "1nsane" <1nsane...@gmail.com>
To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 

Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:38:10 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

Then you'd also have to keep the server always at 32 players or else when
you use sv_visiblemaxplayers the tag can get removed.

I see servers on the server list now at 32 players and no
increased_maxplayers tag set. This is odd.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Gordon Reynolds <
thisisgordonsem...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You should not be delisted, but you DO run a 32 man server, and advertise
> it as a 24 man server. You do correctly change the tags once you near 24,
> but it is false advertisement. If I'm looking for a vanilla 24 man server,
> end up on your server, and then 10 minutes later I notice there are 32
> people, I'm going to be a little miffed.
>
> This isn't breaking the letter of the policy but it might be treading along
> the "spirit" of it. Just keep the increased_maxplayers tag on at all times,
> because you -are- running a 32 man server.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:59 AM, StevoTVR  wrote:
>
> > It does sound like a violation of the policy's intent. What is the
> > difference between a 32 slot server and one that allows people to join
> > until there are 32 players? I think people would expect the displayed
> > player limit to stay the same during the session. The only reason I can
> > think of for why you do that is to make your server appear to be
> something
> > that it isn't.
> >
> >
> > On 2/18/2013 8:06 AM, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:
> >
> >> It doesn't violate it. Whether it's "ideal" to do so is another thing
> >> entirely. The tag is dependent upon sv_visiblemaxplayers which can be
> >> changed at any time. If you're going to have some automated system going
> >> around delisting servers then you should at least make sure the features
> >> enabled/disabled set the flags *immediately*. Other features set those
> >> flags immediately, such as bots. In my opinion, they should have linked
> >> "increased_maxplayers" to maxplayers and not sv_visiblemaxplayers. Then
> if
> >> you want to lower the visible players you can set sv_visiblemaxplayers
> to
> >> something lower than 32 and remove the increased_maxplayers tag. It
> >> shouldn't work in the opposite way, especially if they're going to
> delist
> >> servers for it.
> >>
> >> TL;DR: It doesn't violate any policy the way it currently works. When
> >> sv_visiblemaxplayers is changed, the tag "increased_maxplayers" is
> added.
> >> The problem is that it isn't changed immediately and if my guess is
> >> correct, their automated tag checker has delisted some servers that
> didn't
> >> have this tag set at the time of the check.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:34 AM, dan  wrote:
> >>
> >>  On 17/02/2013 21:32, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  The servers are all started as 32 player servers, sv_visiblemaxplayers
>  is
>  set to 24 players. Once 23 players join the sv_visiblemaxplayers is
> set
>  to
>  32 players. The tag "increased_maxplayers" is then applied. This
> isn't a
>  violation of the tag rules, which is what it's showing we were
> delisted
>  for.
> 
>   Why do you change sv_visiblemaxplayers?
> >>>
> >>> I think, without some overwhelming answer to the above question
> >>> what you do definitely violates increased_maxplayers.
> >>>
> >>> You have to think from the point of view of someone joining the server
> >>> thinking it's a 24 slot server
> >>> or someone using the tags to filter out servers with
> >>> increased_maxplayers.
> >>>
> >>> Even if strictly in the pedantic sense the tags are correct before and
> >>> after
> >>> you make the change, clearly in the intent of those tags you are
> breaking
> >>> the rules imo.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Dan.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> >>> please visit:
> >>> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/***
> >>> *hlds_linux >>> mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux<
> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >

Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[1nsane]

Then you'd also have to keep the server always at 32 players or else when
you use sv_visiblemaxplayers the tag can get removed.

