OK, this spectator limiting nonsense again. I thought I tried to explain the last time how it is a bad idea but let's try again.
Remember about 6 months ago about the same group of people tried it:
FabriceFABS, 29 Oct 2011 wrote:To this, I added 7 max specs on each host instead of 12.
This is enough.
I encourage all other autohosts owners to do the same.
very_bad_soldier, 29 Oct 2011 wrote:I did that too some days ago at x-host... 8 specs though.
dansan, 29 Oct 2011 wrote:
Thank you Fabrice and vbs for trying out different settings, and reporting relevant information here. Some knowledge through empiric research could really help this discussion (analysis?).
@muckl - could you also try lowering the specs-limit (not the player-limit) of the TERRA servers for a week or so? If we could convince the admin of Galdos to also do that (at the same time), we could finally gather some information if spec-limit is relevant to player-host-distribution or not.
--> One "BA-dying-theory" proved right/wrong --> community can move on --> use its time to improve other things --> community has worked together for a common goal --> good community
muckl, 29 Oct 2011 wrote:i changed maxspec to 10 on both hosts
Did anyone check how it succeeded? Luckily there are player stats which update hourly so the checking is easier than easy.
23.04.2011 Controversial new gameplay changes for BA
29.10.2011 Authost admins decided to limit spectator count
Looks like that the spectator community took a huge hit but next to none influence on player count at least no upwards. Also this and some other graphs could succest that the downhill of BA was just to an end a month before this spectator limiting took effect so the limiting might have introduced a new downhill for BA?
There was also a few high newb influx spikes at the winter (engine updates?) but either they joined ZK or mostly left. Probably because the noobs can't even spectate they are more likely to quit when get kicked by speclimit. Looking the TERA host logs reveals there are over 2000 player kicks by a spectator limit. Why not just lock the host when it is full, instead of kick?
Other ways of figuring out what this spectator limiting and kicking affects are, would be just to ask people. Sending a PM to about 100 BA players would take only maybe 5 minutes and collecting the answers a hour later maybe 10 minutes. But of course it is more funny to just invent rules to control how people should enjoy their game.
FabriceFABS wrote:Time to apply changes and see how it reacts.More action and less thinking !
So this spec limiting was meant to solve many problems? Increase player count, faster game starting, "forcing specs to play" etc.? Is there any factual proof that any of that happend and not just alienating a certain spectator group? I don't think so, there seems to be still the same 1-3 big battles and even the FFA is gone.
I think BA is very enjoyable "spectator sport" even without an active competitive scene and it should not be limited ever!
I am not saying all changes are necessarily horribly bad, still forcing people by your rules is nearly always bad IMO. Well as dead BA is, 3 autohost owners and their man love gangs are actually big amount of the playerbase so it's not that bad to make rules for themselves but don't forget the new players or casual players either.
What might been happening here is that often dying communities effectively kill themselves by wondering something is wrong and rather than fixing the real problems they make up new problems with badly panicked changes. It is intriguing to try easy brainless fixes, when fixing the real problems is still a hard work.
IMO other easy fixes which would have been a lot better:
-make the map rotation after 3 in a row with same map
-only good maps in map rotation (there are only couple of good BA maps around)
-ban cheaters and griefers (there have been huge lack of effectivity for banning the harmful players, probably the most usual reason for a ban was insulting a moderator/admin)
-don't let experienced players rage against new players too much
There are positively revarding ways to control how people play and what games they join, limiting and controlling is a negative way of achieving things. Still the problems of dimishing playerbase is probably elsewhere and autohost owners won't do much about it.
muckl wrote:so for me its OK as long as all other important most played autohosts (BA) follow the rule.
In many other games admins unite too, though their first goal is not to make 'rules' for other hosts and all players like here, but to have united banning policies for abuse and shared ban databases.
The other TERA rules looks perfect though.
The other recently hasty change to control how people should enjoy their BA is removing DSD from most popular autohosts. Well most experienced players hate DSD but most casual and new players like it and what is not to like: all tech levels in use, the game duration is ok and the strategies are straightforward.
IMO removing DSD is very bad, it just moves the casual BA DSD style game to other map and kills FFA when players who dislike DSD gameplay are tricked to the fake BADSD in other map.