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

[dan]

On 08/03/2013 17:28, Doctor McKay wrote:

There's no need to resort to personal attacks.


I didn't. Saying you're not a doctor was not an attack. It's the truth.
Whereas what you said about the discussion being over was not true.

The thread is about a policy of truth. What chance do you have if you
think the truth is a personal attack?

--
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

[Doctor McKay]

There's no need to resort to personal attacks.

Dr. McKay

On Friday, March 8, 2013, dan wrote:

> On 06/03/2013 20:35, Doctor McKay wrote:
>
>> This discussion has been over for two weeks, Dan.
>>
>> Dr. McKay
>>
>
> Having examined the evidence I think you are wrong.
>
> But, don't sweat it, as a pretend doctor I'm sure you're more used to
> working with pretend evidence :)
>
> --
> Dan.
>
> __**_
> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> please visit:
> https://list.valvesoftware.**com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**hlds_linux
>


-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
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 06/03/2013 20:35, Doctor McKay wrote:

This discussion has been over for two weeks, Dan.

Dr. McKay


Having examined the evidence I think you are wrong.

But, don't sweat it, as a pretend doctor I'm sure you're more used to 
working with pretend evidence :)


--
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

[Mart-Jan Reeuwijk]

[Quote]
- Donation benefits: Ruins my vanilla experience when I can't kill donators
end of round or have autobalance immunity. I already paid Valve and those
hat modelers, why do server owners have the audacity to ask me for any more
of my money?
[unquote]

I really hate this one, there are achievements dependent on after round kills. 
Not being able to kill those ruins that, especially with a achievement to kill 
5 after round end... that would turn impossible with this.




>
> From: Robert Paulson 
>To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list 
> 
>Sent: Thursday, 7 March 2013, 0:47
>Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> 
>It seems like people on the internet have issues reading (what a big
>surprise), so I am going to try to keep this as short as possible.
>
>I am repeating myself because I have problems with people in this mailing
>list not even playing TF2 anymore trying to ruin other people's favorite
>settings. And it is funny seeing 24-slot server owners trying anything to
>get their competitors banned. You know who you are.
>
>1. Servers were mistakenly banned for a mistake on Valve's part. They did
>not know that changing sv_visiblemaxplayers after startup does not set a
>tag. Anyone that changed this setting was banned because Valve thought it
>set a tag but it didn't. This includes unarguably legitimate uses like
>reserved slots. Thus the bans were rightfully removed.
>
>2. Fletcher himself said "But it’s not ban worthy *and I think it’d be
>straying into a grey area on our part to take action against it."
>
>3. In no first world country has anyone ever been convicted for not
>following the "spirit of the law".
>
>4. The root of the problem is that quickplay is Valve's backhanded way to
>get the community to accept the "custom tabs" ghetto under the premise that
>quickplay is only for a few noobs. Anyone that actually runs a server can
>tell you that having quickplay will make or break any server close to
>vanilla. Remove the penalty so servers can compete EQUALLY as it should
>have been, or have an opt-in for 24 slots only.
>
>5. The truth is that larger servers are popular, but quickplay is too much
>of an advantage. Valve has the data to confirm this, and will be doing a
>disservice to themselves by penalizing them at a time when MvM is running
>out of steam to keep TF2 popular. If larger servers were not popular,
>people wouldn't keep joining, and thus it is a self-correcting problem.
>
>Get rid of this quickplay penalty and level the playing field. TF2 was made
>in 2007 computers can handle more than 24 slots now.
>
>6. The quickplay FAQ says
>
>Are there any server side mods that will disqualify me from Quickplay since
>some do not change sv_tags? No, we are not automatically disqualifying
>servers for server side mods. If the mods results in a better or worse
>player experience, that will be reflected in the back-end server score.
>
>So whatever happened to this? If Valve is banning servers from quickplay
>for changing sv_visiblemaxplayers, then I would request Fletcher to also
>remove the following:
>
>- Reserved slots: Ruins my vanilla experience by getting randomly kicked.
>- Donation benefits: Ruins my vanilla experience when I can't kill donators
>end of round or have autobalance immunity. I already paid Valve and those
>hat modelers, why do server owners have the audacity to ask me for any more
>of my money?
>- Class limits: I don't care if my team has 10 snipers. If I can't play a
>class, it isn't a vanilla experience.
>- Alltalk: I really need to strategize with quickplay noobs, and alltalk
>ruins my vanilla experience.
>- Ability to change maps: As a player, I am entitled to an accurate
>indication that the servers I am sent to only has quickplay maps or that
>the map doesn't switch right after I join.
>
>F*ck these server owners right? Who the do they think they are ruining the
>way I want to play TF2? This is satire if you couldn't tell. All I see here
>is a constant erosion of the rights of server owners. Valve penalizing
>larger servers while letting pay-to-win servers off the hook is a sad
>perversion of priorities.
>
>On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Rudy Bleeker  wrote:
>
>> I kinda hoped this thread was over, but apparently it's not. In that
>> case let me chip in as well. I also kind of agree with Dan. It's all
>> about the difference between the exact wording of the rules and their
>> intention. Some people on here would do well to read up on that, so
>> for your convenience:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law
>>
>&

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

[Jake Forrester]

> 5. The truth is that larger servers are popular, but quickplay is too much
> of an advantage. Valve has the data to confirm this, and will be doing a
> disservice to themselves by penalizing them at a time when MvM is running
> out of steam to keep TF2 popular. If larger servers were not popular,
> people wouldn't keep joining, and thus it is a self-correcting problem.
I can confirm that after the update to the tags rule, one of our 32
player servers went from being completely full 90% of the time (with
player activity 100% of the time--never any downtime) and being ranked
in the top 5 on gametracker, to 55th in about a week.  It is now
typically empty between 2am and noon until we can round up the regulars
to the point that there's ~20 people online for quickplay to kick in
again.  That is /a lot/ of players being impacted, considering I'm sure
there are many other 32 player servers experiencing the same thing.

I do agree that most maps are best played with 24 players, but there are
some where 32-players make the map even more fun.  Honestly, I wouldn't
play dustbowl on a 24-player server, and I spend about 90% of my game
time on dustbowl.  Other people feel the same way about 2fort (the
32-player version of 2fort is immensely popular).  If all these bigger
servers start to die off due to quickplay penalties, I know quite a few
people who will start playing significantly less.  This is an important
issue that needs to be solved ASAP.

If you want some actual data on slot differences of servers, I've
compiled a week's worth on the top-400 servers here:
http://www.ranndesigns.com/blog/team-fortress-2-map-data/.  Take a look
at the server capacity by players in the second set of graphs.  On
average, the 32-player servers were at a much higher percentage of
full-capacity than the 24-playser servers.


On 3/6/2013 6:47 PM, Robert Paulson wrote:
> It seems like people on the internet have issues reading (what a big
> surprise), so I am going to try to keep this as short as possible.
>
> I am repeating myself because I have problems with people in this mailing
> list not even playing TF2 anymore trying to ruin other people's favorite
> settings. And it is funny seeing 24-slot server owners trying anything to
> get their competitors banned. You know who you are.
>
> 1. Servers were mistakenly banned for a mistake on Valve's part. They did
> not know that changing sv_visiblemaxplayers after startup does not set a
> tag. Anyone that changed this setting was banned because Valve thought it
> set a tag but it didn't. This includes unarguably legitimate uses like
> reserved slots. Thus the bans were rightfully removed.
>
> 2. Fletcher himself said "But it’s not ban worthy *and I think it’d be
> straying into a grey area on our part to take action against it."
>
> 3. In no first world country has anyone ever been convicted for not
> following the "spirit of the law".
>
> 4. The root of the problem is that quickplay is Valve's backhanded way to
> get the community to accept the "custom tabs" ghetto under the premise that
> quickplay is only for a few noobs. Anyone that actually runs a server can
> tell you that having quickplay will make or break any server close to
> vanilla. Remove the penalty so servers can compete EQUALLY as it should
> have been, or have an opt-in for 24 slots only.
>
> 5. The truth is that larger servers are popular, but quickplay is too much
> of an advantage. Valve has the data to confirm this, and will be doing a
> disservice to themselves by penalizing them at a time when MvM is running
> out of steam to keep TF2 popular. If larger servers were not popular,
> people wouldn't keep joining, and thus it is a self-correcting problem.
>
> Get rid of this quickplay penalty and level the playing field. TF2 was made
> in 2007 computers can handle more than 24 slots now.
>
> 6. The quickplay FAQ says
>
> Are there any server side mods that will disqualify me from Quickplay since
> some do not change sv_tags? No, we are not automatically disqualifying
> servers for server side mods. If the mods results in a better or worse
> player experience, that will be reflected in the back-end server score.
>
> So whatever happened to this? If Valve is banning servers from quickplay
> for changing sv_visiblemaxplayers, then I would request Fletcher to also
> remove the following:
>
> - Reserved slots: Ruins my vanilla experience by getting randomly kicked.
> - Donation benefits: Ruins my vanilla experience when I can't kill donators
> end of round or have autobalance immunity. I already paid Valve and those
> hat modelers, why do server owners have the audacity to ask me for any more
> of my money?
> - Class limits: I don't care if my team has 10 snipers. If I can't play a
> class, it isn't a vanilla experience.
> - Alltalk: I really need to strategize with quickplay noobs, and alltalk
> ruins my vanilla experience.
> - Ability to change maps: As a player, I am entitled to an accurate
> indication that the serve

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

[Essay Tew Phaun]

Since when has more than 24 players not been eligible for Quickplay? Also,
when the count goes up the penalty is applied.
1nsane had a good post on this elsewhere about all the other settings that
can be changed while you're on a server that can disqualify it at any time
from Quickplay. Increasing the player count is hardly the worst thing that
can be done to impact the experience of players who've joined from
Quickplay.

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Rudy Bleeker  wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:41 AM, 1nsane <1nsane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do you really think interrupting people by kicking them is the better way
> > of doing reserved slots? Because I don't see how.
>
> How badly can you miss the point? I'll try to explain it one more
> time: if at ANY time during a server's lifetime you plan on changing
> your server settings from less than 24 players with quickplay enabled
> to more than 24 players (and thus not eligible for quickplay) you
> should NOT be eligible for quickplay AT ALL. You're ruining the
> experience of players that came in through quickplay, expecting a
> balanced game with at most 24 players, but who end up in a 32 player
> explosive damage spamfest for which TF2 wasn't designed. The fact that
> the game is 7 years old and computers can now handle 32 players more
> easily is irrelevant, it's about the game experience.
>
> --
> Idleness is not doing nothing. Idleness is being free to do anything.
>   - Floyd Dell
>
> ___
> 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]

What? I wasn't responding to you. My response was to Ross Bemrose <
rbemr...@gmail.com> and I don't know why this thread has separated. We
should go back to the existing thread. It just broke 100 emails.

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Rudy Bleeker  wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:41 AM, 1nsane <1nsane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do you really think interrupting people by kicking them is the better way
> > of doing reserved slots? Because I don't see how.
>
> How badly can you miss the point? I'll try to explain it one more
> time: if at ANY time during a server's lifetime you plan on changing
> your server settings from less than 24 players with quickplay enabled
> to more than 24 players (and thus not eligible for quickplay) you
> should NOT be eligible for quickplay AT ALL. You're ruining the
> experience of players that came in through quickplay, expecting a
> balanced game with at most 24 players, but who end up in a 32 player
> explosive damage spamfest for which TF2 wasn't designed. The fact that
> the game is 7 years old and computers can now handle 32 players more
> easily is irrelevant, it's about the game experience.
>
> --
> Idleness is not doing nothing. Idleness is being free to do anything.
>   - Floyd Dell
>
> ___
> 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

[Rudy Bleeker]

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:41 AM, 1nsane <1nsane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you really think interrupting people by kicking them is the better way
> of doing reserved slots? Because I don't see how.

How badly can you miss the point? I'll try to explain it one more
time: if at ANY time during a server's lifetime you plan on changing
your server settings from less than 24 players with quickplay enabled
to more than 24 players (and thus not eligible for quickplay) you
should NOT be eligible for quickplay AT ALL. You're ruining the
experience of players that came in through quickplay, expecting a
balanced game with at most 24 players, but who end up in a 32 player
explosive damage spamfest for which TF2 wasn't designed. The fact that
the game is 7 years old and computers can now handle 32 players more
easily is irrelevant, it's about the game experience.

-- 
Idleness is not doing nothing. Idleness is being free to do anything.
  - Floyd Dell

___
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]

So you're saying 24 player servers should then instead kick players when
reserved slot holders join.

All those extra slots that could be added to prevent kicking anyone should
then be ignored. Because starting with maxplayers 26 and having
sv_visiblemaxplayers 24 would add the tag and thus penalize a server that
is trying to have reserved slots that don't interrupt anyone's playtime.

Do you really think interrupting people by kicking them is the better way
of doing reserved slots? Because I don't see how.

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Ross Bemrose  wrote:

I don't ever use Quickplay, but changing sv_visiblemaxplayers mid-game is
> clearly abusing the system.  *What I propose is that the
> increased_maxplayers tag be attached to the maxplayers setting instead of
> the sv_visiblemaxplayers setting*.  Which incidentally also addresses
> some of the issues with reserved slots, although not ones using the Connect
> or CBaseServer SourceMod extensions.
>
>
___
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]

Those of us who have intentionally opted out of Quickplay are also those 
with no vested interest in it.  Which makes us unbiased neutral parties, 
at least on the server side.


I don't ever use Quickplay, but changing sv_visiblemaxplayers mid-game 
is clearly abusing the system.  What I propose is that the 
increased_maxplayers tag be attached to the maxplayers setting instead 
of the sv_visiblemaxplayers setting.  Which incidentally also addresses 
some of the issues with reserved slots, although not ones using the 
Connect or CBaseServer SourceMod extensions.


On 3/6/2013 7:41 PM, Robert Paulson wrote:

Since you
only run MvM and idle servers, you don't care about these changes.


On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:23 PM, j m  wrote:


If Valve provides you a server program for free, you have no entitlements
or rights. You do what they say, run things the way they want them to be
run, or they disallow you from running it. It's simple really; they clearly
don't wish servers to be filled by quick play traffic only to have the
parameters of the game changed once they're full. Is that so difficult to
understand? Do they need to outline this in great detail in a document?
What server owners' "rights" could be violated by this?
On Mar 6, 2013 5:14 PM, "Robert Paulson"  wrote:


People get arrested all the time in every first world country for not

following the spirit of the law. Jfyi.

There is a difference between being arrested and convicted. You can get
arrested for not breaking any rule at all. Jfyi.


Show me the document that outlines the "rights" of server owners.

Rights are not always engraved on an old piece of parchment or a thousand
page document. In the case of a game, it is anything that Valve does not
take action against or even provides people an easy way to do it.


On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:58 PM, j m  wrote:


Hilarious. Show me the document that outlines the "rights" of server
owners. I have several servers myself and don't remember seeing my

"rights"

described anywhere.
On Mar 6, 2013 4:49 PM, "Robert Paulson" 

wrote:

It seems like people on the internet have issues reading (what a big
surprise), so I am going to try to keep this as short as possible.

I am repeating myself because I have problems with people in this

mailing

list not even playing TF2 anymore trying to ruin other people's

favorite

settings. And it is funny seeing 24-slot server owners trying

anything

to

get their competitors banned. You know who you are.

1. Servers were mistakenly banned for a mistake on Valve's part. They

did

not know that changing sv_visiblemaxplayers after startup does not

set

a

tag. Anyone that changed this setting was banned because Valve

thought

it

set a tag but it didn't. This includes unarguably legitimate uses

like

reserved slots. Thus the bans were rightfully removed.

2. Fletcher himself said "But it’s not ban worthy *and I think it’d

be

straying into a grey area on our part to take action against it."

3. In no first world country has anyone ever been convicted for not
following the "spirit of the law".

4. The root of the problem is that quickplay is Valve's backhanded

way

to

get the community to accept the "custom tabs" ghetto under the

premise

that

quickplay is only for a few noobs. Anyone that actually runs a server

can

tell you that having quickplay will make or break any server close to
vanilla. Remove the penalty so servers can compete EQUALLY as it

should

have been, or have an opt-in for 24 slots only.

5. The truth is that larger servers are popular, but quickplay is too

much

of an advantage. Valve has the data to confirm this, and will be

doing

a

disservice to themselves by penalizing them at a time when MvM is

running

out of steam to keep TF2 popular. If larger servers were not popular,
people wouldn't keep joining, and thus it is a self-correcting

problem.

Get rid of this quickplay penalty and level the playing field. TF2

was

made

in 2007 computers can handle more than 24 slots now.

6. The quickplay FAQ says

Are there any server side mods that will disqualify me from Quickplay

since

some do not change sv_tags? No, we are not automatically

disqualifying

servers for server side mods. If the mods results in a better or

worse

player experience, that will be reflected in the back-end server

score.

So whatever happened to this? If Valve is banning servers from

quickplay

for changing sv_visiblemaxplayers, then I would request Fletcher to

also

remove the following:

- Reserved slots: Ruins my vanilla experience by getting randomly

kicked.