I see servers on the server list now at 32 players and no
increased_maxplayers tag set. This is odd.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Gordon Reynolds <
thisisgordonsem...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You should not be delisted, but you DO run a 32 man server, and advertise
> it as a 24 man server. You do correctly change the tags once you near 24,
> but it is false advertisement. If I'm looking for a vanilla 24 man server,
> end up on your server, and then 10 minutes later I notice there are 32
> people, I'm going to be a little miffed.
>
> This isn't breaking the letter of the policy but it might be treading along
> the "spirit" of it. Just keep the increased_maxplayers tag on at all times,
> because you -are- running a 32 man server.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:59 AM, StevoTVR  wrote:
>
> > It does sound like a violation of the policy's intent. What is the
> > difference between a 32 slot server and one that allows people to join
> > until there are 32 players? I think people would expect the displayed
> > player limit to stay the same during the session. The only reason I can
> > think of for why you do that is to make your server appear to be
> something
> > that it isn't.
> >
> >
> > On 2/18/2013 8:06 AM, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:
> >
> >> It doesn't violate it. Whether it's "ideal" to do so is another thing
> >> entirely. The tag is dependent upon sv_visiblemaxplayers which can be
> >> changed at any time. If you're going to have some automated system going
> >> around delisting servers then you should at least make sure the features
> >> enabled/disabled set the flags *immediately*. Other features set those
> >> flags immediately, such as bots. In my opinion, they should have linked
> >> "increased_maxplayers" to maxplayers and not sv_visiblemaxplayers. Then
> if
> >> you want to lower the visible players you can set sv_visiblemaxplayers
> to
> >> something lower than 32 and remove the increased_maxplayers tag. It
> >> shouldn't work in the opposite way, especially if they're going to
> delist
> >> servers for it.
> >>
> >> TL;DR: It doesn't violate any policy the way it currently works. When
> >> sv_visiblemaxplayers is changed, the tag "increased_maxplayers" is
> added.
> >> The problem is that it isn't changed immediately and if my guess is
> >> correct, their automated tag checker has delisted some servers that
> didn't
> >> have this tag set at the time of the check.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:34 AM, dan  wrote:
> >>
> >>  On 17/02/2013 21:32, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  The servers are all started as 32 player servers, sv_visiblemaxplayers
>  is
>  set to 24 players. Once 23 players join the sv_visiblemaxplayers is
> set
>  to
>  32 players. The tag "increased_maxplayers" is then applied. This
> isn't a
>  violation of the tag rules, which is what it's showing we were
> delisted
>  for.
> 
>   Why do you change sv_visiblemaxplayers?
> >>>
> >>> I think, without some overwhelming answer to the above question
> >>> what you do definitely violates increased_maxplayers.
> >>>
> >>> You have to think from the point of view of someone joining the server
> >>> thinking it's a 24 slot server
> >>> or someone using the tags to filter out servers with
> >>> increased_maxplayers.
> >>>
> >>> Even if strictly in the pedantic sense the tags are correct before and
> >>> after
> >>> you make the change, clearly in the intent of those tags you are
> breaking
> >>> the rules imo.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Dan.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> >>> please visit:
> >>> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/***
> >>> *hlds_linux >>> mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux<
> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>  __**_
> >> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> >> please visit:
> >> https://list.valvesoftware.**com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**hlds_linux<
> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux>
> >>
> >>
> > __**_
> > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> > please visit:
> > https://list.valvesoftware.**com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**hlds_linux<
> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> - Gordon Reynolds
> ___
> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> please visit:
> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
>
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or v

Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[Gordon Reynolds]

You should not be delisted, but you DO run a 32 man server, and advertise
it as a 24 man server. You do correctly change the tags once you near 24,
but it is false advertisement. If I'm looking for a vanilla 24 man server,
end up on your server, and then 10 minutes later I notice there are 32
people, I'm going to be a little miffed.

This isn't breaking the letter of the policy but it might be treading along
the "spirit" of it. Just keep the increased_maxplayers tag on at all times,
because you -are- running a 32 man server.


On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:59 AM, StevoTVR  wrote:

> It does sound like a violation of the policy's intent. What is the
> difference between a 32 slot server and one that allows people to join
> until there are 32 players? I think people would expect the displayed
> player limit to stay the same during the session. The only reason I can
> think of for why you do that is to make your server appear to be something
> that it isn't.
>
>
> On 2/18/2013 8:06 AM, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:
>
>> It doesn't violate it. Whether it's "ideal" to do so is another thing
>> entirely. The tag is dependent upon sv_visiblemaxplayers which can be
>> changed at any time. If you're going to have some automated system going
>> around delisting servers then you should at least make sure the features
>> enabled/disabled set the flags *immediately*. Other features set those
>> flags immediately, such as bots. In my opinion, they should have linked
>> "increased_maxplayers" to maxplayers and not sv_visiblemaxplayers. Then if
>> you want to lower the visible players you can set sv_visiblemaxplayers to
>> something lower than 32 and remove the increased_maxplayers tag. It
>> shouldn't work in the opposite way, especially if they're going to delist
>> servers for it.
>>
>> TL;DR: It doesn't violate any policy the way it currently works. When
>> sv_visiblemaxplayers is changed, the tag "increased_maxplayers" is added.
>> The problem is that it isn't changed immediately and if my guess is
>> correct, their automated tag checker has delisted some servers that didn't
>> have this tag set at the time of the check.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:34 AM, dan  wrote:
>>
>>  On 17/02/2013 21:32, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:
>>>
>>>  The servers are all started as 32 player servers, sv_visiblemaxplayers
 is
 set to 24 players. Once 23 players join the sv_visiblemaxplayers is set
 to
 32 players. The tag "increased_maxplayers" is then applied. This isn't a
 violation of the tag rules, which is what it's showing we were delisted
 for.

