Why did they do it and why can't it be turned off?

We don't want the one big room that everyone can join for multiplayer to exclude new or low skill players. It's highly likely that if a teams room hosted by a player has more than 8 players, it will be more dominant than teams all welcome, essentially removing the ability to play by arbitrary decisions of whoever has boss powers.

quote: the result will be that everyone who isnt fulfilling the requirments will be kicked

Emulating a rating/rank limit, in the main active teams room, by kicking everybody who does not meet that limit is modactionable and has been modactioned in the past.

quote: also how is "arbitary" a fitting description

The room boss could tune the rating/rank limits as the room changes to have fairly fine control over who they include and exclude. Sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

quote: you cant create a room to play how you want?

You can create a small teams room to play how you want. Since it is typically only viable to have one large teams room running at any one time (and it is not unlikely to be the only PvP option available) the moderators insist that it remain open to new players.

quote: How will it be the dominant room if only 5-10% of the player base even qualify to be in it

The rating/rank limits do not have to be set in such a way.

I am not going to go so far as to say that "nothing you say will change admin policy on this topic". But I think you would have to convince us that current admin policy was failing to meet our objectives. The rules exist because we observed bad behaviour and had to make up rules to prevent it, so do not expect the convincing to be easy. Complaining about how much this policy annoys you personally is very unlikely to move the needle. It certainly did not do so the last N times this conversation was had.

The above having been said, we do run the Platinum/Palladium room sometimes as an autohost, and I would be open to changing its configuration on request. It seems to work better when somebody is organising a specific time for people to show up, and that has not been done recently. Somebody could step up again for this. I am not awake at peak activity hours so it is not going to be me.

quote: he specifically said "my room" not big teams room

It is entirely possible for a player-hosted room to be the "big teams room".

And yes, if it indeed happens to be the active big teams room, the admins have expectations about how the room host will use that power, and will enforce those expectations. Again, because this power was misused in the past to the detriment of the community.

quote: Complaining about how much this policy annoys you personally is very unlikely to move the needle. It certainly did not do so the last N times this conversation was had.

Playing a 4v4, or making a passworded room, are both available options in that scenario. Or, organise a time and ask for the rating-limited autohost to be set up.

No 5v5 or higher allowed if above a certain rating, is this REALY your statement?

aioeieoiao

Sadly we have that conflict for as long as I am here, and so far noone found a solution that would make both parties (low and high ranked players) happy. I totally understand why one would want to have personal elo-restricted rooms - I have essentially made the same thread a few years ago - but the playerbase is so small that it simply is not possible without harm for zk as a whole, as stupid as that sounds. Anyway, if you have a good idea how both sides could be equally satisfied, don`t hesitate to share it. We really need it.



Aquanim

quote: But I think you would have to convince us that current admin policy was failing to meet our objectives.

If at least one of your objectives is to create a community with good climate, then this:

quote: Complaining about how much this policy annoys you personally is very unlikely to move the needle.

is definitely not helpful. Why? Because you are saying: "We value other people a lot more than you."

quote: It certainly did not do so the last N times this conversation was had.

Maybe we have this conversation at least once a year because the topic is actually important for many people. And it is not the same people every time. aioeieoiao is what I would consider a "new old player" that had virtually no engagement with the forum so far.

I don`t say that you have to give in. I want to say that it would be in your own interest to sound less disparaging to community members that afaik have no history of bad behaviour. (And to be clear, if the initial comment was somthing like "WTF nazi-admins on it again" the situation would be massively different.) Because honestly, I understand the problem and want to support your agenda, but reading this is really infuriating. As a third party that considers themselves as allied with you!

We have enough drama-threads initiated by trolls already, we don`t need additional ones that one could potentially prevent with a bit more empathic communication.

Thank you.

quote: I do not think I said that and I certainly did not intend to say that.

Just to explain how I get to that meaning:
"Complaining about how much this policy annoys you personally is very unlikely to move the needle." but "New players complaining about how annoying it is to not be able to play" is certainly something you (Admins as a whole) care about. Again, for good reason.

quote: Unless you interpret that phrase as "We value any one person a lot less than the entire rest of the community" which seems like a fairly pointless statement.

Indeed. But it´s not like this would be a single person. We are at least 7 in this thread, and if you factor in the N-times of previous discussions we have had on the topic, there seem to be a lot more.

Anyway, I have said what I wanted and will refrain from this thread, you know the rest of my stance on the topic as I have written it already more times than I bothered to count.

Absolutely, which is why I agree with your policy as long as the situation remains as it is now.

Really my main point was: "It would help if this policy would be communicated in a way that is less, well, aggressive."

Note: I generally assume my friends don't count towards the "min players for this to be the big teams room" limit. e.g. If I have 6 of my friends and two random players in a room it's still "my" room and I can do what I wish with regards to rules (e.g. turn it into an FFA, make it chickens, exclude players for arbitrary reasons like wanting only 9 players total) and only once there are at least 4 random players do the "this is now the property of the community" rules start kicking in.

Let me know is this is incorrect.

quote: Do you think it would be feasible to show to players only rooms they satisfy the ELO limit

People can still spectate a game they are not eligible to play in. So I would prefer not to do this. Also...

quote: do you think that would solve the issues described here

I do not think "newbies think the game is dead, so they leave" is much of an improvement on "newbies see the veterans are deliberately excluding them, so they leave".

quote: my friends don't count towards the "min players for this to be the big teams room" limit

I think this has more to do with what else is going on in the server. If there is some 24 player game going on elsewhere then you can do more than if your room is the only thing going.

If you are running a game for mostly you and your friends, we would much prefer you arbitrarily include people with a password rather than arbitrarily exclude people.

quote: turn it into an FFA, make it chickens

I don't think there is an explicit rule against this even if you are running the "main room". I don't see a concrete need for one since if most of the players in your room are there to play teams this is a problem that will fix itself. I could be wrong.