- Donation benefits: Ruins my vanilla experience when I can't kill

donators

end of round or have autobalance immunity. I already paid Valve and

those

hat modelers, why do server owners have the audacity to ask me for

any

more

of my money?
- Class limits: I don't care if my team has 10 snipers. If I can't

play a

class, it isn't a vanilla experience.
- Alltalk: I really need to strategize with qu

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

[Russell Smith]

Can we at least agree that the parameters of quickplay should be 
adjusted?  If there were quickplay filters for things like no crits and 
increased max players this would not be as much of an issue.  These are 
settings Valve shipped with the game, and settings that a large section 
of the community enjoy playing with.  Yet quick play doesn't reflect 
this and punishes servers who are trying to serve those players.



On 3/6/2013 4:23 PM, j m wrote:

If Valve provides you a server program for free, you have no entitlements
or rights. You do what they say, run things the way they want them to be
run, or they disallow you from running it. It's simple really; they clearly
don't wish servers to be filled by quick play traffic only to have the
parameters of the game changed once they're full. Is that so difficult to
understand? Do they need to outline this in great detail in a document?
What server owners' "rights" could be violated by this?


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

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

[Essay Tew Phaun]

Nicely put, too hard for some to figure out.

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Robert Paulson wrote:

> It seems like people on the internet have issues reading (what a big
> surprise), so I am going to try to keep this as short as possible.
>
> I am repeating myself because I have problems with people in this mailing
> list not even playing TF2 anymore trying to ruin other people's favorite
> settings. And it is funny seeing 24-slot server owners trying anything to
> get their competitors banned. You know who you are.
>
> * 1. Servers were mistakenly banned for a mistake on Valve's part. They
> did
> not know that changing sv_visiblemaxplayers after startup does not set a
> tag. Anyone that changed this setting was banned because Valve thought it
> set a tag but it didn't. This includes unarguably legitimate uses like
> reserved slots. Thus the bans were rightfully removed.
>
> 2. Fletcher himself said "But it’s not ban worthy *and I think it’d be
> *
> *straying into a grey area on our part to take action against it."*
>
> 3. In no first world country has anyone ever been convicted for not
> following the "spirit of the law".
>
> 4. The root of the problem is that quickplay is Valve's backhanded way to
> get the community to accept the "custom tabs" ghetto under the premise that
> quickplay is only for a few noobs. Anyone that actually runs a server can
> tell you that having quickplay will make or break any server close to
> vanilla. Remove the penalty so servers can compete EQUALLY as it should
> have been, or have an opt-in for 24 slots only.
>
> 5. The truth is that larger servers are popular, but quickplay is too much
> of an advantage. Valve has the data to confirm this, and will be doing a
> disservice to themselves by penalizing them at a time when MvM is running
> out of steam to keep TF2 popular. If larger servers were not popular,
> people wouldn't keep joining, and thus it is a self-correcting problem.
>
> Get rid of this quickplay penalty and level the playing field. TF2 was made
> in 2007 computers can handle more than 24 slots now.
>
> 6. The quickplay FAQ says
>
> Are there any server side mods that will disqualify me from Quickplay since
> some do not change sv_tags? No, we are not automatically disqualifying
> servers for server side mods. If the mods results in a better or worse
> player experience, that will be reflected in the back-end server score.
>
> So whatever happened to this? If Valve is banning servers from quickplay
> for changing sv_visiblemaxplayers, then I would request Fletcher to also
> remove the following:
>
> - Reserved slots: Ruins my vanilla experience by getting randomly kicked.
> - Donation benefits: Ruins my vanilla experience when I can't kill donators
> end of round or have autobalance immunity. I already paid Valve and those
> hat modelers, why do server owners have the audacity to ask me for any more
> of my money?
> - Class limits: I don't care if my team has 10 snipers. If I can't play a
> class, it isn't a vanilla experience.
> - Alltalk: I really need to strategize with quickplay noobs, and alltalk
> ruins my vanilla experience.
> - Ability to change maps: As a player, I am entitled to an accurate
> indication that the servers I am sent to only has quickplay maps or that
> the map doesn't switch right after I join.
>
> F*ck these server owners right? Who the do they think they are ruining the
> way I want to play TF2? This is satire if you couldn't tell. All I see here
> is a constant erosion of the rights of server owners. Valve penalizing
> larger servers while letting pay-to-win servers off the hook is a sad
> perversion of priorities.
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Rudy Bleeker  wrote:
>
> > I kinda hoped this thread was over, but apparently it's not. In that
> > case let me chip in as well. I also kind of agree with Dan. It's all
> > about the difference between the exact wording of the rules and their
> > intention. Some people on here would do well to read up on that, so
> > for your convenience:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law
> >
> > In this case I think it's clear that with the quickplay system Valve
> > intended to give Team Fortress 2 players a predictable and constant
> > game experience. So farming the quickplay system for traffic to your
> > server and then changing that server to something that's not eligible
> > for quickplay is wrong, no matter how the rules were written. I
> > sincerely hope this practice will stop and that the servers in
> > question will be banned (again).
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Game-Over 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I have to say I'm with Dan on this one, and he often seems to stand
> > alone,
> > > so I felt I had to say something.
> > >
> > > Having monitored this group for nearly 2 years, I have come to the
> > > conclusion that it is mostly populated
> > > by youngsters, who have no life experience to speak of. The excuses
> used
> > > here by some that "Valve never

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

[j m]

If Valve provides you a server program for free, you have no entitlements
or rights. You do what they say, run things the way they want them to be
run, or they disallow you from running it. It's simple really; they clearly
don't wish servers to be filled by quick play traffic only to have the
parameters of the game changed once they're full. Is that so difficult to
understand? Do they need to outline this in great detail in a document?
What server owners' "rights" could be violated by this?
On Mar 6, 2013 5:14 PM, "Robert Paulson"  wrote:

> > People get arrested all the time in every first world country for not
> following the spirit of the law. Jfyi.
>
> There is a difference between being arrested and convicted. You can get
> arrested for not breaking any rule at all. Jfyi.
>
> > Show me the document that outlines the "rights" of server owners.
>
> Rights are not always engraved on an old piece of parchment or a thousand
> page document. In the case of a game, it is anything that Valve does not
> take action against or even provides people an easy way to do it.
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:58 PM, j m  wrote:
>
> > Hilarious. Show me the document that outlines the "rights" of server
> > owners. I have several servers myself and don't remember seeing my
> "rights"
> > described anywhere.
> > On Mar 6, 2013 4:49 PM, "Robert Paulson"  wrote:
> >
> > > It seems like people on the internet have issues reading (what a big
> > > surprise), so I am going to try to keep this as short as possible.
> > >
> > > I am repeating myself because I have problems with people in this
> mailing
> > > list not even playing TF2 anymore trying to ruin other people's
> favorite
> > > settings. And it is funny seeing 24-slot server owners trying anything
> to
> > > get their competitors banned. You know who you are.
> > >
> > > 1. Servers were mistakenly banned for a mistake on Valve's part. They
> did
> > > not know that changing sv_visiblemaxplayers after startup does not set
> a
> > > tag. Anyone that changed this setting was banned because Valve thought
> it
> > > set a tag but it didn't. This includes unarguably legitimate uses like
> > > reserved slots. Thus the bans were rightfully removed.
> > >
> > > 2. Fletcher himself said "But it’s not ban worthy *and I think it’d be
> > > straying into a grey area on our part to take action against it."
> > >
> > > 3. In no first world country has anyone ever been convicted for not
> > > following the "spirit of the law".
> > >
> > > 4. The root of the problem is that quickplay is Valve's backhanded way
> to
> > > get the community to accept the "custom tabs" ghetto under the premise
> > that
> > > quickplay is only for a few noobs. Anyone that actually runs a server
> can
> > > tell you that having quickplay will make or break any server close to
> > > vanilla. Remove the penalty so servers can compete EQUALLY as it should
> > > have been, or have an opt-in for 24 slots only.
> > >
> > > 5. The truth is that larger servers are popular, but quickplay is too
> > much
> > > of an advantage. Valve has the data to confirm this, and will be doing
> a
> > > disservice to themselves by penalizing them at a time when MvM is
> running
> > > out of steam to keep TF2 popular. If larger servers were not popular,
> > > people wouldn't keep joining, and thus it is a self-correcting problem.
> > >
> > > Get rid of this quickplay penalty and level the playing field. TF2 was
> > made
> > > in 2007 computers can handle more than 24 slots now.
> > >
> > > 6. The quickplay FAQ says
> > >
> > > Are there any server side mods that will disqualify me from Quickplay
> > since
> > > some do not change sv_tags? No, we are not automatically disqualifying
> > > servers for server side mods. If the mods results in a better or worse
> > > player experience, that will be reflected in the back-end server score.
> > >
> > > So whatever happened to this? If Valve is banning servers from
> quickplay
> > > for changing sv_visiblemaxplayers, then I would request Fletcher to
> also
> > > remove the following:
> > >
> > > - Reserved slots: Ruins my vanilla experience by getting randomly
> kicked.
> > > - Donation benefits: Ruins my vanilla experience when I can't kill
> > donators
> > > end of round or have autobalance immunity. I already paid Valve and
> those
> > > hat modelers, why do server owners have the audacity to ask me for any
> > more
> > > of my money?
> > > - Class limits: I don't care if my team has 10 snipers. If I can't
> play a
> > > class, it isn't a vanilla experience.
> > > - Alltalk: I really need to strategize with quickplay noobs, and
> alltalk
> > > ruins my vanilla experience.
> > > - Ability to change maps: As a player, I am entitled to an accurate
> > > indication that the servers I am sent to only has quickplay maps or
> that
> > > the map doesn't switch right after I join.
> > >
> > > F*ck these server owners right? Who the do they think they are ruining
> > the
> > > way I want to play TF2?

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

[j m]

Hilarious. Show me the document that outlines the "rights" of server
owners. I have several servers myself and don't remember seeing my "rights"
described anywhere.
On Mar 6, 2013 4:49 PM, "Robert Paulson"  wrote:

> It seems like people on the internet have issues reading (what a big
> surprise), so I am going to try to keep this as short as possible.
>
> I am repeating myself because I have problems with people in this mailing
> list not even playing TF2 anymore trying to ruin other people's favorite
> settings. And it is funny seeing 24-slot server owners trying anything to
> get their competitors banned. You know who you are.
>
> 1. Servers were mistakenly banned for a mistake on Valve's part. They did
> not know that changing sv_visiblemaxplayers after startup does not set a
> tag. Anyone that changed this setting was banned because Valve thought it
> set a tag but it didn't. This includes unarguably legitimate uses like
> reserved slots. Thus the bans were rightfully removed.
>
> 2. Fletcher himself said "But it’s not ban worthy *and I think it’d be
> straying into a grey area on our part to take action against it."
>
> 3. In no first world country has anyone ever been convicted for not
> following the "spirit of the law".
>
> 4. The root of the problem is that quickplay is Valve's backhanded way to
> get the community to accept the "custom tabs" ghetto under the premise that
> quickplay is only for a few noobs. Anyone that actually runs a server can
> tell you that having quickplay will make or break any server close to
> vanilla. Remove the penalty so servers can compete EQUALLY as it should
> have been, or have an opt-in for 24 slots only.
>
> 5. The truth is that larger servers are popular, but quickplay is too much
> of an advantage. Valve has the data to confirm this, and will be doing a
> disservice to themselves by penalizing them at a time when MvM is running
> out of steam to keep TF2 popular. If larger servers were not popular,
> people wouldn't keep joining, and thus it is a self-correcting problem.
>
> Get rid of this quickplay penalty and level the playing field. TF2 was made
> in 2007 computers can handle more than 24 slots now.
>
> 6. The quickplay FAQ says
>
> Are there any server side mods that will disqualify me from Quickplay since
> some do not change sv_tags? No, we are not automatically disqualifying
> servers for server side mods. If the mods results in a better or worse
> player experience, that will be reflected in the back-end server score.
>
> So whatever happened to this? If Valve is banning servers from quickplay
> for changing sv_visiblemaxplayers, then I would request Fletcher to also
> remove the following:
>
> - Reserved slots: Ruins my vanilla experience by getting randomly kicked.
> - Donation benefits: Ruins my vanilla experience when I can't kill donators
> end of round or have autobalance immunity. I already paid Valve and those
> hat modelers, why do server owners have the audacity to ask me for any more
> of my money?
> - Class limits: I don't care if my team has 10 snipers. If I can't play a
> class, it isn't a vanilla experience.
> - Alltalk: I really need to strategize with quickplay noobs, and alltalk
> ruins my vanilla experience.
> - Ability to change maps: As a player, I am entitled to an accurate
> indication that the servers I am sent to only has quickplay maps or that
> the map doesn't switch right after I join.
>
> F*ck these server owners right? Who the do they think they are ruining the
> way I want to play TF2? This is satire if you couldn't tell. All I see here
> is a constant erosion of the rights of server owners. Valve penalizing
> larger servers while letting pay-to-win servers off the hook is a sad
> perversion of priorities.
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Rudy Bleeker  wrote:
>
> > I kinda hoped this thread was over, but apparently it's not. In that
> > case let me chip in as well. I also kind of agree with Dan. It's all
> > about the difference between the exact wording of the rules and their
> > intention. Some people on here would do well to read up on that, so
> > for your convenience:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law
> >
> > In this case I think it's clear that with the quickplay system Valve
> > intended to give Team Fortress 2 players a predictable and constant
> > game experience. So farming the quickplay system for traffic to your
> > server and then changing that server to something that's not eligible
> > for quickplay is wrong, no matter how the rules were written. I
> > sincerely hope this practice will stop and that the servers in
> > question will be banned (again).
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Game-Over 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I have to say I'm with Dan on this one, and he often seems to stand
> > alone,
> > > so I felt I had to say something.
> > >
> > > Having monitored this group for nearly 2 years, I have come to the
> > > conclusion that it is mostly populated
> > > by young

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

[Nerdboy]

People get arrested all the time in every first world country for not
following the spirit of the law. Jfyi.
___
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

[Rudy Bleeker]

I kinda hoped this thread was over, but apparently it's not. In that
case let me chip in as well. I also kind of agree with Dan. It's all
about the difference between the exact wording of the rules and their
intention. Some people on here would do well to read up on that, so
for your convenience:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law

In this case I think it's clear that with the quickplay system Valve
intended to give Team Fortress 2 players a predictable and constant
game experience. So farming the quickplay system for traffic to your
server and then changing that server to something that's not eligible
for quickplay is wrong, no matter how the rules were written. I
sincerely hope this practice will stop and that the servers in
question will be banned (again).

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Game-Over  wrote:
>
> I have to say I'm with Dan on this one, and he often seems to stand alone,
> so I felt I had to say something.
>
> Having monitored this group for nearly 2 years, I have come to the
> conclusion that it is mostly populated
> by youngsters, who have no life experience to speak of. The excuses used
> here by some that "Valve never
> said we couldn't do this" or "there's nothing in the rules that say we can't
> do this", leads me to believe that
> they rely on parents to tell them when they are doing wrong and they simply
> can't work it out for themselves.
>
> This latest trend of using a plugin to switch on Quickplay up to 24 players,
> and then when at 24/24 switch off Quickplay
> and convert the server to 32 players, instaspawn, with the argument that
> "tell us where we are breaking the Policy of
> Truth rules", is quite frankly mind boggling. Lets just forget about those
> players who thought they were joining a
> stock TF2 server and who end up with 24/7 32 man 2fort spammage, because
> it's fine as Valve never said that
> using this particular plugin this was wrong. No Heroes (cough).
>
> I blame Pinion as it has opened the gates for children to run servers. Good
> old fashioned honesty, decency and integrity,
> not to mention thinking of the players and not your pockets. You learn these
> things as adults.
>
> Why Valve backtracked on their latest purge of bans is beyond me. They have
> lost their backbone and I'm extremely
> disappointed. I hope they find their backbone again soon.
>
>
> On 06/03/2013 20:11, dan wrote:
>>
>> On 06/03/2013 18:18, Gordon Reynolds wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm glad we decided to take the high road here and didn't resort to
>>> calling
>>> each other scumbags based on how they want to run their video game server
>>> :)
>>
>>
>> Yeah his was such an erudite and polite message.
>> Sheesh.
>>
>
>
> ___
> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> please visit:
> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux



--
Idleness is not doing nothing. Idleness is being free to do anything.
  - Floyd Dell

___
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

[Game-Over]

I have to say I'm with Dan on this one, and he often seems to stand 
alone, so I felt I had to say something.


Having monitored this group for nearly 2 years, I have come to the 
conclusion that it is mostly populated
by youngsters, who have no life experience to speak of. The excuses used 
here by some that "Valve never
said we couldn't do this" or "there's nothing in the rules that say we 
can't do this", leads me to believe that
they rely on parents to tell them when they are doing wrong and they 
simply can't work it out for themselves.


