Spring RTS Engine

luckywaldo7 wrote:You guys are asking the admins to deny the rights of people to freely host autohosts to fit your agenda of changing the game to match your definition of fun.

I hate 16+ games myself but I don't think 16+ autohosts should be banned just because they don't fit my tastes.

On the other hand, I might not care to stop you guys if this is limited to BA autohosts, because it would be hilarious to see the remaining players flock to 16+ Tech Annihilation hosts.

I never asked that. Read again please.

That does not answer the quesiton about admins. Who has the answer ?

Server admins is not to be confused with people running autohosts.
I think server admins are:
Licho (since he pays for it? http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20690)
det
aegis
But that is totally guessing.

What could realistically be done, is alter game_initial_spawn.lua to spawn no more than 10 or 16 commanders.
Extra players have their commander explode could be made to comshare.
Though that will need a new engine release (to break something so a game version is needed) or autohost owners will not simply not update and keep the current BA version.
Not that it matters, the next day there would be a new autohost by some asshole:
BADSD24/7 - **modlink:www.bla/BA_fixed_player_numbers.sdz** 32+
and everybody will join it.
Thats why we cant have nice things.

Hi, im new. i didnt read the last line in the disclaimer telling me not to join ba dsd games, because i would get insulted there.

Surely i should have read the forum before starting a game. Any other game on the market demands the very same of you.

I doubt you can persuade any real admin with your crying about DSD, but let it be clear that if you manage to limit or block BA DSD or any other mod/map, I'll DOS your shit(*).


(*) your hosts

albator wrote:I never asked that. Read again please.

I wasn't talking about your proposal, I was talking about dansan's.

Your proposal is along the same lines though...

albator wrote: imposing to every single autohost to set both an inferior and superior rank limit

albator wrote:Otherwise they are just banned.

You propose to impose your rules or be banned.

gonpost wrote:And agenda? That's a politically loaded word which honestly should be fine to use. Our agenda is to save BA or at least boost its number of players back up. That's our agenda.

Well, all the proposals here seem to involve control of autohosts.

Maybe player count is declining because there is no BA website, no publicity, no installer, and newbies have a horrible first experience. It's natural for old players to eventually get tired and move on, and to an extent there is nothing you can do about it. If you have fewer players coming in than you have leaving then you will have net loss of players.

Well, all the proposals here seem to involve control of autohosts.

Yes, and that is unrealistic. So with next BA or BAR, alter the lua to spawn no more than 10 commanders.
(number chosen by science)

you are cutting it close there knorke..
what if there would be a ninefingered scientist after a lab accident?
Would you publish that proof that the number 10 is more then a fingerSum?

luckywaldo7 wrote:

albator wrote:I never asked that. Read again please.

I wasn't talking about your proposal, I was talking about dansan's.

Your proposal is along the same lines though...

albator wrote: imposing to every single autohost to set both an inferior and superior rank limit

albator wrote:Otherwise they are just banned.

You propose to impose your rules or be banned.

No, I propose to discuss about rules about lot of poeple here agree (except the ones who want BA dead to get more poeple play on OK: easy to rekonize, they hang out in BA forum, never play BA and bring no constructive comments) and exclusively on a limited category of autohost.

+1 albator

It is so clear that some ppl just don't want help BA. If you are not interested in make changes and progress don't make non-constructive comments.

sillynanny wrote:I doubt you can persuade any real admin with your crying about DSD, but let it be clear that if you manage to limit or block BA DSD or any other mod/map, I'll DOS your shit(*).


(*) your hosts

Come on, can't you read the thread before post?
We ARE NOT talking about block BADSD. Where did you read we want to block a map/mod?!

marciolino wrote:It is so clear that some ppl just don't want help BA. If you are not interested in make changes and progress don't make non-constructive comments.

just saying, constructing comments are not really all that helpful either, what BA needs is players working to help it with action, either making installers, sites, forums, widgets, whatever.

Just saying, a good action comes from discussion to find an agreement. BA needs actions I completly agree, but BA also need to get rid of ppl who just want BA dead.

