| 1 |
@katastrophe I think I have to address some meta-level things, given how frequently this conversation has repeated itself.
|
1 |
@katastrophe I think I have to address some meta-level things, given how frequently this conversation has repeated itself.
|
| 2 |
[q]If the position of the admin-team towards the way clusterfucks are regulated is completely unquestionable (unquestionable things being problematic in general imho, but anyway), then be it so.[/q]
|
2 |
[q]If the position of the admin-team towards the way clusterfucks are regulated is completely unquestionable (unquestionable things being problematic in general imho, but anyway), then be it so.[/q]
|
| 3 |
Here you fail to draw the distinction between "unquestionable" and merely having received a disagreeable answer. The regulation of the big teams rooms has been questioned, answered, and even experimented with on multiple occasions. You keep asking the same question and receiving essentially the same answer. Asking again isn't going to change the answer unless someone comes up with new ideas or the situation changes significantly.
|
3 |
Here you fail to draw the distinction between "unquestionable" and merely having received a disagreeable answer. The regulation of the big teams rooms has been questioned, answered, and even experimented with on multiple occasions. You keep asking the same question and receiving essentially the same answer. Asking again isn't going to change the answer unless someone comes up with new ideas or the situation changes significantly.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
Setting up the "other side" as being unquestionable is a very bad way to start a conversation with that "other side".
|
5 |
Setting up the "other side" as being unquestionable is a very bad way to start a conversation with that "other side".
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
The answer to your question is the combination of a few simple facts:
|
7 |
The answer to your question is the combination of a few simple facts:
|
| 8 |
* Being welcoming for new players is a necessary condition of the ongoing health of the multiplayer community.
|
8 |
* Being welcoming for new players is a necessary condition of the ongoing health of the multiplayer community.
|
| 9 |
* Not having any public games available to join and play is unwelcoming. Being able to see an active game but being excluded from playing it is particularly unwelcoming.
|
9 |
* Not having any public games available to join and play is unwelcoming. Being able to see an active game but being excluded from playing it is particularly unwelcoming.
|
| 10 |
* Enough people dislike high skill variance in games to make them choose to play in an elo-restricted room rather than an All Welcome room.
|
10 |
* Enough people dislike high skill variance in games to make them choose to play in an elo-restricted room rather than an All Welcome room.
|
| 11 |
* The playerbase during a not-insignificant amount of the day is only large enough to support a single large team room.
|
11 |
* The playerbase during a not-insignificant amount of the day is only large enough to support a single large team room.
|
| 12 |
* Seeding new rooms is risky and difficult, to the extent that people often end up spectating a game they cannot play rather than go create a game that they can play.
|
12 |
* Seeding new rooms is risky and difficult, to the extent that people often end up spectating a game they cannot play rather than go create a game that they can play.
|
| 13 |
The conclusion from all these facts is that a permanent elo-restricted large teams host would result in the destruction of the community. It wouldn't be swift or noticable at the time, but after a few years we'd look at a shrinking community, wonder why all the new players dried up, and then realise that no new players came in because it was too difficult for them to play a public game.
|
13 |
The conclusion from all these facts is that a permanent elo-restricted large teams host would result in the destruction of the community. It wouldn't be swift or noticable at the time, but after a few years we'd look at a shrinking community, wonder why all the new players dried up, and then realise that no new players came in because it was too difficult for them to play a public game.
|
| 14 |
\n
|
14 |
\n
|
| 15 |
In short, this
|
15 |
In short, this
|
| 16 |
[q]Thats why i suggested having the paladium more often. This would basically leave the AWH untouched and at least offer us some more posibilities to have satisfying games. [/q]
|
16 |
[q]Thats why i suggested having the paladium more often. This would basically leave the AWH untouched and at least offer us some more posibilities to have satisfying games. [/q]
|
| 17 |
is plain false. The All Welcome room would obviously be impacted by the creation of an exclusive room because the two rooms would compete for players.
|
17 |
is plain false. The All Welcome room would obviously be impacted by the creation of an exclusive room because the two rooms would compete for players.
|
| 18 |
\n
|
18 |
\n
|
| 19 |
Before you pick apart the minutiae of the five facts I presented, the facts are not making black-and-white claims. I'm not saying that seeding a room is impossible or that the high-elo room would invariably be the only room available. The facts are all merely factors that make it a bit harder for new players to enter the multiplayer community. If you make it hard enough for people to enter a community then the community dies. Look at how many of the currently active players joined within the last year and halve that number.
|
19 |
Before you pick apart the minutiae of the five facts I presented, the facts are not making black-and-white claims. I'm not saying that seeding a room is impossible or that the high-elo room would invariably be the only room available. The facts are all merely factors that make it a bit harder for new players to enter the multiplayer community. If you make it hard enough for people to enter a community then the community dies. Look at how many of the currently active players joined within the last year and halve that number.