  Why do you change sv_visiblemaxplayers?
>>>
>>> I think, without some overwhelming answer to the above question
>>> what you do definitely violates increased_maxplayers.
>>>
>>> You have to think from the point of view of someone joining the server
>>> thinking it's a 24 slot server
>>> or someone using the tags to filter out servers with
>>> increased_maxplayers.
>>>
>>> Even if strictly in the pedantic sense the tags are correct before and
>>> after
>>> you make the change, clearly in the intent of those tags you are breaking
>>> the rules imo.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dan.
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
>>> please visit:
>>> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/***
>>> *hlds_linux>> 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
>



-- 
- Gordon Reynolds
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[StevoTVR]

It does sound like a violation of the policy's intent. What is the 
difference between a 32 slot server and one that allows people to join 
until there are 32 players? I think people would expect the displayed 
player limit to stay the same during the session. The only reason I can 
think of for why you do that is to make your server appear to be 
something that it isn't.


On 2/18/2013 8:06 AM, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:

It doesn't violate it. Whether it's "ideal" to do so is another thing
entirely. The tag is dependent upon sv_visiblemaxplayers which can be
changed at any time. If you're going to have some automated system going
around delisting servers then you should at least make sure the features
enabled/disabled set the flags *immediately*. Other features set those
flags immediately, such as bots. In my opinion, they should have linked
"increased_maxplayers" to maxplayers and not sv_visiblemaxplayers. Then if
you want to lower the visible players you can set sv_visiblemaxplayers to
something lower than 32 and remove the increased_maxplayers tag. It
shouldn't work in the opposite way, especially if they're going to delist
servers for it.

TL;DR: It doesn't violate any policy the way it currently works. When
sv_visiblemaxplayers is changed, the tag "increased_maxplayers" is added.
The problem is that it isn't changed immediately and if my guess is
correct, their automated tag checker has delisted some servers that didn't
have this tag set at the time of the check.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:34 AM, dan  wrote:


On 17/02/2013 21:32, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:


The servers are all started as 32 player servers, sv_visiblemaxplayers is
set to 24 players. Once 23 players join the sv_visiblemaxplayers is set to
32 players. The tag "increased_maxplayers" is then applied. This isn't a
violation of the tag rules, which is what it's showing we were delisted
for.


Why do you change sv_visiblemaxplayers?

I think, without some overwhelming answer to the above question
what you do definitely violates increased_maxplayers.

You have to think from the point of view of someone joining the server
thinking it's a 24 slot server
or someone using the tags to filter out servers with increased_maxplayers.

Even if strictly in the pedantic sense the tags are correct before and
after
you make the change, clearly in the intent of those tags you are breaking
the rules imo.

--
Dan.


__**_
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
please visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.**com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**hlds_linux


___
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] Reminder about server tags

[Essay Tew Phaun]

It doesn't violate it. Whether it's "ideal" to do so is another thing
entirely. The tag is dependent upon sv_visiblemaxplayers which can be
changed at any time. If you're going to have some automated system going
around delisting servers then you should at least make sure the features
enabled/disabled set the flags *immediately*. Other features set those
flags immediately, such as bots. In my opinion, they should have linked
"increased_maxplayers" to maxplayers and not sv_visiblemaxplayers. Then if
you want to lower the visible players you can set sv_visiblemaxplayers to
something lower than 32 and remove the increased_maxplayers tag. It
shouldn't work in the opposite way, especially if they're going to delist
servers for it.