This latest trend of using a plugin to switch on Quickplay up to 24 
players, and then when at 24/24 switch off Quickplay
and convert the server to 32 players, instaspawn, with the argument that 
"tell us where we are breaking the Policy of
Truth rules", is quite frankly mind boggling. Lets just forget about 
those players who thought they were joining a
stock TF2 server and who end up with 24/7 32 man 2fort spammage, because 
it's fine as Valve never said that

using this particular plugin this was wrong. No Heroes (cough).

I blame Pinion as it has opened the gates for children to run servers. 
Good old fashioned honesty, decency and integrity,
not to mention thinking of the players and not your pockets. You learn 
these things as adults.


Why Valve backtracked on their latest purge of bans is beyond me. They 
have lost their backbone and I'm extremely

disappointed. I hope they find their backbone again soon.

On 06/03/2013 20:11, dan wrote:

On 06/03/2013 18:18, Gordon Reynolds wrote:
I'm glad we decided to take the high road here and didn't resort to 
calling
each other scumbags based on how they want to run their video game 
server :)


Yeah his was such an erudite and polite message.
Sheesh.




___
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

[David Fountain]

This thread will continue to be renewed doc

SavSin
On Mar 6, 2013 12:39 PM, "Doctor McKay"  wrote:

> This discussion has been over for two weeks, Dan.
>
> Dr. McKay
>
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2013, Gordon Reynolds wrote:
>
> > I'm glad we decided to take the high road here and didn't resort to
> calling
> > each other scumbags based on how they want to run their video game server
> > :)
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:28 AM, dan >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 21/02/2013 16:44, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:
> > >
> > >> Cry about it, Dan. The bans were reversed for a reason.
> > >>
> > >
> > > It's moot, read between the lines of what Fletcher said and you'll see
> > > they will stop the flow of quickplay players
> > > to  servers that do it.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Sounds like we need to adjust our quickplay heuristics, seeing that it
> > > creates this perverse optimal strategy for server operators to get
> > traffic."
> > >
> > > Clearly you don't understand this. He's not saying the problem is with
> > > quickplay at all.
> > >
> > > He is calling the server operators actions perverse.
> > >
> > > It means they know you are a bunch of scheming gits but they figure
> they
> > > can stymie your scumbag behaviour without having to outright ban you.
> > >
> > > Personally I think that's a mistake. Once a scumbag, always a scumbag.
> > >
> > > Just remember that the next thread you see with folk moaning about
> > > quickplay players not appearing on their servers.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> > > __**_
> > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> > > please visit:
> > > https://list.valvesoftware.
> **com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**hlds_linux<
> > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > - 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
> ___
> 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]

This discussion has been over for two weeks, Dan.

Dr. McKay

On Wednesday, March 6, 2013, Gordon Reynolds wrote:

> I'm glad we decided to take the high road here and didn't resort to calling
> each other scumbags based on how they want to run their video game server
> :)
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:28 AM, dan >
> wrote:
>
> > On 21/02/2013 16:44, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:
> >
> >> Cry about it, Dan. The bans were reversed for a reason.
> >>
> >
> > It's moot, read between the lines of what Fletcher said and you'll see
> > they will stop the flow of quickplay players
> > to  servers that do it.
> >
> >
> > "Sounds like we need to adjust our quickplay heuristics, seeing that it
> > creates this perverse optimal strategy for server operators to get
> traffic."
> >
> > Clearly you don't understand this. He's not saying the problem is with
> > quickplay at all.
> >
> > He is calling the server operators actions perverse.
> >
> > It means they know you are a bunch of scheming gits but they figure they
> > can stymie your scumbag behaviour without having to outright ban you.
> >
> > Personally I think that's a mistake. Once a scumbag, always a scumbag.
> >
> > Just remember that the next thread you see with folk moaning about
> > quickplay players not appearing on their servers.
> >
> > --
> > Dan
> >
> >
> > __**_
> > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> > please visit:
> > https://list.valvesoftware.**com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**hlds_linux<
> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> - 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
>


-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
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 06/03/2013 18:18, Gordon Reynolds wrote:

I'm glad we decided to take the high road here and didn't resort to calling
each other scumbags based on how they want to run their video game server :)


Yeah his was such an erudite and polite message.
Sheesh.

--
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

[Gordon Reynolds]

I'm glad we decided to take the high road here and didn't resort to calling
each other scumbags based on how they want to run their video game server :)


On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:28 AM, dan  wrote:

> On 21/02/2013 16:44, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:
>
>> Cry about it, Dan. The bans were reversed for a reason.
>>
>
> It's moot, read between the lines of what Fletcher said and you'll see
> they will stop the flow of quickplay players
> to  servers that do it.
>
>
> "Sounds like we need to adjust our quickplay heuristics, seeing that it
> creates this perverse optimal strategy for server operators to get traffic."
>
> Clearly you don't understand this. He's not saying the problem is with
> quickplay at all.
>
> He is calling the server operators actions perverse.
>
> It means they know you are a bunch of scheming gits but they figure they
> can stymie your scumbag behaviour without having to outright ban you.
>
> Personally I think that's a mistake. Once a scumbag, always a scumbag.
>
> Just remember that the next thread you see with folk moaning about
> quickplay players not appearing on their servers.
>
> --
> Dan
>
>
> __**_
> 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

[dan]

On 21/02/2013 16:44, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:

Cry about it, Dan. The bans were reversed for a reason.


It's moot, read between the lines of what Fletcher said and you'll see 
they will stop the flow of quickplay players

to  servers that do it.

"Sounds like we need to adjust our quickplay heuristics, seeing that it 
creates this perverse optimal strategy for server operators to get 
traffic."


Clearly you don't understand this. He's not saying the problem is with 
quickplay at all.


He is calling the server operators actions perverse.

It means they know you are a bunch of scheming gits but they figure they 
can stymie your scumbag behaviour without having to outright ban you.


Personally I think that's a mistake. Once a scumbag, always a scumbag.

Just remember that the next thread you see with folk moaning about 
quickplay players not appearing on their servers.


--
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

[Gordon Reynolds]

If you post this to the forums please link, I would like to debate this
topic but not on the admin-support mailing group.


On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, David Fountain  wrote:

> Take it to the forums then :)
>
> SavSin
> On Feb 21, 2013 6:46 PM, "Robert Paulson"  wrote:
>
> > There needs to be a discussion and response from Valve about solving the
> > root of the problem. What is exactly driving the renewed witch-hunt
> against
> > modded servers?
> >
> > - Has there been a critical mass of people complaining about them? If so,
> > where do people in support of them petition?  Would it even make a
> > difference or is this similar to a mandate from Robin Walker (who has
> long
> > stopped playing TF2 in favor of Dota2) that everyone should play TF2 the
> > way he designed it, even if they prefer something else?
> >
> > - Why was 32 slots officially unlocked by Valve if you are just going to
> > starve them of new players?
> >
> > - If 32 slots is truly unpopular as some people here would have you
> > believe, then they would not go beyond 24 players when even when put in
> the
> > same quickplay pool as 24 slot servers. Anyone that changed
> > sv_visiblemaxplayers above 24 would find they would not get any more
> people
> > to join the server. Have any of you thought why so many server owners run
> > 32 slot servers despite increased costs? Do the naysayers really think it
> > is because server owners who don't play the game at all only like 32
> slots
> > and only real players like 24 slots rather than the obvious fact that
> they
> > are popular?
> >
> > - Is quickplay Valve's successful backhanded way to have a "custom
> servers"
> > ghetto without a massive backlash? How many of you remember it?
> > http://forums.gameservers.com/viewtopic.php?t=28077
> >
> > - Whatever happened to following this part of the FAQ? As it stands, 32
> > slot servers are getting delisted while pay-to-win or RTD servers don't?
> >
> > [quote]
> > Are there any server side mods that will disqualify me from Quickplay
> since
> > some do not change sv_tags?
> >
> > No, we are not automatically disqualifying servers for server side mods.
> If
> > the mods results in a better or worse player experience, that will be
> > reflected in the back-end server score.
> > [/quote]
> >
> > Why not let the popularity of server settings be determined fairly
> instead
> > of giving a huge advantage to default servers?
> >
> > Now that server owners can't change sv_visiblemaxplayers without risking
> > being delisted, is something like reserved slots or class limits next
> > because it is ruining the "vanilla" experience so much that they can't
> even
> > be bothered to look for another server?
> >
> > A line has to be drawn somewhere. Every right that a server owner has,
> can
> > potentially cause a few complaints out of the millions of players. Right
> > now it just seems like rights are blacklisted as soon as a few people
> > complain that their "experience" is being ruined.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Invalid Protocol <
> > invalidprotocolvers...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The reserved slots must be HIDDEN otherwise random players will try to
> > use
> > > them. This is how it works since many years for almost all Valve games,
> > but
> > > now suddenly for TF2 is not ok anymore.
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com
> > > [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of dan
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:00 PM
> > > To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
> > > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> > >
> > > On 19/02/2013 00:10, 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 penalt

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

[David Fountain]

Take it to the forums then :)

SavSin
On Feb 21, 2013 6:46 PM, "Robert Paulson"  wrote:

> There needs to be a discussion and response from Valve about solving the
> root of the problem. What is exactly driving the renewed witch-hunt against
> modded servers?
>
> - Has there been a critical mass of people complaining about them? If so,
> where do people in support of them petition?  Would it even make a
> difference or is this similar to a mandate from Robin Walker (who has long
> stopped playing TF2 in favor of Dota2) that everyone should play TF2 the
> way he designed it, even if they prefer something else?
>
> - Why was 32 slots officially unlocked by Valve if you are just going to
> starve them of new players?
>
> - If 32 slots is truly unpopular as some people here would have you
> believe, then they would not go beyond 24 players when even when put in the
> same quickplay pool as 24 slot servers. Anyone that changed
> sv_visiblemaxplayers above 24 would find they would not get any more people
> to join the server. Have any of you thought why so many server owners run
> 32 slot servers despite increased costs? Do the naysayers really think it
> is because server owners who don't play the game at all only like 32 slots
> and only real players like 24 slots rather than the obvious fact that they
> are popular?
>
> - Is quickplay Valve's successful backhanded way to have a "custom servers"
> ghetto without a massive backlash? How many of you remember it?
> http://forums.gameservers.com/viewtopic.php?t=28077
>
> - Whatever happened to following this part of the FAQ? As it stands, 32
> slot servers are getting delisted while pay-to-win or RTD servers don't?
>
> [quote]
> Are there any server side mods that will disqualify me from Quickplay since
> some do not change sv_tags?
>
> No, we are not automatically disqualifying servers for server side mods. If
> the mods results in a better or worse player experience, that will be
> reflected in the back-end server score.
> [/quote]
>
> Why not let the popularity of server settings be determined fairly instead
> of giving a huge advantage to default servers?
>
> Now that server owners can't change sv_visiblemaxplayers without risking
> being delisted, is something like reserved slots or class limits next
> because it is ruining the "vanilla" experience so much that they can't even
> be bothered to look for another server?
>
> A line has to be drawn somewhere. Every right that a server owner has, can
> potentially cause a few complaints out of the millions of players. Right
> now it just seems like rights are blacklisted as soon as a few people
> complain that their "experience" is being ruined.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Invalid Protocol <
> invalidprotocolvers...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The reserved slots must be HIDDEN otherwise random players will try to
> use
> > them. This is how it works since many years for almost all Valve games,
> but
> > now suddenly for TF2 is not ok anymore.
> >
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com
> > [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of dan
> > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:00 PM
> > To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
> > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> >
> > On 19/02/2013 00:10, 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?
> >
> > It's easy really.
> >
> > Figure out the maximum number of people you want to have on your server.
> >
> > Forget whether they are reserved or not. Just add them all together.
> >
> > Right, now you have a number. It might be 12, 24, 32 or something else
> >
> > This is the number your server should report in the server browser.
> >
> > Note, if the number is more than 24 players, this may affect the
> quickplay
> > traffic you do or don't get.
> >
> > --
> > Dan
> >
> > 

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

[Robert Paulson]

There needs to be a discussion and response from Valve about solving the
root of the problem. What is exactly driving the renewed witch-hunt against
modded servers?

- Has there been a critical mass of people complaining about them? If so,
where do people in support of them petition?  Would it even make a
difference or is this similar to a mandate from Robin Walker (who has long
stopped playing TF2 in favor of Dota2) that everyone should play TF2 the
way he designed it, even if they prefer something else?

- Why was 32 slots officially unlocked by Valve if you are just going to
starve them of new players?

- If 32 slots is truly unpopular as some people here would have you
believe, then they would not go beyond 24 players when even when put in the
same quickplay pool as 24 slot servers. Anyone that changed
sv_visiblemaxplayers above 24 would find they would not get any more people
to join the server. Have any of you thought why so many server owners run
32 slot servers despite increased costs? Do the naysayers really think it
is because server owners who don't play the game at all only like 32 slots
and only real players like 24 slots rather than the obvious fact that they
are popular?

- Is quickplay Valve's successful backhanded way to have a "custom servers"
ghetto without a massive backlash? How many of you remember it?
http://forums.gameservers.com/viewtopic.php?t=28077

- Whatever happened to following this part of the FAQ? As it stands, 32
slot servers are getting delisted while pay-to-win or RTD servers don't?

[quote]
Are there any server side mods that will disqualify me from Quickplay since
some do not change sv_tags?

No, we are not automatically disqualifying servers for server side mods. If
the mods results in a better or worse player experience, that will be
reflected in the back-end server score.
[/quote]

Why not let the popularity of server settings be determined fairly instead
of giving a huge advantage to default servers?

Now that server owners can't change sv_visiblemaxplayers without risking
being delisted, is something like reserved slots or class limits next
because it is ruining the "vanilla" experience so much that they can't even
be bothered to look for another server?

A line has to be drawn somewhere. Every right that a server owner has, can
potentially cause a few complaints out of the millions of players. Right
now it just seems like rights are blacklisted as soon as a few people
complain that their "experience" is being ruined.


On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Invalid Protocol <
invalidprotocolvers...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The reserved slots must be HIDDEN otherwise random players will try to use
> them. This is how it works since many years for almost all Valve games, but
> now suddenly for TF2 is not ok anymore.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com
> [mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of dan
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:00 PM
> To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
>
> On 19/02/2013 00:10, 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?
>
> It's easy really.
>
> Figure out the maximum number of people you want to have on your server.
>
> Forget whether they are reserved or not. Just add them all together.
>
> Right, now you have a number. It might be 12, 24, 32 or something else
>
> This is the number your server should report in the server browser.
>
> Note, if the number is more than 24 players, this may affect the quickplay
> traffic you do or don't get.
>
> --
> 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

[Invalid Protocol]

The reserved slots must be HIDDEN otherwise random players will try to use
them. This is how it works since many years for almost all Valve games, but
now suddenly for TF2 is not ok anymore.

-Original Message-
From: hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com
[mailto:hlds_linux-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of dan
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:00 PM
To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

On 19/02/2013 00:10, 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?

It's easy really.

Figure out the maximum number of people you want to have on your server.

Forget whether they are reserved or not. Just add them all together.

Right, now you have a number. It might be 12, 24, 32 or something else

This is the number your server should report in the server browser.

Note, if the number is more than 24 players, this may affect the quickplay
traffic you do or don't get.

-- 
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

[Essay Tew Phaun]

Cry about it, Dan. The bans were reversed for a reason. They were going
after servers set as 32 players and not setting the tag at all. Servers
that were changing the visible max players got caught up with it. Right or
wrong as you think it was, it wasn't against the rules because those
settings are freely editable and reflect those changes in the server tags.
Problem is, the tag didn't get updated promptly and some servers were
caught up in that.

Here is what Fletcher had to say on the matter when asked some time back
about it:

Fletcher Dunn

"It’s sort of pushing the boundaries of the “policy of truth” to advertise
a server as 24-players max, when you know full well that you are going to
bump it up to 32.  *It’s definitely not ideal.  But it’s not ban worthy *and
I think it’d be straying into a grey area on our part to take action
against it.



Sounds like we need to adjust our quickplay heuristics, seeing that it
creates this perverse optimal strategy for server operators to get traffic."


So the problem is in the way which Quickplay functions, not the "perverse
optimal strategy".


The door is that way.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Doctor McKay  wrote:

> Dan, this discussion has been over for a while. Valve reversed the bans and
> all's good.
>
> Dr. McKay
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, dan wrote:
>
> > On 19/02/2013 00:10, 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?
> >>
> >
> > It's easy really.
> >
> > Figure out the maximum number of people you want to have on your server.
> >
> > Forget whether they are reserved or not. Just add them all together.
> >
> > Right, now you have a number. It might be 12, 24, 32 or something else
> >
> > This is the number your server should report in the server browser.
> >
> > Note, if the number is more than 24 players, this may affect the
> quickplay
> > traffic you do or don't get.
> >
> > --
> > Dan
> >
> > __**_
> > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> > please visit:
> > https://list.valvesoftware.**com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**hlds_linux<
> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux>
> >
>
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
> ___
> 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]

Dan, this discussion has been over for a while. Valve reversed the bans and
all's good.