|
| 20 |
\n
|
20 |
\n
|
| 21 |
@katastrophe it is all a matter of tradeoffs. Your repeated posts of this nature certainly tell us that this is something at least a few people care about, but it doesn't tell us how many people care about it and to what extent. There isn't much data with which to make this tradeoff. The thread by @Manu12 is a bit better but isn't much data because, while most people would agree that having more strategies and less skill variance in games would make the games more fun,
|
21 |
@katastrophe it is all a matter of tradeoffs. Your repeated posts of this nature certainly tell us that this is something at least a few people care about, but it doesn't tell us how many people care about it and to what extent. There isn't much data with which to make this tradeoff. The thread by @Manu12 is a bit better but isn't much data because, while most people would agree that having more strategies and less skill variance in games would make the games more fun,
|
| 22 |
* people don't say (and are probably bad at judging) how much they value this improvement,
|
22 |
* people don't say (and are probably bad at judging) how much they value this improvement,
|
| 23 |
* the forums is likely a vocal minority that doesn't accurately map to who plays games,
|
23 |
* the forums is likely a vocal minority that doesn't accurately map to who plays games,
|
| 24 |
* people who talk on the forum wouldn't necessarily start playing low-variance large team games, and
|
24 |
* people who talk on the forum wouldn't necessarily start playing low-variance large team games, and
|
| 25 |
* the thread was about meta and balance too, not just skill variation.
|
25 |
* the thread was about meta and balance too, not just skill variation.
|
| 26 |
It is also hard to judge how often a bad situation comes about from skill variation, and there could be other social or mechanical solutions to these bad situations that don't involve room management.
|
26 |
It is also hard to judge how often a bad situation comes about from skill variation, and there could be other social or mechanical solutions to these bad situations that don't involve room management.
|
| 27 |
\n
|
27 |
\n
|
| 28 |
To hold more fruitful conversation on this topic you will need to:
|
28 |
To hold more fruitful conversation on this topic you will need to:
|
| 29 |
* Propose solutions from the perspective of realising that your desires are just one of many sets of competing desires. Simply stating "here are my desires and how to fulfill them" is redundant I know your desires and don't disagree that your proposals would satisfy them (at least temporarily until the proposal kills the community). A tradeoff must be found.
|
29 |
* Propose solutions from the perspective of realising that your desires are just one of many sets of competing desires. Simply stating "here are my desires and how to fulfill them" is redundant I know your desires and don't disagree that your proposals would satisfy them (at least temporarily until the proposal kills the community). A tradeoff must be found.
|
| 30 |
* Acknowledge and address the five facts above. Find solutions in reference to those facts.
|
30 |
* Acknowledge and address the five facts above. Find solutions in reference to those facts.
|
| 31 |
*
While
not
necessarily
required,
it
would
be
useful
to
gather
convincingly
impartial
information
that
can
be
used
to
gauge
the
magnitude
of
the
tradeoffs.
How
many
established
players
are
significantly
negatively
affected
by
the
current
system?
Would
a
proposal
fix
their
problem,
or
was
their
problem
an
unbeknownst
proxy
for
a
deeper
problem?
What
does
player
influx
and
retention
look
like
at
the
moment?
|
31 |
*
While
not
necessarily
required,
it
would
be
useful
to
gather
convincingly
impartial
information
that
can
be
used
to
gauge
the
magnitude
of
the
tradeoffs.
How
many
established
players
are
significantly
negatively
affected
by
the
current
system?
Would
a
proposal
fix
their
problem,
or
was
their
problem
an
unconcious
proxy
for
a
deeper
problem?
What
does
player
influx
and
retention
look
like
at
the
moment?
|
| 32 |
\n
|
32 |
\n
|
| 33 |
On your reference to the previous thread:
|
33 |
On your reference to the previous thread:
|
| 34 |
* If you want to claim that moderation issues around "playing badly" are common then cite examples that are actually relevant.
|
34 |
* If you want to claim that moderation issues around "playing badly" are common then cite examples that are actually relevant.
|
| 35 |
* It is ridiculous to expect @Lu5ck to be paying attention to who started what between @czesio and @patrician.
|
35 |
* It is ridiculous to expect @Lu5ck to be paying attention to who started what between @czesio and @patrician.
|
| 36 |
* @czesio has "high elo" so you're not going to be excluding him from a "high elo" host.
|
36 |
* @czesio has "high elo" so you're not going to be excluding him from a "high elo" host.
|
Further escalation of the clusterfuck-tensions