TL;DR: It doesn't violate any policy the way it currently works. When
sv_visiblemaxplayers is changed, the tag "increased_maxplayers" is added.
The problem is that it isn't changed immediately and if my guess is
correct, their automated tag checker has delisted some servers that didn't
have this tag set at the time of the check.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:34 AM, dan  wrote:

> On 17/02/2013 21:32, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:
>
>> The servers are all started as 32 player servers, sv_visiblemaxplayers is
>> set to 24 players. Once 23 players join the sv_visiblemaxplayers is set to
>> 32 players. The tag "increased_maxplayers" is then applied. This isn't a
>> violation of the tag rules, which is what it's showing we were delisted
>> for.
>>
>
> Why do you change sv_visiblemaxplayers?
>
> I think, without some overwhelming answer to the above question
> what you do definitely violates increased_maxplayers.
>
> You have to think from the point of view of someone joining the server
> thinking it's a 24 slot server
> or someone using the tags to filter out servers with increased_maxplayers.
>
> Even if strictly in the pedantic sense the tags are correct before and
> after
> you make the change, clearly in the intent of those tags you are breaking
> the rules imo.
>
> --
> Dan.
>
>
> __**_
> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> please visit:
> https://list.valvesoftware.**com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**hlds_linux
>
___
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] Reminder about server tags

[dan]

On 17/02/2013 21:32, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:

The servers are all started as 32 player servers, sv_visiblemaxplayers is
set to 24 players. Once 23 players join the sv_visiblemaxplayers is set to
32 players. The tag "increased_maxplayers" is then applied. This isn't a
violation of the tag rules, which is what it's showing we were delisted for.


Why do you change sv_visiblemaxplayers?

I think, without some overwhelming answer to the above question
what you do definitely violates increased_maxplayers.

You have to think from the point of view of someone joining the server 
thinking it's a 24 slot server

or someone using the tags to filter out servers with increased_maxplayers.

Even if strictly in the pedantic sense the tags are correct before and after
you make the change, clearly in the intent of those tags you are 
breaking the rules imo.


--
Dan.

___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[dan]

On 15/02/2013 11:52, Robert Paulson wrote:

Sure look at the games list during the least active part of the day when
many of those players are idling in the only game with a huge incentive to
idle. Try looking at the list during peak hours. The number of TF2 players
have stagnated and even dropped after 2 huge updates.


The graph you linked to last time if you clicked 'all time' showed that 
right now it's not even the lowest

it has ever been, let alone particularly low.

Find a different song to sing. I looked back on the list and you were 
bleating about TF2 numbers declining

back in 2011 too. Complaining about more or less the same things.

Here we are well on the way to 18 months later and TF2 is still going 
strong.


Oops. Your career as a fortune teller doesn't look very promising, does it?

I don't know about you but I purchased TF2 with the expectation that 
servers would be moddable like previous Source games AND not be 
relegated to a ghetto deprived of new players. You really think people 
run modded servers without buying the game?


The game is moddable.
This 'ghetto' thing makes no sense.

My son started playing TF2 within the last year and more or less went 
straight into highlander comp - and now does 6v6 comp.


I know you desperately want to create a myth of new TF2 players all too 
dumb to join a server or understand
anything about a game before they play it. Believing they all must just 
naively click the 'quickplay' button.


It's so silly an idea it's laughable.

Kids play games and they quickly learn all the ins and outs.

Again, in 2011 I listed a bunch of maps and gametypes that were full 
without either the
admins needing to lie and cheat to get players nor without them needing 
quickplay.


Similarly I pointed out the things that comp did in order to promote and 
advertise their game to the wider
TF2 community - with written guides, SPUF posts, videos, pub v comp 
matches, announcements on tf2.com too.


If you want people to play your mod, you need to put the effort in. What 
valve have done
is given a huge player base to tap into that's still going strong 5 or 6 
years after release.


There is no formal contract saying that server owners have any rights, 
but there is an unspoken one.


Well, ok, here is the unspoken judgement of the unspoken court case 
regarding your unspoken contract :-




(You lost BTW. For unspeakable reasons.)



Of course you wouldn't know given your 1 hour of TF2 per week.


Oh, what a zinger. Have you thought of applying for Eric Walpow's job?


This will be my final response to you on this matter.


This gives you a perfect opportunity to have at least one thing in your 
posts that's actually true.


--
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] Is the published HLDSUpdateTool broken?

[David Fountain]

Yea like I said it hangs on the first try one it goes I run it again and it
takes less time and self updates. Then I run it a third time and it
installs cz just fine

SavSin
On Feb 18, 2013 1:49 AM, "Jesse Molina"  wrote:

>
> Nevermind.  It works.  It took more than 20 minutes, but it finally
> self-updated correctly.
>
>
>
> Jesse Molina wrote:
>
>>
>> https://developer.**valvesoftware.com/wiki/**HLDSUpdateTool
>>
>> The steam binary extracted is from 2005, and it sits there forever and
>> does nothing.
>>
>> Is this broken, out of date, or is the Steam network just farked right
>> now?
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> # Jesse Molina
> # Mail = je...@opendreams.net
> # Cell = 1-602-323-7608
>
>
>
> __**_
> 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] Is the published HLDSUpdateTool broken?