In addition if we can't convince admins to take some actions which the BA community agrees to, that means we need to change admins.

The only thing I really want dead is the old elitist playerbase, who is afraid of change, who doesn't want to see the crappy old models remade because of 'nostalgia', whose highest ambition is to bring back the 'glory days' of an inbreeding veteran playerbase, and who generally hold back BA from being what it could really be.

Fortunately most of them are gone already.

Seriously, there is a lot that can be done, BAR is coming and you will really need a new game name, faction renames, new logos, could really use a revamped interface, and lots of things besides I already mentioned.

I think those would be far more helpful than piddling around with this autohost nonsense.

marciolino wrote:Just saying, a good action comes from discussion to find an agreement.

Never happens with you lot.

marciolino wrote:BA needs actions I completely agree, but BA also need to get rid of ppl who just want BA dead.

There are very few people who want BA dead, most people who don't like it don't really get effected by it.

marciolino wrote:In addition if we can't convince admins to take some actions which the BA community agrees to, that means we need to change admins.

forcing people to play that way YOU want is heavy handed and very against the spirit of such an open community..

luckywaldo7 wrote: Seriously, there is a lot that can be done, BAR is coming and you will really need a new game name, faction renames, new logos, could really use a revamped interface, and lots of things besides I already mentioned.

I think those would be far more helpful than piddling around with this autohost nonsense.

I agree completely that there is a lot that can be done, but that doesn't means this conversation is nonsense. And if you are convinced of that just don't participate in this conversation, nobody will force you.

smoth wrote:Never happens with you lot.

Try next door please.

forcing people to play that way YOU want is heavy handed and very against the spirit of such an open community..

It is not the way "I" want, it seems that you just dont wanna help. The fact is:

albator wrote:... I propose to discuss about rules about lot of people here agree

Smoth and luckywaldo7, I really dont understand why you are trying so hard to demotivate changes?
- are you mainly playing BA?
- do you discuss with BA players to know what they think about the situation?
- what are your goals and motivation in this discussion?
- explain why the way autohosts are moderated now is the best way? And why they shouldn't change?

smoth wrote:

marciolino wrote:In addition if we can't convince admins to take some actions which the BA community agrees to, that means we need to change admins.

forcing people to play that way YOU want is heavy handed and very against the spirit of such an open community..

Nah - not true! It is totally normal in OSS communities to have non-trivial differences in which direction a project should develop. At some point a decision has to be made to not loose users or devs or both, and either a compromise/decision is found with which all can and must live or it's forked.

An open community is a community in which processes and decisions are made in a non-exclusive way.
The discussion in this forum is open in that way. The spring community is not (by far).

There, I fixed it.

marciolino wrote: 0) Smoth and luckywaldo7, I really dont understand why you are trying so hard to demotivate changes?
1) are you mainly playing BA?
2) do you discuss with BA players to know what they think about the situation?
3) what are your goals and motivation in this discussion?
4) explain why the way autohosts are moderated now is the best way? And why they shouldn't change?

Sup.

0) of the two of us marci I am the biggest proponent of changes.

1) I don't have to. Saying you play more BA than me and are thus more qualified to make observations about the community is silly. Almost like you don't want a conversation just yes to whatever you say.

2) all the time.

3) what are yours? what is anyones, you are not owed this answer.

4) what moderation? Best way, because in life there is always a best way and things are not grey. Why shouldn't they change, I don't know I wrote a whole thread on it, you are too lazy too look it up and too filled with self-entitlement(question 3) for me to want to give you a link.


Dan: except these discussions never go anywhere all sides state opinions no one budges and the people who can do the work(like myself) find the constant infighting and dickwagging demotivating

Not to mention, this isn't about BA at all, this is about autohosts, and what happens has the potential to affect every game that uses autohosts, namely, all of them.

If this was about game-side lua to limit to 10 commanders it would be very different.

game-side player limit is possible to make.
limiting the autohosts is appearently not possible because that has failed since 2+ years. Thus it is the only way.
(my patch also encourages expanding for more pro and less porc )