Dr. McKay

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, dan wrote:

> On 19/02/2013 00:10, 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?
>>
>
> It's easy really.
>
> Figure out the maximum number of people you want to have on your server.
>
> Forget whether they are reserved or not. Just add them all together.
>
> Right, now you have a number. It might be 12, 24, 32 or something else
>
> This is the number your server should report in the server browser.
>
> Note, if the number is more than 24 players, this may affect the quickplay
> traffic you do or don't get.
>
> --
> Dan
>
> __**_
> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> please visit:
> https://list.valvesoftware.**com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**hlds_linux
>


-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
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 19/02/2013 00:10, 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?


It's easy really.

Figure out the maximum number of people you want to have on your server.

Forget whether they are reserved or not. Just add them all together.

Right, now you have a number. It might be 12, 24, 32 or something else

This is the number your server should report in the server browser.

Note, if the number is more than 24 players, this may affect the quickplay
traffic you do or don't get.

--
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 18/02/2013 23:44, Todd Pettit wrote:

Fletcher, can you please also do something about all the admins running the 
fast respawn plugins


There's no point asking for them to do something about other admins in 
the same thread Fletcher is removing bans

from others is there?

The problem is, Valve lack teeth with server admins for whatever reason.

If these were clients cheating they'd be banned, simple and 
straightforward. No discussion.
No friendly reminders that aimbots or wallhacks aren't allowed. Just 
banned. Forever.


No bullshit that "lots of players like wallhacks"

But clearly here the message is, you can scheme and scam with the server 
side of things and get away with it

time and time again.

You just need to to wait for Fletcher's polite "stop it" report, wait 
for him to unban you - the ban won't be for long anyway.


Then promise to not do it again. Then find or wait for the next scheme 
or loophole to game players to your server.
Whilst posting a bunch of "what? you never said this wasn't ok" BS as 
though you figured there'd be nothing wrong with what you're doing.


It's bullshit really.

Maybe Valve would be best doing what Gabe suggested they were thinking 
of doing for the store. Allowing
Users to create their own server browser / quickplay join view, using 
some kind of API and implementing their own ideas
about what is a good server or not - with far more detail about the 
server's config (so all those

dumb sv_maxrate 25000 could be filtered out for e.g)

This way we can decide who should and shouldn't be on our server list 
not some feebly
implemented policy of truth - and folk could use whosever list they 
wanted / trusted.


--
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 19/02/2013 03:11, Todd Pettit wrote:

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


Well, look at it this way, lets say there was a mod call MadEvil and 
server admins were cheating with their tags to get players
to join their MadEvil mod because they cried that Quickplay took all the 
players to vanilla servers.


So they said "Whaa whaa, valve should use their imagination and make 
quickplay send players to MadEvil because people like it"


In other words admins are saying "We'll be honest with our tags but only 
if it suits us to be honest"


So, let's imagine Valve do that. That valve put an option in to send 
quickplay players who want

to play MadEvil to MadEvil servers.

Cool right? Everything's fine right? People who want to play it will. 
People who don't won't?


No. It wouldn't be. Because scheming shits that lie don't change, and they
will write another plugin or fake whatever they need to so that it looks 
like they have the MadEvil mod
when they don't to get quickplay players to their server running a 
different mod or whatever else.


And then they'll pass the onion that it's not fair their server is empty 
and valve favours this or that.


You see? Server admins being dishonest is what's ultimately behind this.

As the reddit idiom calls it, they're the reason you can't have anything 
good.

--
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 19/02/2013 02:27, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:

The choice would still ultimately be up to the player connecting.


So long as you give them that choice. Which you currently don't.


If it was
a 32 player server it would be communicated to them.


It is now if you don't cheat the system.


My suggestion was to
remove the scoring penalty because a large portion of the TF2 player base
likes 32 player servers.


So why do you feel the need to cheat then? Your argument is self-negating.
If people like 32 player servers you wouldn't be peeing with your player 
counts.

You wouldn't need to.

It's a bit rich you saying this is "your suggestion" - you haven't made 
a suggestion, you've
basically decided to go ahead and mess around with your server 
parameters so you don't get a

scoring penalty when you should.

I notice plenty of instant spawn 2fort servers in the UK that are full,
that have generally been full since 2008 and that have never needed
to lie, fake their tags, add fake bots or mess with parameters to
game quickplay.

The key thing to note is that a large portion of the TF2 player base 
don't like them, and

they want to filter our your servers from their list.

But it's moot. There's no point anyone suggesting that quickplay should
connect to servers with mods, 32 players or whatever else until you start
acting in an honest way with the tags - that is common sense, if your 
tags are full of

shit, then there's little point Valve using those tags to give you players.

--
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 18/02/2013 16:06, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:

It doesn't violate it.


It does.

Again, I ask you why do you do this?

Why do you change sv_visiblemaxplayers?

It's a simple question of intent.

I put it to you that your intent was "to cheat the quickplay system and 
server browser
to part fill my 32 slot server" - and that is what Valve thought too and 
that's why your

server is delisted.

If that's the reason then your server should get delisted twice over imo 
because

you're trying to insult our intelligence now.

--
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

[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 

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 gi

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 

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

[bottige...@gmail.com]

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:
> > >>
> > >>> Well said - I think this does need to be addressed by Valve
> 

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

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 lo

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_li

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
> >&

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

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,what

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

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 

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

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.
>>>> 
&

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
> > > th

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

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 
>

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] [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]

axplayers 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

for.

  Why do you change sv_visiblemaxplayers?

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

You have to think from the point of view of someone joining the

server

thinking it's a 24 slot server
or someone using the tags to filter out servers with
increased_maxplayers.

Even if strictly in the pedantic sense the tags are correct

before

and

after
you make the change, clearly in the intent of those tags you

are

breaking

the rules imo.

--
Dan.


___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list

archives,

please visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.

com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/***

*hlds_linux<https://list.**valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/**
mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux<

https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

  __**_

To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list

archives,

please visit:
https://list.val

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

[Essay Tew Phaun]

in 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 immediate

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

[Gordon Reynolds]

n 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 se

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 

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

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
> 

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] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

[Essay Tew Phaun]

Yeah I wouldn't think so either. We don't change anything else that could
cause it. Our server.cfg has nothing that would disqualify us from
Quickplay and we run nothing but Quickplay eligible maps. We don't set any
tags manually. The only plugins we have that set tags themselves are
SourcemodDJ and GameME. Every other tag is controlled by srcds itself. I'm
thankful I even thought to go check this. I normally wouldn't of thought to
because we're in compliance with the tag policies and Quickplay policies.
Our server was low on the players for the past day or two and it didn't
make any sense. So I went to check it and then there it was, blacklisted.



On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 5:08 PM, 1nsane <1nsane...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That shouldn't be the reason for why you got de-listed. At least I hope
> not.
>
> You are using functions built in to the game by valve and those functions
> are what control tags.
>
> Perhaps you had some other tag missing or it's just an error on valve's
> part.
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:32 PM, 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.
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Ross Bemrose 
> wrote:
> >
> > > "When the server is above 24 players" ?
> > >
> > > Doesn't that deserve some sort of explanation?  Like, as in how are you
> > > adjusting the player count?
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/17/2013 4:21 PM, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:
> > >
> > >> fwiw, I haven't appealed to neither Todd nor McKay to make these
> posts.
> > >> McKay has developed several of the plugins for our community and has
> > >> access
> > >> to our systems. I would hope it counts for something that a SourceMod
> > >> plugin approver is vouching for us. I really am at a loss for why this
> > >> delisting could have happened. We don't manually set tags anywhere and
> > we
> > >> don't attempt to remove tags. The server that got delisted runs pretty
> > >> much
> > >> vanilla. No modified respawn times, when bots are online they are
> > >> reflected
> > >> in the auto-added "bots" tag. When the server is above 24 players it
> is
> > >> reflected in "increased_maxplayers". I have emailed Tony, Eric,
> Fletcher
> > >> and Mike attempting to get an answer about this and will update the
> > thread
> > >> when I receive the answer, in case we're somehow breaking a rule, but
> I
> > >> have no earthly idea what that rule could be. This delisting seems to
> > have
> > >> happened shortly after this post.
> > >>
> > >> Here are the tags the currently delisted server has, which are the
> same
> > >> ones it would have had before the delisting:
> > >>
> > >> "sv_tags" = "SMDJ,_registered,bots,ctf,**gameME,replays"
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Todd Pettit 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>  I agree I have a good relationship with their community and the
> > >>> definitely
> > >>> obey all of valve's rules.
> > >>>
> > >>> - Original Message -
> > >>> From: "Doctor McKay" 
> > >>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" <
> > >>> hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.**com <
> hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
> > >>
> > >>> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 3:51:26 PM
> > >>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> > >>>
> > >>> I can vouch for him in that he's not breaking any rules.
> > >>>
> > >>> Dr. McKay
> > >>> http://www.doctormckay.com
> > >>>
> > >>> -Original Message-
> > >>> From: Essay Tew Phaun
> > >>> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 3:15 PM
> > >>> To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
> > >>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> > >>>
> > >>> Just wanted to say 

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

[ics]

Should be noteworthy that the increased_maxplayers tag doesn't magically 
appear after the slot count goes past 24. It requires a mapchange or a 
random check by Valve time when the server talks with Valve master to 
spot that change or a server restart.


Basically i think they want you to set the increased_maxplayers tag as 
soon as the slot count goes over 24. Either that or this is a mistake or 
Valve thinks you are cheating the system with this method. Would be 
interesting to hear an official opinion on this matter from someone at 
Valve.


-ics

1nsane kirjoitti:

That shouldn't be the reason for why you got de-listed. At least I hope not.

You are using functions built in to the game by valve and those functions
are what control tags.

Perhaps you had some other tag missing or it's just an error on valve's
part.


On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:32 PM, 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.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Ross Bemrose  wrote:


"When the server is above 24 players" ?

Doesn't that deserve some sort of explanation?  Like, as in how are you
adjusting the player count?


On 2/17/2013 4:21 PM, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:


fwiw, I haven't appealed to neither Todd nor McKay to make these posts.
McKay has developed several of the plugins for our community and has
access
to our systems. I would hope it counts for something that a SourceMod
plugin approver is vouching for us. I really am at a loss for why this
delisting could have happened. We don't manually set tags anywhere and

we

don't attempt to remove tags. The server that got delisted runs pretty
much
vanilla. No modified respawn times, when bots are online they are
reflected
in the auto-added "bots" tag. When the server is above 24 players it is
reflected in "increased_maxplayers". I have emailed Tony, Eric, Fletcher
and Mike attempting to get an answer about this and will update the

thread

when I receive the answer, in case we're somehow breaking a rule, but I
have no earthly idea what that rule could be. This delisting seems to

have

happened shortly after this post.

Here are the tags the currently delisted server has, which are the same
ones it would have had before the delisting:

"sv_tags" = "SMDJ,_registered,bots,ctf,**gameME,replays"



On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Todd Pettit 
wrote:

  I agree I have a good relationship with their community and the

definitely
obey all of valve's rules.

- Original Message -
From: "Doctor McKay" 
To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" <
hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.**com http://www.doctormckay.com

-Original Message-----
From: Essay Tew Phaun
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 3:15 PM
To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

Just wanted to say that we've had a server blacklisted for the reason:


Server browser not reporting required tags (e.g. increased_maxplayers,
bots, etc)


And we've always obeyed the tag rules. We don't use any plugins that

aim

to
remove them and any features we use, such as bots and
increased_maxplayers
automatically change the sv_tags and we've made no attempts at all to
remove them. This has to be a mistake on Valves part, the server of

ours

which got blacklisted runs the exact same way our other servers run and
they're not blacklisted.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Robert Paulson
wrote:

  You can see the number of players on the stats page. TF2 is always in

the


top 3 or 4 games.
It's 2nd right now.

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.

  There are or were big long threads on SPUF moaning about how badly

TF2

is


optimised and moaning about how sentry guns should be removed or such
and
such are overpowered

There's always people complaining about anything. Again, I encourage
Fletcher to look at the evidence that people join fast respawn servers
with
hidden tags by the boat-load, and stay there all night. And they don't
do
it when tags are listed. This should tell you 2 things: there's a real
demand for faster respawn, and not being on quickplay is a huge
disadvntage. Again, I don't care

  The server software is free so I'm not sure what you bought. Was it
some
magic beans in exchange for a cow? :)

I don't know about you but I 

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

[1nsane]

That shouldn't be the reason for why you got de-listed. At least I hope not.

You are using functions built in to the game by valve and those functions
are what control tags.

Perhaps you had some other tag missing or it's just an error on valve's
part.


On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:32 PM, 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.
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Ross Bemrose  wrote:
>
> > "When the server is above 24 players" ?
> >
> > Doesn't that deserve some sort of explanation?  Like, as in how are you
> > adjusting the player count?
> >
> >
> > On 2/17/2013 4:21 PM, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:
> >
> >> fwiw, I haven't appealed to neither Todd nor McKay to make these posts.
> >> McKay has developed several of the plugins for our community and has
> >> access
> >> to our systems. I would hope it counts for something that a SourceMod
> >> plugin approver is vouching for us. I really am at a loss for why this
> >> delisting could have happened. We don't manually set tags anywhere and
> we
> >> don't attempt to remove tags. The server that got delisted runs pretty
> >> much
> >> vanilla. No modified respawn times, when bots are online they are
> >> reflected
> >> in the auto-added "bots" tag. When the server is above 24 players it is
> >> reflected in "increased_maxplayers". I have emailed Tony, Eric, Fletcher
> >> and Mike attempting to get an answer about this and will update the
> thread
> >> when I receive the answer, in case we're somehow breaking a rule, but I
> >> have no earthly idea what that rule could be. This delisting seems to
> have
> >> happened shortly after this post.
> >>
> >> Here are the tags the currently delisted server has, which are the same
> >> ones it would have had before the delisting:
> >>
> >> "sv_tags" = "SMDJ,_registered,bots,ctf,**gameME,replays"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Todd Pettit 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>  I agree I have a good relationship with their community and the
> >>> definitely
> >>> obey all of valve's rules.
> >>>
> >>> - Original Message -
> >>> From: "Doctor McKay" 
> >>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" <
> >>> hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.**com  >>
> >>> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 3:51:26 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> >>>
> >>> I can vouch for him in that he's not breaking any rules.
> >>>
> >>> Dr. McKay
> >>> http://www.doctormckay.com
> >>>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: Essay Tew Phaun
> >>> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 3:15 PM
> >>> To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
> >>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> >>>
> >>> Just wanted to say that we've had a server blacklisted for the reason:
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>> Server browser not reporting required tags (e.g. increased_maxplayers,
> >>> bots, etc)
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> And we've always obeyed the tag rules. We don't use any plugins that
> aim
> >>> to
> >>> remove them and any features we use, such as bots and
> >>> increased_maxplayers
> >>> automatically change the sv_tags and we've made no attempts at all to
> >>> remove them. This has to be a mistake on Valves part, the server of
> ours
> >>> which got blacklisted runs the exact same way our other servers run and
> >>> they're not blacklisted.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Robert Paulson
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  You can see the number of players on the stats page. TF2 is always in
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>
> >>>> top 3 or 4 games.
> >>>> It's 2nd right now.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure look at the games list during the least activ

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

[Essay Tew Phaun]

I've mailed them privately, but there's no reason why I can't bring this to
the attention of other server owners and then provide the resulting answer
here as well.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Tim Bagheri  wrote:

> Maybe an issue for you and Valve to discuss in private?
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:32 AM, 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.
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Ross Bemrose 
> wrote:
> >
> > > "When the server is above 24 players" ?
> > >
> > > Doesn't that deserve some sort of explanation?  Like, as in how are you
> > > adjusting the player count?
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/17/2013 4:21 PM, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:
> > >
> > >> fwiw, I haven't appealed to neither Todd nor McKay to make these
> posts.
> > >> McKay has developed several of the plugins for our community and has
> > >> access
> > >> to our systems. I would hope it counts for something that a SourceMod
> > >> plugin approver is vouching for us. I really am at a loss for why this
> > >> delisting could have happened. We don't manually set tags anywhere and
> > we
> > >> don't attempt to remove tags. The server that got delisted runs pretty
> > >> much
> > >> vanilla. No modified respawn times, when bots are online they are
> > >> reflected
> > >> in the auto-added "bots" tag. When the server is above 24 players it
> is
> > >> reflected in "increased_maxplayers". I have emailed Tony, Eric,
> Fletcher
> > >> and Mike attempting to get an answer about this and will update the
> > thread
> > >> when I receive the answer, in case we're somehow breaking a rule, but
> I
> > >> have no earthly idea what that rule could be. This delisting seems to
> > have
> > >> happened shortly after this post.
> > >>
> > >> Here are the tags the currently delisted server has, which are the
> same
> > >> ones it would have had before the delisting:
> > >>
> > >> "sv_tags" = "SMDJ,_registered,bots,ctf,**gameME,replays"
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Todd Pettit 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>  I agree I have a good relationship with their community and the
> > >>> definitely
> > >>> obey all of valve's rules.
> > >>>
> > >>> - Original Message -
> > >>> From: "Doctor McKay" 
> > >>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" <
> > >>> hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.**com <
> hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
> > >>
> > >>> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 3:51:26 PM
> > >>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> > >>>
> > >>> I can vouch for him in that he's not breaking any rules.
> > >>>
> > >>> Dr. McKay
> > >>> http://www.doctormckay.com
> > >>>
> > >>> -Original Message-
> > >>> From: Essay Tew Phaun
> > >>> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 3:15 PM
> > >>> To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
> > >>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> > >>>
> > >>> Just wanted to say that we've had a server blacklisted for the
> reason:
> > >>>
> > >>> 
> > >>> Server browser not reporting required tags (e.g.
> increased_maxplayers,
> > >>> bots, etc)
> > >>> 
> > >>>
> > >>> And we've always obeyed the tag rules. We don't use any plugins that
> > aim
> > >>> to
> > >>> remove them and any features we use, such as bots and
> > >>> increased_maxplayers
> > >>> automatically change the sv_tags and we've made no attempts at all to
> > >>> remove them. This has to be a mistake on Valves part, the server of
> > ours
> > >>> which 

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

[Tim Bagheri]

Maybe an issue for you and Valve to discuss in private?