[Jesse Molina]

Nevermind.  It works.  It took more than 20 minutes, but it finally 
self-updated correctly.




Jesse Molina wrote:


https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/HLDSUpdateTool

The steam binary extracted is from 2005, and it sits there forever and
does nothing.

Is this broken, out of date, or is the Steam network just farked right now?





--
# Jesse Molina
# Mail = je...@opendreams.net
# Cell = 1-602-323-7608



___
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] Is the published HLDSUpdateTool broken?

[Jesse Molina]

This is untrue, as far as I know.

Only CSGO, CS1.6, and HL2DM had been moved over to where they were 
depreciated with the old tool, per announcements from Valve.


See here:

https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Steam_Application_IDs
Under "Server Files"

No TF2, L4D2, CSS... and many more.



Collin Howard wrote:

Hldsupdatetool is no long in use.You have to use steamcmd to update servers if 
you are running hldm, 1.6, csgo, nuclear dawn, RO2, killing floor, etc.

more info: https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/SteamCMD





  From: Jesse Molina 
To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list 

Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:57:32 AM
Subject: [hlds_linux] Is the published HLDSUpdateTool broken?


https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/HLDSUpdateTool

The steam binary extracted is from 2005, and it sits there forever and does 
nothing.

Is this broken, out of date, or is the Steam network just farked right now?



-- # Jesse Molina
# Mail = je...@opendreams.net
# Cell = 1-602-323-7608



___
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



--
# Jesse Molina
# Mail = je...@opendreams.net
# Cell = 1-602-323-7608



___
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] Is the published HLDSUpdateTool broken?

[David Fountain]

Still used for CZ though. and yes it chills there waiting for years lol...
i have to run it 3 times before it finally goes.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Collin Howard  wrote:

> Hldsupdatetool is no long in use.You have to use steamcmd to update
> servers if you are running hldm, 1.6, csgo, nuclear dawn, RO2, killing
> floor, etc.
>
> more info: https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/SteamCMD
>
>
>
>
> 
>  From: Jesse Molina 
> To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list <
> hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:57:32 AM
> Subject: [hlds_linux] Is the published HLDSUpdateTool broken?
>
>
> https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/HLDSUpdateTool
>
> The steam binary extracted is from 2005, and it sits there forever and
> does nothing.
>
> Is this broken, out of date, or is the Steam network just farked right now?
>
>
>
> -- # Jesse Molina
> # Mail = je...@opendreams.net
> # Cell = 1-602-323-7608
>
>
>
> ___
> 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
>



-- 
Sincerely,
David Fountain
___
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] Is the published HLDSUpdateTool broken?

[Collin Howard]

Hldsupdatetool is no long in use.You have to use steamcmd to update servers if 
you are running hldm, 1.6, csgo, nuclear dawn, RO2, killing floor, etc.

more info: https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/SteamCMD





 From: Jesse Molina 
To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list 
 
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:57:32 AM
Subject: [hlds_linux] Is the published HLDSUpdateTool broken?
 

https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/HLDSUpdateTool

The steam binary extracted is from 2005, and it sits there forever and does 
nothing.

Is this broken, out of date, or is the Steam network just farked right now?



-- # Jesse Molina
# Mail = je...@opendreams.net
# Cell = 1-602-323-7608



___
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] Is the published HLDSUpdateTool broken?

[Anthony Stoyanov]

Use this: https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/SteamCMD

On 18.2.2013 г. 10:57 ч., Jesse Molina wrote:


https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/HLDSUpdateTool

The steam binary extracted is from 2005, and it sits there forever and 
does nothing.


Is this broken, out of date, or is the Steam network just farked right 
now?


--
Поздрави,
Антони Стоянов

___
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] Is the published HLDSUpdateTool broken?

[Jesse Molina]

https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/HLDSUpdateTool

The steam binary extracted is from 2005, and it sits there forever and 
does nothing.


Is this broken, out of date, or is the Steam network just farked right now?



--
# Jesse Molina
# Mail = je...@opendreams.net
# Cell = 1-602-323-7608



___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux