Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

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

26 posts, 836 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (26 records)
sort

10 months ago
When I sent the /minrank command, I get this notification:
Nightwatch Warning: This command will have no effect if there are more than 8 players in the room!

I want to keep this rule (/minrank /minelo) in my room even when there are more than 8 players
+7 / -0

10 months ago
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.
+5 / -0
10 months ago
I disagree with that decision, the result will be that everyone who isnt fulfilling the requirments will be kicked, which surely isnt a better player experience, also how is "arbitary" a fitting description ? you cant create a room to play how you want?
How will it be the dominant room if only 5-10% of the player base even qualify to be in it
+2 / -0
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.
+0 / -0
10 months ago
he specifically said "my room" not big teams room
+2 / -0
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.
+0 / -0
10 months ago
If i have an 5v5+ room with the title "5v5+ 2.2k+" this alone is already bannable cause it implies enforcement.

In theory, if we are 11 people in the room 10 2.2k + and one lowrated guy and the player is in the player list me speccing that person in favor to play a full 2.2k 5v5 (you know the single reason this custom room got even created, the reason all 10 players are even in there) in favor of a balanced match up where you dont need to spend a significant amount of time to explain to people what a grid is (this is just an example), then by your rules* this would be bannable.

Im one of the people who defends bad players in all welcome because its is pretty clear what is is "all welcome" no exceptions.

I cant play the game in my own created room cause people cant read? i am forced to play with players that i dont want to in. my. own. room. ? cause i created a room that is beloved and gets filled BECAUSE of the enforcement not in spite of it and get punished for it?

I understand that this is a specific example on the borders of what you said, but if it comes down to it, it is correct


Surely that cant be it

+1 / -0
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.
+0 / -0
10 months ago
The problem is "people cant read" might/will just leave the game if the largest room will kick them.

Yes, in this case the wishes of experienced players that organize large rooms are considered less important than attracting/keeping lower ranked players.

It's not like you don't have any options, for example you can advertise a passworded room in chat like "if you are above 2200 join room X with password "c00l". Experienced players generally know how to read :-p.

OR

You could ask (or even better, implement) for the ELO restriction to influence if people even see the rooms (in fact, if a room has an ELO limit I find it bad that I even see it in my list - yes I could spec it, but most of the times is annoying to join/be kicked etc.).

+0 / -0
10 months ago
No 5v5 or higher allowed if above a certain rating, is this REALY your statement?
+0 / -1
Did I stutter?

Again. There are workarounds. Passworded rooms. Platinum. Settling for 4v4. There is some !proposebattle thing I forget the details of.

And to be clear, if somebody wants Palladium or whatever up for a weekend it is not difficult to convince me to do that. Just give me some reason to think it's gonna get used. I'll do it right now for this weekend just because.
+1 / -0
unknownrankaioeieoiao

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.



AUrankAdminAquanim

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. unknownrankaioeieoiao 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.

+1 / -0
quote:
Because you are saying: "We value other people a lot more than you."

I do not think I said that and I certainly did not intend to say that.
(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.)

I just want to be very clear about what it would take to shift this particular admin policy.

Wasting a bunch of other people's time by leading them on in the belief that they might be getting somewhere seems to me to be much more disrespectful than laying out in the first place that this is going to be a very difficult position to move.
+1 / -0
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.
+0 / -0
quote:
"New players complaining about how annoying it is to not be able to play"

Part of the problem is that this, by and large, probably wouldn't happen. They would just go away.

And to be clear, it's not that we don't listen to the complaints from high rated players who want to play high rated games. The admins aren't willing to just completely unlock the rating limit tool, but other things have been done. AUrankAdminGoogleFrog has tried some technical solutions like !proposebattle and I set up Palladium regularly for months when Manu was organizing games.
[Spoiler]

To put it another way, the admins are not inherently opposed to the concept of playing moderate-sized high-rating-only games. We are opposed to setting up the rules of the server such that the natural flow of "individual players moving to the room that is most fun for them" is going to lead, a significant fraction of the time, to there being no reasonable game for a newbie to play in. That natural flow is very hard to fight, as evidenced by the long list of failures to modify the monotonous one room culture.
+2 / -0

10 months ago
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."
+1 / -0
10 months ago
Do you think it would be feasible to show to players only rooms they satisfy the ELO limit (maybe with some hidden settings like "show all rooms") and do you think that would solve the issues described here (as newbies will not even be aware of the existence of the rooms)?
+4 / -0


10 months ago
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.
+0 / -0

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

I'll be interested to hear the time-tested admin perspective on that.

The only drawback I see is that its a bit unfortunate when the lobpot is deprived of experienced players.

BTW the "all welcome" games ought to sort to the top of the list.
+0 / -0
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.
+1 / -0
Page of 2 (26 records)