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:32 AM, 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.
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Ross Bemrose  wrote:
>
> > "When the server is above 24 players" ?
> >
> > Doesn't that deserve some sort of explanation?  Like, as in how are you
> > adjusting the player count?
> >
> >
> > On 2/17/2013 4:21 PM, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:
> >
> >> fwiw, I haven't appealed to neither Todd nor McKay to make these posts.
> >> McKay has developed several of the plugins for our community and has
> >> access
> >> to our systems. I would hope it counts for something that a SourceMod
> >> plugin approver is vouching for us. I really am at a loss for why this
> >> delisting could have happened. We don't manually set tags anywhere and
> we
> >> don't attempt to remove tags. The server that got delisted runs pretty
> >> much
> >> vanilla. No modified respawn times, when bots are online they are
> >> reflected
> >> in the auto-added "bots" tag. When the server is above 24 players it is
> >> reflected in "increased_maxplayers". I have emailed Tony, Eric, Fletcher
> >> and Mike attempting to get an answer about this and will update the
> thread
> >> when I receive the answer, in case we're somehow breaking a rule, but I
> >> have no earthly idea what that rule could be. This delisting seems to
> have
> >> happened shortly after this post.
> >>
> >> Here are the tags the currently delisted server has, which are the same
> >> ones it would have had before the delisting:
> >>
> >> "sv_tags" = "SMDJ,_registered,bots,ctf,**gameME,replays"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Todd Pettit 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>  I agree I have a good relationship with their community and the
> >>> definitely
> >>> obey all of valve's rules.
> >>>
> >>> - Original Message -
> >>> From: "Doctor McKay" 
> >>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" <
> >>> hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.**com  >>
> >>> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 3:51:26 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> >>>
> >>> I can vouch for him in that he's not breaking any rules.
> >>>
> >>> Dr. McKay
> >>> http://www.doctormckay.com
> >>>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: Essay Tew Phaun
> >>> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 3:15 PM
> >>> To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
> >>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> >>>
> >>> Just wanted to say that we've had a server blacklisted for the reason:
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>> Server browser not reporting required tags (e.g. increased_maxplayers,
> >>> bots, etc)
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> And we've always obeyed the tag rules. We don't use any plugins that
> aim
> >>> to
> >>> remove them and any features we use, such as bots and
> >>> increased_maxplayers
> >>> automatically change the sv_tags and we've made no attempts at all to
> >>> remove them. This has to be a mistake on Valves part, the server of
> ours
> >>> which got blacklisted runs the exact same way our other servers run and
> >>> they're not blacklisted.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Robert Paulson
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  You can see the number of players on the stats page. TF2 is always in
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>
> >>>> top 3 or 4 games.
> >>>> It's 2nd right now.
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.

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

[Essay Tew Phaun]

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.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Ross Bemrose  wrote:

> "When the server is above 24 players" ?
>
> Doesn't that deserve some sort of explanation?  Like, as in how are you
> adjusting the player count?
>
>
> On 2/17/2013 4:21 PM, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:
>
>> fwiw, I haven't appealed to neither Todd nor McKay to make these posts.
>> McKay has developed several of the plugins for our community and has
>> access
>> to our systems. I would hope it counts for something that a SourceMod
>> plugin approver is vouching for us. I really am at a loss for why this
>> delisting could have happened. We don't manually set tags anywhere and we
>> don't attempt to remove tags. The server that got delisted runs pretty
>> much
>> vanilla. No modified respawn times, when bots are online they are
>> reflected
>> in the auto-added "bots" tag. When the server is above 24 players it is
>> reflected in "increased_maxplayers". I have emailed Tony, Eric, Fletcher
>> and Mike attempting to get an answer about this and will update the thread
>> when I receive the answer, in case we're somehow breaking a rule, but I
>> have no earthly idea what that rule could be. This delisting seems to have
>> happened shortly after this post.
>>
>> Here are the tags the currently delisted server has, which are the same
>> ones it would have had before the delisting:
>>
>> "sv_tags" = "SMDJ,_registered,bots,ctf,**gameME,replays"
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Todd Pettit 
>> wrote:
>>
>>  I agree I have a good relationship with their community and the
>>> definitely
>>> obey all of valve's rules.
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Doctor McKay" 
>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" <
>>> hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.**com >
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 3:51:26 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
>>>
>>> I can vouch for him in that he's not breaking any rules.
>>>
>>> Dr. McKay
>>> http://www.doctormckay.com
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Essay Tew Phaun
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 3:15 PM
>>> To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
>>>
>>> Just wanted to say that we've had a server blacklisted for the reason:
>>>
>>> 
>>> Server browser not reporting required tags (e.g. increased_maxplayers,
>>> bots, etc)
>>> 
>>>
>>> And we've always obeyed the tag rules. We don't use any plugins that aim
>>> to
>>> remove them and any features we use, such as bots and
>>> increased_maxplayers
>>> automatically change the sv_tags and we've made no attempts at all to
>>> remove them. This has to be a mistake on Valves part, the server of ours
>>> which got blacklisted runs the exact same way our other servers run and
>>> they're not blacklisted.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Robert Paulson
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  You can see the number of players on the stats page. TF2 is always in
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>> top 3 or 4 games.
>>>> It's 2nd right now.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>  There are or were big long threads on SPUF moaning about how badly TF2
>>>>> is
>>>>>
>>>> optimised and moaning about how sentry guns should be removed or such
>>>> and
>>>> such are overpowered
>>>>
>>>> There's always people complaining about anything. Again, I encourage
>>>> Fletcher to look at the ev

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

[Ross Bemrose]

"When the server is above 24 players" ?

Doesn't that deserve some sort of explanation?  Like, as in how are you 
adjusting the player count?


On 2/17/2013 4:21 PM, Essay Tew Phaun wrote:

fwiw, I haven't appealed to neither Todd nor McKay to make these posts.
McKay has developed several of the plugins for our community and has access
to our systems. I would hope it counts for something that a SourceMod
plugin approver is vouching for us. I really am at a loss for why this
delisting could have happened. We don't manually set tags anywhere and we
don't attempt to remove tags. The server that got delisted runs pretty much
vanilla. No modified respawn times, when bots are online they are reflected
in the auto-added "bots" tag. When the server is above 24 players it is
reflected in "increased_maxplayers". I have emailed Tony, Eric, Fletcher
and Mike attempting to get an answer about this and will update the thread
when I receive the answer, in case we're somehow breaking a rule, but I
have no earthly idea what that rule could be. This delisting seems to have
happened shortly after this post.

Here are the tags the currently delisted server has, which are the same
ones it would have had before the delisting:

"sv_tags" = "SMDJ,_registered,bots,ctf,gameME,replays"



On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Todd Pettit  wrote:


I agree I have a good relationship with their community and the definitely
obey all of valve's rules.

- Original Message -
From: "Doctor McKay" 
To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" <
hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 3:51:26 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

I can vouch for him in that he's not breaking any rules.

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

-Original Message-
From: Essay Tew Phaun
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 3:15 PM
To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

Just wanted to say that we've had a server blacklisted for the reason:


Server browser not reporting required tags (e.g. increased_maxplayers,
bots, etc)


And we've always obeyed the tag rules. We don't use any plugins that aim to
remove them and any features we use, such as bots and increased_maxplayers
automatically change the sv_tags and we've made no attempts at all to
remove them. This has to be a mistake on Valves part, the server of ours
which got blacklisted runs the exact same way our other servers run and
they're not blacklisted.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Robert Paulson
wrote:


You can see the number of players on the stats page. TF2 is always in
the

top 3 or 4 games.
It's 2nd right now.

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.


There are or were big long threads on SPUF moaning about how badly TF2
is

optimised and moaning about how sentry guns should be removed or such and
such are overpowered

There's always people complaining about anything. Again, I encourage
Fletcher to look at the evidence that people join fast respawn servers
with
hidden tags by the boat-load, and stay there all night. And they don't do
it when tags are listed. This should tell you 2 things: there's a real
demand for faster respawn, and not being on quickplay is a huge
disadvntage. Again, I don't care


The server software is free so I'm not sure what you bought. Was it

some

magic beans in exchange for a cow? :)

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? There is no formal contract saying that
server owners have any rights, but there is an unspoken one. And it is up
to Valve how much they want to erode this good will so that future games
don't end up like CS:GO.

Anyone that has been looking at TF2 servers now knows that you are out of
touch with what is happening right now. No one is using fake players on a
large scale anymore. Of course you wouldn't know given your 1 hour of TF2
per week.

This will be my final response to you on this matter. Don't take a lack

of

response to mean that anyone is convinced by your essay long tirades

about

how non-vanilla servers are worthless and that they all cheat. My only
purpose here was to notify Valve to look at the clear evidence.



On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:11 AM, dan  wrote:


On 14/02/2013 22:23, Robert Paulson wrote:


Bring the facts, not your assumptions. Step outside your quickplay

bubble

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

[Essay Tew Phaun]

fwiw, I haven't appealed to neither Todd nor McKay to make these posts.
McKay has developed several of the plugins for our community and has access
to our systems. I would hope it counts for something that a SourceMod
plugin approver is vouching for us. I really am at a loss for why this
delisting could have happened. We don't manually set tags anywhere and we
don't attempt to remove tags. The server that got delisted runs pretty much
vanilla. No modified respawn times, when bots are online they are reflected
in the auto-added "bots" tag. When the server is above 24 players it is
reflected in "increased_maxplayers". I have emailed Tony, Eric, Fletcher
and Mike attempting to get an answer about this and will update the thread
when I receive the answer, in case we're somehow breaking a rule, but I
have no earthly idea what that rule could be. This delisting seems to have
happened shortly after this post.

Here are the tags the currently delisted server has, which are the same
ones it would have had before the delisting:

"sv_tags" = "SMDJ,_registered,bots,ctf,gameME,replays"



On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Todd Pettit  wrote:

> I agree I have a good relationship with their community and the definitely
> obey all of valve's rules.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Doctor McKay" 
> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" <
> hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 3:51:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
>
> I can vouch for him in that he's not breaking any rules.
>
> Dr. McKay
> http://www.doctormckay.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Essay Tew Phaun
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 3:15 PM
> To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags
>
> Just wanted to say that we've had a server blacklisted for the reason:
>
> 
> Server browser not reporting required tags (e.g. increased_maxplayers,
> bots, etc)
> 
>
> And we've always obeyed the tag rules. We don't use any plugins that aim to
> remove them and any features we use, such as bots and increased_maxplayers
> automatically change the sv_tags and we've made no attempts at all to
> remove them. This has to be a mistake on Valves part, the server of ours
> which got blacklisted runs the exact same way our other servers run and
> they're not blacklisted.
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Robert Paulson
> wrote:
>
> > > You can see the number of players on the stats page. TF2 is always in
> > > the
> > top 3 or 4 games.
> > It's 2nd right now.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > > There are or were big long threads on SPUF moaning about how badly TF2
> > > is
> > optimised and moaning about how sentry guns should be removed or such and
> > such are overpowered
> >
> > There's always people complaining about anything. Again, I encourage
> > Fletcher to look at the evidence that people join fast respawn servers
> > with
> > hidden tags by the boat-load, and stay there all night. And they don't do
> > it when tags are listed. This should tell you 2 things: there's a real
> > demand for faster respawn, and not being on quickplay is a huge
> > disadvntage. Again, I don't care
> >
> > > The server software is free so I'm not sure what you bought. Was it
> some
> > magic beans in exchange for a cow? :)
> >
> > 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? There is no formal contract saying that
> > server owners have any rights, but there is an unspoken one. And it is up
> > to Valve how much they want to erode this good will so that future games
> > don't end up like CS:GO.
> >
> > Anyone that has been looking at TF2 servers now knows that you are out of
> > touch with what is happening right now. No one is using fake players on a
> > large scale anymore. Of course you wouldn't know given your 1 hour of TF2
> > per week.
> >
> > This will be my final response to you on this matter. Don

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

[Todd Pettit]

I agree I have a good relationship with their community and the definitely obey 
all of valve's rules.

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

Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 3:51:26 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

I can vouch for him in that he's not breaking any rules.

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

-Original Message- 
From: Essay Tew Phaun
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 3:15 PM
To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

Just wanted to say that we've had a server blacklisted for the reason:


Server browser not reporting required tags (e.g. increased_maxplayers,
bots, etc)


And we've always obeyed the tag rules. We don't use any plugins that aim to
remove them and any features we use, such as bots and increased_maxplayers
automatically change the sv_tags and we've made no attempts at all to
remove them. This has to be a mistake on Valves part, the server of ours
which got blacklisted runs the exact same way our other servers run and
they're not blacklisted.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Robert Paulson 
wrote:

> > You can see the number of players on the stats page. TF2 is always in 
> > the
> top 3 or 4 games.
> It's 2nd right now.
>
> 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.
>
> > There are or were big long threads on SPUF moaning about how badly TF2 
> > is
> optimised and moaning about how sentry guns should be removed or such and
> such are overpowered
>
> There's always people complaining about anything. Again, I encourage
> Fletcher to look at the evidence that people join fast respawn servers 
> with
> hidden tags by the boat-load, and stay there all night. And they don't do
> it when tags are listed. This should tell you 2 things: there's a real
> demand for faster respawn, and not being on quickplay is a huge
> disadvntage. Again, I don't care
>
> > The server software is free so I'm not sure what you bought. Was it some
> magic beans in exchange for a cow? :)
>
> 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? There is no formal contract saying that
> server owners have any rights, but there is an unspoken one. And it is up
> to Valve how much they want to erode this good will so that future games
> don't end up like CS:GO.
>
> Anyone that has been looking at TF2 servers now knows that you are out of
> touch with what is happening right now. No one is using fake players on a
> large scale anymore. Of course you wouldn't know given your 1 hour of TF2
> per week.
>
> This will be my final response to you on this matter. Don't take a lack of
> response to mean that anyone is convinced by your essay long tirades about
> how non-vanilla servers are worthless and that they all cheat. My only
> purpose here was to notify Valve to look at the clear evidence.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:11 AM, dan  wrote:
>
> > On 14/02/2013 22:23, Robert Paulson wrote:
> >
> >> Bring the facts, not your assumptions. Step outside your quickplay
> bubble
> >> once in a while and notice that there's been a huge drop in players on
> the
> >> server browser.
> >>
> >
> > No there hasn't, not really.
> >
> > You can see the number of players on the stats page. TF2 is always in 
> > the
> > top 3 or 4 games.
> > It's 2nd right now.
> >
> > 51k peak today. It's not the highest it's ever been, but it's not the
> > lowest either.
> >
> > Player numbers have always risen and fallen in between big updates
> > appearing. That's nothing new.
> >
> > There is probably some seasonal variation, variation based on school
> > holidays, and variation caused by other games being released on steam
> too.
> >
> > Case in point, it wasn't so long ago, just after Halloween, that 
> > Fletcher
> > pointed out that some of the Valve servers were empty
> > the lux ones they'd added. These servers are generally full now (with 
> > the
> > exception of over night)
> > I hop from one to another for hours and hour

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

[Doctor McKay]

I can vouch for him in that he's not breaking any rules.

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

-Original Message- 
From: Essay Tew Phaun

Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 3:15 PM
To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] [hlds] Reminder about server tags

Just wanted to say that we've had a server blacklisted for the reason:


Server browser not reporting required tags (e.g. increased_maxplayers,
bots, etc)


And we've always obeyed the tag rules. We don't use any plugins that aim to
remove them and any features we use, such as bots and increased_maxplayers
automatically change the sv_tags and we've made no attempts at all to
remove them. This has to be a mistake on Valves part, the server of ours
which got blacklisted runs the exact same way our other servers run and
they're not blacklisted.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Robert Paulson 
wrote:


> You can see the number of players on the stats page. TF2 is always in 
> the

top 3 or 4 games.
It's 2nd right now.

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.

> There are or were big long threads on SPUF moaning about how badly TF2 
> is

optimised and moaning about how sentry guns should be removed or such and
such are overpowered

There's always people complaining about anything. Again, I encourage
Fletcher to look at the evidence that people join fast respawn servers 
with

hidden tags by the boat-load, and stay there all night. And they don't do
it when tags are listed. This should tell you 2 things: there's a real
demand for faster respawn, and not being on quickplay is a huge
disadvntage. Again, I don't care

> The server software is free so I'm not sure what you bought. Was it some
magic beans in exchange for a cow? :)

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? There is no formal contract saying that
server owners have any rights, but there is an unspoken one. And it is up
to Valve how much they want to erode this good will so that future games
don't end up like CS:GO.

Anyone that has been looking at TF2 servers now knows that you are out of
touch with what is happening right now. No one is using fake players on a
large scale anymore. Of course you wouldn't know given your 1 hour of TF2
per week.

This will be my final response to you on this matter. Don't take a lack of
response to mean that anyone is convinced by your essay long tirades about
how non-vanilla servers are worthless and that they all cheat. My only
purpose here was to notify Valve to look at the clear evidence.



On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:11 AM, dan  wrote:

> On 14/02/2013 22:23, Robert Paulson wrote:
>
>> Bring the facts, not your assumptions. Step outside your quickplay
bubble
>> once in a while and notice that there's been a huge drop in players on
the
>> server browser.
>>
>
> No there hasn't, not really.
>
> You can see the number of players on the stats page. TF2 is always in 
> the

> top 3 or 4 games.
> It's 2nd right now.
>
> 51k peak today. It's not the highest it's ever been, but it's not the
> lowest either.
>
> Player numbers have always risen and fallen in between big updates
> appearing. That's nothing new.
>
> There is probably some seasonal variation, variation based on school
> holidays, and variation caused by other games being released on steam
too.
>
> Case in point, it wasn't so long ago, just after Halloween, that 
> Fletcher

> pointed out that some of the Valve servers were empty
> the lux ones they'd added. These servers are generally full now (with 
> the

> exception of over night)
> I hop from one to another for hours and hours at a time.
>
> So I'd say your rumours of TF2's death are greatly exaggerated.
>
>
>  Given the few complaints about it until now, very few people care, and 
> I

>> don't think I'm alone in not having our rights further eroded
>>
>
> What "rights" are these?
>
> I think this thread exists because someone at Valve was reminding people
> about these tags,
> which I imagine precludes your idea that no one is still abusing them
(I'm
> not sure why you think anyone needs to be smart or rich
> to do it? It's just a plugin and any buffoon can write a plugin. If
people
> have paid significant money for them they must be out of

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

[Essay Tew Phaun]

Just wanted to say that we've had a server blacklisted for the reason:


Server browser not reporting required tags (e.g. increased_maxplayers,
bots, etc)


And we've always obeyed the tag rules. We don't use any plugins that aim to
remove them and any features we use, such as bots and increased_maxplayers
automatically change the sv_tags and we've made no attempts at all to
remove them. This has to be a mistake on Valves part, the server of ours
which got blacklisted runs the exact same way our other servers run and
they're not blacklisted.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Robert Paulson wrote:

> > You can see the number of players on the stats page. TF2 is always in the
> top 3 or 4 games.
> It's 2nd right now.
>
> 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.
>
> > There are or were big long threads on SPUF moaning about how badly TF2 is
> optimised and moaning about how sentry guns should be removed or such and
> such are overpowered
>
> There's always people complaining about anything. Again, I encourage
> Fletcher to look at the evidence that people join fast respawn servers with
> hidden tags by the boat-load, and stay there all night. And they don't do
> it when tags are listed. This should tell you 2 things: there's a real
> demand for faster respawn, and not being on quickplay is a huge
> disadvntage. Again, I don't care
>
> > The server software is free so I'm not sure what you bought. Was it some
> magic beans in exchange for a cow? :)
>
> 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? There is no formal contract saying that
> server owners have any rights, but there is an unspoken one. And it is up
> to Valve how much they want to erode this good will so that future games
> don't end up like CS:GO.
>
> Anyone that has been looking at TF2 servers now knows that you are out of
> touch with what is happening right now. No one is using fake players on a
> large scale anymore. Of course you wouldn't know given your 1 hour of TF2
> per week.
>
> This will be my final response to you on this matter. Don't take a lack of
> response to mean that anyone is convinced by your essay long tirades about
> how non-vanilla servers are worthless and that they all cheat. My only
> purpose here was to notify Valve to look at the clear evidence.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:11 AM, dan  wrote:
>
> > On 14/02/2013 22:23, Robert Paulson wrote:
> >
> >> Bring the facts, not your assumptions. Step outside your quickplay
> bubble
> >> once in a while and notice that there's been a huge drop in players on
> the
> >> server browser.
> >>
> >
> > No there hasn't, not really.
> >
> > You can see the number of players on the stats page. TF2 is always in the
> > top 3 or 4 games.
> > It's 2nd right now.
> >
> > 51k peak today. It's not the highest it's ever been, but it's not the
> > lowest either.
> >
> > Player numbers have always risen and fallen in between big updates
> > appearing. That's nothing new.
> >
> > There is probably some seasonal variation, variation based on school
> > holidays, and variation caused by other games being released on steam
> too.
> >
> > Case in point, it wasn't so long ago, just after Halloween, that Fletcher
> > pointed out that some of the Valve servers were empty
> > the lux ones they'd added. These servers are generally full now (with the
> > exception of over night)
> > I hop from one to another for hours and hours at a time.
> >
> > So I'd say your rumours of TF2's death are greatly exaggerated.
> >
> >
> >  Given the few complaints about it until now, very few people care, and I
> >> don't think I'm alone in not having our rights further eroded
> >>
> >
> > What "rights" are these?
> >
> > I think this thread exists because someone at Valve was reminding people
> > about these tags,
> > which I imagine precludes your idea that no one is still abusing them
> (I'm
> > not sure why you think anyone needs to be smart or rich
> > to do it? It's just a plugin and any buffoon can write a plugin. If
> people
> > have paid significant money for them they must be out of their tree)
> >
> > Nor that there are no complaints about them. How do you suppose you would
> > hear complaints? Why would someone complain
> > to you?
> >
> >
> >  to the point where we can't even change the number of slots on our
> server.
> >>
> >
> > Changing the number of slots occasionally is not a problem I'm sure.
> >
> > Dynamically changing it to game the quickplay system or fool people
> > browsing for 24 slot servers clearly is.
> >
> > This is my opinion. But I see no reaso

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

[Robert Paulson]

> You can see the number of players on the stats page. TF2 is always in the
top 3 or 4 games.
It's 2nd right now.

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.

> There are or were big long threads on SPUF moaning about how badly TF2 is
optimised and moaning about how sentry guns should be removed or such and
such are overpowered

There's always people complaining about anything. Again, I encourage
Fletcher to look at the evidence that people join fast respawn servers with
hidden tags by the boat-load, and stay there all night. And they don't do
it when tags are listed. This should tell you 2 things: there's a real
demand for faster respawn, and not being on quickplay is a huge
disadvntage. Again, I don't care

> The server software is free so I'm not sure what you bought. Was it some
magic beans in exchange for a cow? :)

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? There is no formal contract saying that
server owners have any rights, but there is an unspoken one. And it is up
to Valve how much they want to erode this good will so that future games
don't end up like CS:GO.

Anyone that has been looking at TF2 servers now knows that you are out of
touch with what is happening right now. No one is using fake players on a
large scale anymore. Of course you wouldn't know given your 1 hour of TF2
per week.

This will be my final response to you on this matter. Don't take a lack of
response to mean that anyone is convinced by your essay long tirades about
how non-vanilla servers are worthless and that they all cheat. My only
purpose here was to notify Valve to look at the clear evidence.



On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:11 AM, dan  wrote:

> On 14/02/2013 22:23, Robert Paulson wrote:
>
>> Bring the facts, not your assumptions. Step outside your quickplay bubble
>> once in a while and notice that there's been a huge drop in players on the
>> server browser.
>>
>
> No there hasn't, not really.
>
> You can see the number of players on the stats page. TF2 is always in the
> top 3 or 4 games.
> It's 2nd right now.
>
> 51k peak today. It's not the highest it's ever been, but it's not the
> lowest either.
>
> Player numbers have always risen and fallen in between big updates
> appearing. That's nothing new.
>
> There is probably some seasonal variation, variation based on school
> holidays, and variation caused by other games being released on steam too.
>
> Case in point, it wasn't so long ago, just after Halloween, that Fletcher
> pointed out that some of the Valve servers were empty
> the lux ones they'd added. These servers are generally full now (with the
> exception of over night)
> I hop from one to another for hours and hours at a time.
>
> So I'd say your rumours of TF2's death are greatly exaggerated.
>
>
>  Given the few complaints about it until now, very few people care, and I
>> don't think I'm alone in not having our rights further eroded
>>
>
> What "rights" are these?
>
> I think this thread exists because someone at Valve was reminding people
> about these tags,
> which I imagine precludes your idea that no one is still abusing them (I'm
> not sure why you think anyone needs to be smart or rich
> to do it? It's just a plugin and any buffoon can write a plugin. If people
> have paid significant money for them they must be out of their tree)
>
> Nor that there are no complaints about them. How do you suppose you would
> hear complaints? Why would someone complain
> to you?
>
>
>  to the point where we can't even change the number of slots on our server.
>>
>
> Changing the number of slots occasionally is not a problem I'm sure.
>
> Dynamically changing it to game the quickplay system or fool people
> browsing for 24 slot servers clearly is.
>
> This is my opinion. But I see no reason that won't be the rule though
> because the client lets you restrict servers listed by slot count and
> tells you, if you try to join a server with 32 players, what a load of
> crap it will be (so don't tell me that's my opinion - it's part of the game)
>
> I'll tell you why I think it's in the game. There are or were big long
> threads on SPUF moaning about
> how badly TF2 is optimised and moaning about how sentry guns should be
> removed or
> such and such are overpowered - and 9/10 times, after about 17 pages of
> back and forth you'd discover it's someone playing on 32 man instant spawn
> servers that's
> decided the game is unbalanced or that is getting performance issues.
>
> So that's why I think the game tells you that 32 slots is a waste of time.
> But you can still do it,
> the game tells 

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

[dan]

On 14/02/2013 22:23, Robert Paulson wrote:

Bring the facts, not your assumptions. Step outside your quickplay bubble
once in a while and notice that there's been a huge drop in players on the
server browser.


No there hasn't, not really.

You can see the number of players on the stats page. TF2 is always in 
the top 3 or 4 games.

It's 2nd right now.

51k peak today. It's not the highest it's ever been, but it's not the 
lowest either.


Player numbers have always risen and fallen in between big updates 
appearing. That's nothing new.


There is probably some seasonal variation, variation based on school 
holidays, and variation caused by other games being released on steam too.


Case in point, it wasn't so long ago, just after Halloween, that 
Fletcher pointed out that some of the Valve servers were empty
the lux ones they'd added. These servers are generally full now (with 
the exception of over night)

I hop from one to another for hours and hours at a time.

So I'd say your rumours of TF2's death are greatly exaggerated.


Given the few complaints about it until now, very few people care, and I
don't think I'm alone in not having our rights further eroded


What "rights" are these?

I think this thread exists because someone at Valve was reminding people 
about these tags,
which I imagine precludes your idea that no one is still abusing them 
(I'm not sure why you think anyone needs to be smart or rich
to do it? It's just a plugin and any buffoon can write a plugin. If 
people have paid significant money for them they must be out of their tree)


Nor that there are no complaints about them. How do you suppose you 
would hear complaints? Why would someone complain

to you?


to the point where we can't even change the number of slots on our server.


Changing the number of slots occasionally is not a problem I'm sure.

Dynamically changing it to game the quickplay system or fool people 
browsing for 24 slot servers clearly is.


This is my opinion. But I see no reason that won't be the rule though 
because the client lets you restrict servers listed by slot count and
tells you, if you try to join a server with 32 players, what a load of 
crap it will be (so don't tell me that's my opinion - it's part of the game)


I'll tell you why I think it's in the game. There are or were big long 
threads on SPUF moaning about
how badly TF2 is optimised and moaning about how sentry guns should be 
removed or

such and such are overpowered - and 9/10 times, after about 17 pages of
back and forth you'd discover it's someone playing on 32 man instant 
spawn servers that's

decided the game is unbalanced or that is getting performance issues.

So that's why I think the game tells you that 32 slots is a waste of 
time. But you can still do it,

the game tells you that you're an idiot if you do. Not me, the game.

But, how would the above work if the server you join can change the 
player count?

Answer : it wouldn't. It would suck for anyone looking for 24 player servers
if servers changed to 32 slots after they'd joined.

So you can't cheat with your player counts. They should be legit.

If you want 32 players on your server, run a 32 slot server. If you want 
24, run 24.

It's not that difficult to do and there's absolutely no reason at all
to do otherwise.


Many of us
bought into TF2 knowing it would be moddable just to have the custom tab
ghetto, quickplay favoritism, and the loss of attachable models all forced
onto us.


The server software is free so I'm not sure what you bought. Was it some 
magic beans

in exchange for a cow? :)

Faking tags or player counts with or without plugins to game quickplay 
or to trick people using the server browser is not "running a mod"
so I don't really see what your point is here. There's nothing stopping 
you from running a modded server.


--
Dan.

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

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

[Robert Paulson]

As expected, random hand-waving just to support your agenda with nothing
but your own personal opinion.

No one smart or rich enough to cloak bots is stupid enough not to know they
will be banned for it by now. People hiding respawn tags is still going on
because it is available in a single download and difficult for Valve to
check. As I said before, Fletcher has the data to see that your assumptions
are wrong. If you did any more research than just complaining about server
owners every time the topic comes up, you would know the truth.

> Don't over-egg your pudding. The player base is just fine.

I am sure it is fine with half the players on Valve's MvM servers being
sucked away by consecutive MvM updates with little or negative player
growth since October. I'll put as much egg in my pudding as I like, thank
you very much.

http://www.steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&jstime=1&appid=440&from=133853400&to=End+Time
http://game-monitor.com/search.php?game=tf2

Bring the facts, not your assumptions. Step outside your quickplay bubble
once in a while and notice that there's been a huge drop in players on the
server browser.

> Of course it is. Any buffoon can see if someone joins a server that says
it has 23/24 players and after they've joined 25, 26, 27 or more people
can join, the policy of the admin is the policy of complete and utter
bullshit.

Given the few complaints about it until now, very few people care, and I
don't think I'm alone in not having our rights further eroded to the point
where we can't even change the number of slots on our server. Many of us
bought into TF2 knowing it would be moddable just to have the custom tab
ghetto, quickplay favoritism, and the loss of attachable models all forced
onto us.

Again it is up to Valve to respond to the facts, and I hope they can look
deeper into the situation than just saying that quickplay only accounts for
20% of connections and thus doesn't matter.

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:43 AM, dan  wrote:

> On 14/02/2013 06:20, Robert Paulson wrote:
>
>> Fletcher has the data on servers that used fast respawn without displaying
>> tags (at least one of them here), and he should know that stay populated
>> long into the night.
>>
>
> No they didn't. They added bots and used mods that made it look like they
> were
> real players.
>
> Plenty of admins are next to scumbags and act like it all the time in the
> way they run servers.
>
> I've joined servers recently that mod the game so you can't click
> 'continue' to get past the HTML adverts for 30 seconds.
> Or do other annoying popups if you don't have the html option enabled.
>
> They're wankers.
>
> So yeah, these server owners are mostly money grabbing buffoons who
> really couldn't care about the game experience at all. They just want
> to run a ton of servers and use whatever means they can to grab players (
> whether honest or not) and whatever dumb idea de jour comes along to try
> and make money from those players no matter how ridiculous it makes
> the experience. Indeed, they want it to annoy so they can charge
> money to remove it and make it not annoying.
>
> Of course not all server owners are like this, but enough are that I think
> the only way to play TF2 is to either use Valve's
> servers or to play organised matches in comp. (Not the least because so
> many of the other server
> owners do such dipsy things with their config they break the game. Changes
> which valve don't report via the browser
> so you can't filter them out)
>
> But that's moot. My opinion there doesn't matter. The issue is, and always
> has been with servers
> lying that they aren't changing things when they are, to try and get
> players to join (either via the browser or via quickplay)
>
>
>
>  in light of the ever shrinking TF2 player-base.
>>
>
> Don't over-egg your pudding. The player base is just fine.
>
>
>  And finally I'd like to say that changing your slots is not against the
>> "Policy of Truth". The moment your maximum slots are increased, your
>> server
>> will properly reflect the settings on your tags. Even if this is
>> automatic,
>> this isn't something that can't be done manually.
>>
>
> Of course it is. Any buffoon can see if someone joins a server that says
> it has 23/24 players and after they've joined 25, 26, 27 or more people
> can join, the policy of the admin is the policy of complete and utter
> bullshit.
>
>
> --
> 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 14/02/2013 06:20, Robert Paulson wrote:

Fletcher has the data on servers that used fast respawn without displaying
tags (at least one of them here), and he should know that stay populated
long into the night.


No they didn't. They added bots and used mods that made it look like 
they were

real players.

Plenty of admins are next to scumbags and act like it all the time in the
way they run servers.

I've joined servers recently that mod the game so you can't click 
'continue' to get past the HTML adverts for 30 seconds.

Or do other annoying popups if you don't have the html option enabled.

They're wankers.

So yeah, these server owners are mostly money grabbing buffoons who
really couldn't care about the game experience at all. They just want
to run a ton of servers and use whatever means they can to grab players (
whether honest or not) and whatever dumb idea de jour comes along to try
and make money from those players no matter how ridiculous it makes
the experience. Indeed, they want it to annoy so they can charge
money to remove it and make it not annoying.

Of course not all server owners are like this, but enough are that I 
think the only way to play TF2 is to either use Valve's
servers or to play organised matches in comp. (Not the least because so 
many of the other server
owners do such dipsy things with their config they break the game. 
Changes which valve don't report via the browser

so you can't filter them out)

But that's moot. My opinion there doesn't matter. The issue is, and 
always has been with servers
lying that they aren't changing things when they are, to try and get 
players to join (either via the browser or via quickplay)




in light of the ever shrinking TF2 player-base.


Don't over-egg your pudding. The player base is just fine.


And finally I'd like to say that changing your slots is not against the
"Policy of Truth". The moment your maximum slots are increased, your server
will properly reflect the settings on your tags. Even if this is automatic,
this isn't something that can't be done manually.


Of course it is. Any buffoon can see if someone joins a server that says 
it has 23/24 players and after they've joined 25, 26, 27 or more people
can join, the policy of the admin is the policy of complete and utter 
bullshit.


--
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

[Robert Paulson]

I don't want to waste my time arguing with needaxeo who always asserts his
agenda that a completely default experience is superior and third party
server owners are useless.

Fletcher has the data on servers that used fast respawn without displaying
tags (at least one of them here), and he should know that stay populated
long into the night. That is why anyone bothers to report them. If they
were unpopular, no one would be reporting them. Now I'm not saying we
support people hiding their tags (we would never risk being banned) but it
is obvious what players want

It is up to him whether or not to continue over-promoting a plain
experience by shrinking the browse button to half the size of the Play
Multiplayer button and in light of the ever shrinking TF2 player-base.

And finally I'd like to say that changing your slots is not against the
"Policy of Truth". The moment your maximum slots are increased, your server
will properly reflect the settings on your tags. Even if this is automatic,
this isn't something that can't be done manually.


On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:04 PM, dan  wrote:

> On 13/02/2013 09:05, ics wrote:
>
>> I don't think anyone dynamically does this
>>
>
> You think stuff and it happens like in this film?
> http://www.imdb.com/title/**tt0078158/
> Wow.
>
>
>  Valve's recommendation is 24, so simple solution would be that if server
>> cvar sv_visiblemaxplayers is changed, Valve will check if it's over 24
>> slots or below and adds increased_maxplayers immediately, thus alerting
>> quickplay system and everyone should be happy, except the people who try to
>> avoid that tag.This also works two ways, if you have 27/24 players,
>> increased_maxplayers is added during mapchange, making the server 27/27 and
>> then the server loses 8 players, you will be left with 19/27 (or possibly
>> 19/24) with increased_maxplayers tag, thus giving quickplay penalty.
>>
>
> How are we happy if we join a server via quickplay or the server browser,
> after reading 24 slots, expecting and wanting a vanilla 24-slot server and
> then the player count goes up mid round?
>
> Messing with the slot count mid-game has to be a no-no as far as quickplay
> and the server browser goes.
> Your server has to be either 32 slot or 24 (or something else). You can't
> say "it's 24 slots until we get 24 people and then we change it to 32" in
> any reasonable, honest way.
>
> It's clear the only reason someone says "it's 24 slots...oh no, it's
> actually 32" is to trick either quickplay or TF2 players into joining the
> server.
>
> It would need a tag if there were any valid reason(s) for it other than
> gaming the quickplay system (but I doubt there are)
> --
> 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 13/02/2013 09:05, ics wrote:

I don't think anyone dynamically does this


You think stuff and it happens like in this film? 
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078158/

Wow.

Valve's recommendation is 24, so simple solution would be that if 
server cvar sv_visiblemaxplayers is changed, Valve will check if it's 
over 24 slots or below and adds increased_maxplayers immediately, thus 
alerting quickplay system and everyone should be happy, except the 
people who try to avoid that tag.This also works two ways, if you have 
27/24 players, increased_maxplayers is added during mapchange, making 
the server 27/27 and then the server loses 8 players, you will be left 
with 19/27 (or possibly 19/24) with increased_maxplayers tag, thus 
giving quickplay penalty.


How are we happy if we join a server via quickplay or the server 
browser, after reading 24 slots, expecting and wanting a vanilla 24-slot 
server and then the player count goes up mid round?


Messing with the slot count mid-game has to be a no-no as far as 
quickplay and the server browser goes.
Your server has to be either 32 slot or 24 (or something else). You 
can't say "it's 24 slots until we get 24 people and then we change it to 
32" in any reasonable, honest way.


It's clear the only reason someone says "it's 24 slots...oh no, it's 
actually 32" is to trick either quickplay or TF2 players into joining 
the server.


It would need a tag if there were any valid reason(s) for it other than 
gaming the quickplay system (but I doubt there are)

--
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 13/02/2013 06:06, Supreet wrote:

Hello Fletch,

I have a couple of questions for you. Would the following idea be
considered illegal or approved by Valve?
On a server with a maximum capability of 32 players, limit the players with
sv_visiblemaxplayers to 24 and have quickplay enabled. However, as soon as
the server reaches 24 players, change the mp_respawnwavetime to something a
little faster than 10 let's say, for e.g. - mp_respawnwavetime 5.0. This
certainly would change the server tags as soon as it changes the
mp_respawnwavetime variable. Would this be considered something legal?


I can't answer the specific question regarding legality from Valve's 
point of view, but
if I join a 24 slot server using any method (quickplay, browser or 
whatever) I do
that because I want to play on a 24 slot server with the default respawn 
times and so on.


Why? Because the respawn times are there so you can complete the objectives.

I don't want a server I join to turn into a 32 slot one or to change the 
respawn times half way through.


So what am I to do when that happens? Leave your server when the 25th 
person arrives?

It just makes my experience suck.

Similarly, you really seem to want Valve to give you 24 players just so 
you can use that as a step towards getting 32 players.
If lots of people want to play on 32 slot servers you don't need 
quickplay to fill it anyway.


Most of the people who think they want to respawn quicker are wrong they 
just don't
realise it yet. But, it's not worth having the long debate about that, 
there's nothing
wrong with you providing a server for people with faster respawn, 32 
players and so on - just

advertise it correctly with the tags. What's the issue?

Aside from one guy who wants to include his CV or something, there's 
really none at all.


But, you can't reasonably change the tags or the number of players part 
way through a round. That's just as bad
as fooling someone into joining your server by having no tags or false 
tags. You really have to decide
whether you're running a 32 slot server or a 24 slot, no server can 
honestly report that it's both.


--
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

[Doctor McKay]

I think you're misunderstanding. The question is not *how* it can be checked, 
rather the question is whether or not this is disallowed and punished.

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

On Feb 13, 2013, at 5:25 AM, ics  wrote:

> Then the simple solution would be to check playercount by system each time 
> sv_maxvisibleplayers is being changed.
> 
> -ics
> 
> Valentin G. kirjoitti:
>> I know servers that do this, and I wanted to know if this is punished or
>> not.
>> 
>> They just start 32 player servers and have sv_visiblemaxplayers at 24. Then
>> it's full and it's set to 26, then 28, 30, and finally to 32. That way they
>> have the lowest quickplay penalty (or none until 24) as long as possible,
>> circumventing the system.
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:05 AM, ics  wrote:
>> 
>>> I don't think anyone dynamically does this and even if they do, that
>>> penalty will apply and rise with each extra slot above 24. I think some
>>> server owners run a 24 slot server, and start the server with 6-8 extra
>>> slots (maxplayers 30-32), using sv_visiblemaxplayers 24. This way servers
>>> can have reserve slots or vip slots so that no one will be kicked off the
>>> server if someone connects with such slot, unless the server is full.
>>> Basically there can be 27/24 situations but i don't think quickplay will
>>> drive in traffic if server is full (has 24 slots of 24 in use).
>>> 
>>> Only thing is that if slot count is 28/24 or even 25/24, Valve's system
>>> will only detect this on mapchange or in some random time when check is
>>> made. At that time, increased_maxplayers will be added and some other
>>> message appears. It's the same if you lose connection to Steam servers and
>>> then server regains it. Basically it's not cheating the system, it's just
>>> convinient to have a few slots incase the server needs temporarely more
>>> room.
>>> 
>>> Valve's recommendation is 24, so simple solution would be that if server
>>> cvar sv_visiblemaxplayers is changed, Valve will check if it's over 24
>>> slots or below and adds increased_maxplayers immediately, thus alerting
>>> quickplay system and everyone should be happy, except the people who try to
>>> avoid that tag.This also works two ways, if you have 27/24 players,
>>> increased_maxplayers is added during mapchange, making the server 27/27 and
>>> then the server loses 8 players, you will be left with 19/27 (or possibly
>>> 19/24) with increased_maxplayers tag, thus giving quickplay penalty.
>>> 
>>> -ics
>>> 
>>> Valentin G. kirjoitti:
>>> 
>>>  What happens to servers that dynamically change their
 sv_visiblemaxplayers?
 There are a bunch of servers that only advertise being a 24 slot server
 and
 then slowly grow to 32 to exploit quickplay as long as possible.
 
 
 On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Kyle Sanderson 
 wrote:
 
  Not in the least bit DWN, the data is gone. You can search the first
> couple
> tags, but once you blow the character limit (you know, from plugins, or
> the
> game itself), the last tags (depending on length here), usually just
> contain garbage from the previously set tags. The request, unfortunately,
> is still just noise unless if they do intend on fixing the problem.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kyle.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:35 PM, DontWannaName!  
>> wrote:
>> Cut off from view or cut off from quickplay? Are truncated tags
> searchable?
> 
>> Sent from my iPhone 5
>> 
>> On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:32 PM, "Doctor McKay" 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> I second this. I just had an issue applying tags in a plugin due to the
>> truncation issue. At the present moment, it's not feasable for plugins
>> to
>> force tags (such as respawntimes, friendlyfire, etc) since the tag might
>> end up getting cut off.
>> 
>> Dr. McKay
>> http://www.doctormckay.com
>> 
>> 
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Kyle Sanderson 
>> *To:* Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list<
> h...@list.valvesoftware.com>; Half-Life
> 
>> dedicated Linux server mailing list > valvesoftware.com >
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:29 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [hlds] Reminder about server tags
>> 
>>   Unfortunately, I don't believe anything has changed since you
>> requested
>> this last year Fletcher. I could be totally wrong, but the truncation
> issue
> 
>> still exists (today, I checked). This is still, absolutely impossible to
>> achieve if you're a server owner. Valve has to either raise the
>> character
>> limit, or move to another method of applying tags. I'd love to have all
> my
> 
>> server tags show, but they're still getting cut off. I'm not really that
>> concerned with prioritizing tags to the front.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Kyle.
>> 
>> -- Forwarded message --
>

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

[ics]

Then the simple solution would be to check playercount by system each 
time sv_maxvisibleplayers is being changed.


-ics

Valentin G. kirjoitti:

I know servers that do this, and I wanted to know if this is punished or
not.

They just start 32 player servers and have sv_visiblemaxplayers at 24. Then
it's full and it's set to 26, then 28, 30, and finally to 32. That way they
have the lowest quickplay penalty (or none until 24) as long as possible,
circumventing the system.


On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:05 AM, ics  wrote:


I don't think anyone dynamically does this and even if they do, that
penalty will apply and rise with each extra slot above 24. I think some
server owners run a 24 slot server, and start the server with 6-8 extra
slots (maxplayers 30-32), using sv_visiblemaxplayers 24. This way servers
can have reserve slots or vip slots so that no one will be kicked off the
server if someone connects with such slot, unless the server is full.
Basically there can be 27/24 situations but i don't think quickplay will
drive in traffic if server is full (has 24 slots of 24 in use).

Only thing is that if slot count is 28/24 or even 25/24, Valve's system
will only detect this on mapchange or in some random time when check is
made. At that time, increased_maxplayers will be added and some other
message appears. It's the same if you lose connection to Steam servers and
then server regains it. Basically it's not cheating the system, it's just
convinient to have a few slots incase the server needs temporarely more
room.

Valve's recommendation is 24, so simple solution would be that if server
cvar sv_visiblemaxplayers is changed, Valve will check if it's over 24
slots or below and adds increased_maxplayers immediately, thus alerting
quickplay system and everyone should be happy, except the people who try to
avoid that tag.This also works two ways, if you have 27/24 players,
increased_maxplayers is added during mapchange, making the server 27/27 and
then the server loses 8 players, you will be left with 19/27 (or possibly
19/24) with increased_maxplayers tag, thus giving quickplay penalty.

-ics

Valentin G. kirjoitti:

  What happens to servers that dynamically change their

sv_visiblemaxplayers?
There are a bunch of servers that only advertise being a 24 slot server
and
then slowly grow to 32 to exploit quickplay as long as possible.


On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Kyle Sanderson 
wrote:

  Not in the least bit DWN, the data is gone. You can search the first

couple
tags, but once you blow the character limit (you know, from plugins, or
the
game itself), the last tags (depending on length here), usually just
contain garbage from the previously set tags. The request, unfortunately,
is still just noise unless if they do intend on fixing the problem.

Thanks,
Kyle.


On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:35 PM, DontWannaName! 
wrote:
Cut off from view or cut off from quickplay? Are truncated tags


searchable?


Sent from my iPhone 5

On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:32 PM, "Doctor McKay" 
wrote:

I second this. I just had an issue applying tags in a plugin due to the
truncation issue. At the present moment, it's not feasable for plugins
to
force tags (such as respawntimes, friendlyfire, etc) since the tag might
end up getting cut off.

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


- Original Message -
*From:* Kyle Sanderson 
*To:* Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list<


h...@list.valvesoftware.com>; Half-Life


dedicated Linux server mailing list >
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:29 AM
*Subject:* Re: [hlds] Reminder about server tags

   Unfortunately, I don't believe anything has changed since you
requested
this last year Fletcher. I could be totally wrong, but the truncation


issue


still exists (today, I checked). This is still, absolutely impossible to
achieve if you're a server owner. Valve has to either raise the
character
limit, or move to another method of applying tags. I'd love to have all


my


server tags show, but they're still getting cut off. I'm not really that
concerned with prioritizing tags to the front.

Thanks,
Kyle.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Kyle Sanderson 
Date: Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds] Plugins that modify game ruels should also set the


tags


To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list <
h...@list.valvesoftware.com>, Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing
list 

Sorry for the previous email, I wasn't at home. The overflow seems to


have


been worked around by hard limiting to 127 characters. Can this actually
get fixed instead of the current inplace hack? At the moment, it's


whomever


loads first gets their tags set, and the rest are left out to dry. I


should


probably also mention that tags are overwriting other tags at the moment


if


there's no room, which is of course gross.


No one can actually comply with this,
Kyle.


On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Fletcher Dunn <
fletch...@valvesoftware.com> wrote:

Hello all,

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

[Valentin G.]

I know servers that do this, and I wanted to know if this is punished or
not.

They just start 32 player servers and have sv_visiblemaxplayers at 24. Then
it's full and it's set to 26, then 28, 30, and finally to 32. That way they
have the lowest quickplay penalty (or none until 24) as long as possible,
circumventing the system.


On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:05 AM, ics  wrote:

> I don't think anyone dynamically does this and even if they do, that
> penalty will apply and rise with each extra slot above 24. I think some
> server owners run a 24 slot server, and start the server with 6-8 extra
> slots (maxplayers 30-32), using sv_visiblemaxplayers 24. This way servers
> can have reserve slots or vip slots so that no one will be kicked off the
> server if someone connects with such slot, unless the server is full.
> Basically there can be 27/24 situations but i don't think quickplay will
> drive in traffic if server is full (has 24 slots of 24 in use).
>
> Only thing is that if slot count is 28/24 or even 25/24, Valve's system
> will only detect this on mapchange or in some random time when check is
> made. At that time, increased_maxplayers will be added and some other
> message appears. It's the same if you lose connection to Steam servers and
> then server regains it. Basically it's not cheating the system, it's just
> convinient to have a few slots incase the server needs temporarely more
> room.
>
> Valve's recommendation is 24, so simple solution would be that if server
> cvar sv_visiblemaxplayers is changed, Valve will check if it's over 24
> slots or below and adds increased_maxplayers immediately, thus alerting
> quickplay system and everyone should be happy, except the people who try to
> avoid that tag.This also works two ways, if you have 27/24 players,
> increased_maxplayers is added during mapchange, making the server 27/27 and
> then the server loses 8 players, you will be left with 19/27 (or possibly
> 19/24) with increased_maxplayers tag, thus giving quickplay penalty.
>
> -ics
>
> Valentin G. kirjoitti:
>
>  What happens to servers that dynamically change their
>> sv_visiblemaxplayers?
>> There are a bunch of servers that only advertise being a 24 slot server
>> and
>> then slowly grow to 32 to exploit quickplay as long as possible.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Kyle Sanderson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Not in the least bit DWN, the data is gone. You can search the first
>>> couple
>>> tags, but once you blow the character limit (you know, from plugins, or
>>> the
>>> game itself), the last tags (depending on length here), usually just
>>> contain garbage from the previously set tags. The request, unfortunately,
>>> is still just noise unless if they do intend on fixing the problem.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kyle.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:35 PM, DontWannaName! >>
 wrote:
 Cut off from view or cut off from quickplay? Are truncated tags

>>> searchable?
>>>
 Sent from my iPhone 5

 On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:32 PM, "Doctor McKay" 
 wrote:

 I second this. I just had an issue applying tags in a plugin due to the
 truncation issue. At the present moment, it's not feasable for plugins
 to
 force tags (such as respawntimes, friendlyfire, etc) since the tag might
 end up getting cut off.

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


 - Original Message -
 *From:* Kyle Sanderson 
 *To:* Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list<

>>> h...@list.valvesoftware.com>; Half-Life
>>>
 dedicated Linux server mailing list >>> valvesoftware.com >
 *Sent:* Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:29 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [hlds] Reminder about server tags

   Unfortunately, I don't believe anything has changed since you
 requested
 this last year Fletcher. I could be totally wrong, but the truncation

>>> issue
>>>
 still exists (today, I checked). This is still, absolutely impossible to
 achieve if you're a server owner. Valve has to either raise the
 character
 limit, or move to another method of applying tags. I'd love to have all

>>> my
>>>
 server tags show, but they're still getting cut off. I'm not really that
 concerned with prioritizing tags to the front.

 Thanks,
 Kyle.

 -- Forwarded message --
 From: Kyle Sanderson 
 Date: Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:42 PM
 Subject: Re: [hlds] Plugins that modify game ruels should also set the

>>> tags
>>>
 To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list <
 h...@list.valvesoftware.com>, Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing
 list 
 
 >


 Sorry for the previous email, I wasn't at home. The overflow seems to

>>> have
>>>
 been worked around by hard limiting to 127 characters. Can this actually
 get fixed instead of the current inplace hack? At the moment, it's

>>> whomever
>>>
 loads first gets their tags set, an

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

[ics]

I don't think anyone dynamically does this and even if they do, that 
penalty will apply and rise with each extra slot above 24. I think some 
server owners run a 24 slot server, and start the server with 6-8 extra 
slots (maxplayers 30-32), using sv_visiblemaxplayers 24. This way 
servers can have reserve slots or vip slots so that no one will be 
kicked off the server if someone connects with such slot, unless the 
server is full. Basically there can be 27/24 situations but i don't 
think quickplay will drive in traffic if server is full (has 24 slots of 
24 in use).


Only thing is that if slot count is 28/24 or even 25/24, Valve's system 
will only detect this on mapchange or in some random time when check is 
made. At that time, increased_maxplayers will be added and some other 
message appears. It's the same if you lose connection to Steam servers 
and then server regains it. Basically it's not cheating the system, it's 
just convinient to have a few slots incase the server needs temporarely 
more room.


Valve's recommendation is 24, so simple solution would be that if server 
cvar sv_visiblemaxplayers is changed, Valve will check if it's over 24 
slots or below and adds increased_maxplayers immediately, thus alerting 
quickplay system and everyone should be happy, except the people who try 
to avoid that tag.This also works two ways, if you have 27/24 players, 
increased_maxplayers is added during mapchange, making the server 27/27 
and then the server loses 8 players, you will be left with 19/27 (or 
possibly 19/24) with increased_maxplayers tag, thus giving quickplay 
penalty.


-ics

Valentin G. kirjoitti:

What happens to servers that dynamically change their sv_visiblemaxplayers?
There are a bunch of servers that only advertise being a 24 slot server and
then slowly grow to 32 to exploit quickplay as long as possible.


On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Kyle Sanderson  wrote:


Not in the least bit DWN, the data is gone. You can search the first couple
tags, but once you blow the character limit (you know, from plugins, or the
game itself), the last tags (depending on length here), usually just
contain garbage from the previously set tags. The request, unfortunately,
is still just noise unless if they do intend on fixing the problem.

Thanks,
Kyle.


On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:35 PM, DontWannaName! 
wrote:
Cut off from view or cut off from quickplay? Are truncated tags

searchable?

Sent from my iPhone 5

On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:32 PM, "Doctor McKay" 
wrote:

I second this. I just had an issue applying tags in a plugin due to the
truncation issue. At the present moment, it's not feasable for plugins to
force tags (such as respawntimes, friendlyfire, etc) since the tag might
end up getting cut off.

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


- Original Message -
*From:* Kyle Sanderson 
*To:* Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list<

h...@list.valvesoftware.com>; Half-Life

dedicated Linux server mailing list 
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:29 AM
*Subject:* Re: [hlds] Reminder about server tags

  Unfortunately, I don't believe anything has changed since you requested
this last year Fletcher. I could be totally wrong, but the truncation

issue

still exists (today, I checked). This is still, absolutely impossible to
achieve if you're a server owner. Valve has to either raise the character
limit, or move to another method of applying tags. I'd love to have all

my

server tags show, but they're still getting cut off. I'm not really that
concerned with prioritizing tags to the front.

Thanks,
Kyle.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Kyle Sanderson 
Date: Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds] Plugins that modify game ruels should also set the

tags

To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list <
h...@list.valvesoftware.com>, Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing
list 


Sorry for the previous email, I wasn't at home. The overflow seems to

have

been worked around by hard limiting to 127 characters. Can this actually
get fixed instead of the current inplace hack? At the moment, it's

whomever

loads first gets their tags set, and the rest are left out to dry. I

should

probably also mention that tags are overwriting other tags at the moment

if

there's no room, which is of course gross.


No one can actually comply with this,
Kyle.


On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Fletcher Dunn <
fletch...@valvesoftware.com> wrote:


  Hello all,

This is a reminder to make sure that your properly advertises the
appropriate tags (e.g. respawntimes, norespawntime, friendly,

nodmgspread ,

nocrits, and increased_maxplayers), when the associated gameplay changes
are in effect.



If you are using a plugin to achieve these changes, the plugin should

set

the tag.



Your humble servant,

Fletch

___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
please visit:
https://list.valv

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

[Valentin G.]

What happens to servers that dynamically change their sv_visiblemaxplayers?
There are a bunch of servers that only advertise being a 24 slot server and
then slowly grow to 32 to exploit quickplay as long as possible.


On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Kyle Sanderson  wrote:

> Not in the least bit DWN, the data is gone. You can search the first couple
> tags, but once you blow the character limit (you know, from plugins, or the
> game itself), the last tags (depending on length here), usually just
> contain garbage from the previously set tags. The request, unfortunately,
> is still just noise unless if they do intend on fixing the problem.
>
> Thanks,
> Kyle.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:35 PM, DontWannaName!  >wrote:
>
> > Cut off from view or cut off from quickplay? Are truncated tags
> searchable?
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone 5
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:32 PM, "Doctor McKay" 
> > wrote:
> >
> > I second this. I just had an issue applying tags in a plugin due to the
> > truncation issue. At the present moment, it's not feasable for plugins to
> > force tags (such as respawntimes, friendlyfire, etc) since the tag might
> > end up getting cut off.
> >
> > Dr. McKay
> > http://www.doctormckay.com
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > *From:* Kyle Sanderson 
> > *To:* Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list<
> h...@list.valvesoftware.com>; Half-Life
> > dedicated Linux server mailing list 
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:29 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [hlds] Reminder about server tags
> >
> >  Unfortunately, I don't believe anything has changed since you requested
> > this last year Fletcher. I could be totally wrong, but the truncation
> issue
> > still exists (today, I checked). This is still, absolutely impossible to
> > achieve if you're a server owner. Valve has to either raise the character
> > limit, or move to another method of applying tags. I'd love to have all
> my
> > server tags show, but they're still getting cut off. I'm not really that
> > concerned with prioritizing tags to the front.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kyle.
> >
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: Kyle Sanderson 
> > Date: Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: [hlds] Plugins that modify game ruels should also set the
> tags
> > To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list <
> > h...@list.valvesoftware.com>, Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing
> > list 
> >
> >
> > Sorry for the previous email, I wasn't at home. The overflow seems to
> have
> > been worked around by hard limiting to 127 characters. Can this actually
> > get fixed instead of the current inplace hack? At the moment, it's
> whomever
> > loads first gets their tags set, and the rest are left out to dry. I
> should
> > probably also mention that tags are overwriting other tags at the moment
> if
> > there's no room, which is of course gross.
> >
> >
> > No one can actually comply with this,
> > Kyle.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Fletcher Dunn <
> > fletch...@valvesoftware.com> wrote:
> >
> >>  Hello all,
> >>
> >> This is a reminder to make sure that your properly advertises the
> >> appropriate tags (e.g. respawntimes, norespawntime, friendly,
> nodmgspread ,
> >> nocrits, and increased_maxplayers), when the associated gameplay changes
> >> are in effect.
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> If you are using a plugin to achieve these changes, the plugin should
> set
> >> the tag.
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> Your humble servant,
> >>
> >> Fletch
> >>
> >> ___
> >> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> >> please visit:
> >> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds
> >>
> >>
> >  --
> >
> > ___
> > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> > please visit:
> > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds
> >
> > ___
> > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> > please visit:
> > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds
> >
> >
> > ___
> > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> > please visit:
> > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds
> >
> >
> ___
> 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

[Kyle Sanderson]

Not in the least bit DWN, the data is gone. You can search the first couple
tags, but once you blow the character limit (you know, from plugins, or the
game itself), the last tags (depending on length here), usually just
contain garbage from the previously set tags. The request, unfortunately,
is still just noise unless if they do intend on fixing the problem.

Thanks,
Kyle.


On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:35 PM, DontWannaName! wrote:

> Cut off from view or cut off from quickplay? Are truncated tags searchable?
>
> Sent from my iPhone 5
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:32 PM, "Doctor McKay" 
> wrote:
>
> I second this. I just had an issue applying tags in a plugin due to the
> truncation issue. At the present moment, it's not feasable for plugins to
> force tags (such as respawntimes, friendlyfire, etc) since the tag might
> end up getting cut off.
>
> Dr. McKay
> http://www.doctormckay.com
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Kyle Sanderson 
> *To:* Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing 
> list; Half-Life
> dedicated Linux server mailing list 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:29 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [hlds] Reminder about server tags
>
>  Unfortunately, I don't believe anything has changed since you requested
> this last year Fletcher. I could be totally wrong, but the truncation issue
> still exists (today, I checked). This is still, absolutely impossible to
> achieve if you're a server owner. Valve has to either raise the character
> limit, or move to another method of applying tags. I'd love to have all my
> server tags show, but they're still getting cut off. I'm not really that
> concerned with prioritizing tags to the front.
>
> Thanks,
> Kyle.
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Kyle Sanderson 
> Date: Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [hlds] Plugins that modify game ruels should also set the tags
> To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list <
> h...@list.valvesoftware.com>, Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing
> list 
>
>
> Sorry for the previous email, I wasn't at home. The overflow seems to have
> been worked around by hard limiting to 127 characters. Can this actually
> get fixed instead of the current inplace hack? At the moment, it's whomever
> loads first gets their tags set, and the rest are left out to dry. I should
> probably also mention that tags are overwriting other tags at the moment if
> there's no room, which is of course gross.
>
>
> No one can actually comply with this,
> Kyle.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Fletcher Dunn <
> fletch...@valvesoftware.com> wrote:
>
>>  Hello all,
>>
>> This is a reminder to make sure that your properly advertises the
>> appropriate tags (e.g. respawntimes, norespawntime, friendly, nodmgspread ,
>> nocrits, and increased_maxplayers), when the associated gameplay changes
>> are in effect.
>>
>> 
>>
>> If you are using a plugin to achieve these changes, the plugin should set
>> the tag.
>>
>> 
>>
>> Your humble servant,
>>
>> Fletch
>>
>> ___
>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
>> please visit:
>> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds
>>
>>
>  --
>
> ___
> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> please visit:
> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds
>
> ___
> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> please visit:
> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds
>
>
> ___
> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> please visit:
> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds
>
>
___
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

[DontWannaName!]

I doubt that he is talking specifically about you.

I just checked the list myself and clearly saw multiple servers with very
few tags still missing the required tags as per their settings.

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Kyle Sanderson  wrote:

> Unfortunately, I don't believe anything has changed since you requested
> this last year Fletcher. I could be totally wrong, but the truncation issue
> still exists (today, I checked). This is still, absolutely impossible to
> achieve if you're a server owner. Valve has to either raise the character
> limit, or move to another method of applying tags. I'd love to have all my
> server tags show, but they're still getting cut off. I'm not really that
> concerned with prioritizing tags to the front.
>
> Thanks,
> Kyle.
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Kyle Sanderson 
> Date: Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [hlds] Plugins that modify game ruels should also set the tags
> To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list <
> h...@list.valvesoftware.com>, Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing
> list
> 
>
>
> Sorry for the previous email, I wasn't at home. The overflow seems to have
> been worked around by hard limiting to 127 characters. Can this actually
> get fixed instead of the current inplace hack? At the moment, it's whomever
> loads first gets their tags set, and the rest are left out to dry. I should
> probably also mention that tags are overwriting other tags at the moment if
> there's no room, which is of course gross.
>
>
> No one can actually comply with this,
> Kyle.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Fletcher Dunn
> wrote:
>
> >  Hello all,
> >
> > This is a reminder to make sure that your properly advertises the
> > appropriate tags (e.g. respawntimes, norespawntime, friendly,
> nodmgspread ,
> > nocrits, and increased_maxplayers), when the associated gameplay changes
> > are in effect.
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > If you are using a plugin to achieve these changes, the plugin should set
> > the tag.
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Your humble servant,
> >
> > Fletch
> >
> > ___
> > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> > please visit:
> > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds
> >
> >
> ___
> 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

[Kyle Sanderson]

Unfortunately, I don't believe anything has changed since you requested
this last year Fletcher. I could be totally wrong, but the truncation issue
still exists (today, I checked). This is still, absolutely impossible to
achieve if you're a server owner. Valve has to either raise the character
limit, or move to another method of applying tags. I'd love to have all my
server tags show, but they're still getting cut off. I'm not really that
concerned with prioritizing tags to the front.

Thanks,
Kyle.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Kyle Sanderson 
Date: Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds] Plugins that modify game ruels should also set the tags
To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list <
h...@list.valvesoftware.com>, Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list



Sorry for the previous email, I wasn't at home. The overflow seems to have
been worked around by hard limiting to 127 characters. Can this actually
get fixed instead of the current inplace hack? At the moment, it's whomever
loads first gets their tags set, and the rest are left out to dry. I should
probably also mention that tags are overwriting other tags at the moment if
there's no room, which is of course gross.


No one can actually comply with this,
Kyle.


On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Fletcher Dunn
wrote:

>  Hello all,
>
> This is a reminder to make sure that your properly advertises the
> appropriate tags (e.g. respawntimes, norespawntime, friendly, nodmgspread ,
> nocrits, and increased_maxplayers), when the associated gameplay changes
> are in effect.
>
> ** **
>
> If you are using a plugin to achieve these changes, the plugin should set
> the tag.
>
> ** **
>
> Your humble servant,
>
> Fletch
>
> ___
> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> please visit:
> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds
>
>
___
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

[Nicholas Hastings]

If anyone sees any plugins on the AlliedModders SourceMod forum that is 
advertised to work on TF2, makes one or more of these changes, and 
doesn't automatically set the appropriate tag, then please use the 
report button on the first post of the thread so that the plugin can be 
marked as Unapproved.


We don't want any server ops running something that will unintentionally 
get their server blacklisted.


--
Nicholas Hastings
AlliedMods.net 


Fletcher Dunn 
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:42 PM

Hello all,

This is a reminder to make sure that your properly advertises the 
appropriate tags (e.g. respawntimes, norespawntime, friendly, 
nodmgspread , nocrits, and increased_maxplayers), when the associated 
gameplay changes are in effect.


If you are using a plugin to achieve these changes, the plugin should 
set the tag.


Your humble servant,

Fletch

___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, 
please visit:

https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds

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