Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ugh, limited experience with App, but to be honest, its for the same reason their server is failing, and its the same reason its being driven into the ground currently.
Theres a lack of maturity, you don’t have to be Business Executive style mature to run a game server, but you do need a fair amount of maturity to A. Choose a good server setup, B. Tailor that setup to the servers needs and not your personal desires and C. Encourage community expansion.
Right now they’re in a tough situation. Yet supposedly they have harsher administration than WCU… theres a reason why the WCU Admins don’t come down on stupid little things that will sort themselves out, theres a reason why they don’t treat the rules like the 10 commandments or go off raving about “Article 9, sub paragraph 12 ii.vb 9, Passage Blockage Violation!!! Achtung!”. Frankly, its blatantly clear why.
If it takes a debate to know what a good server setup for your server is, then you obviously have a leadership problem. In the end you just open yourself up to conflicting suggestions and in the best case scenario an unhappy minority. Which does not encourage community expansion.
The key to community expasion is respect. Players who come to your server need to respect you and want to spend their important time in your company. Frankly the App forum and the visable lack of aforementioned maturity turn people like me away instantly.
Some people may not like people like me for posts like this one… but in the end its people like myself and others with similar demands and requirements who end up becoming server regulars. And its these people that make a server popular.
I think Xking is asking specifically for the ‘Box’ (in this case probably mobo and maybe case and possibly a card), not the entire rig. Because at 600 dollars you still wouldn’t come close to a real rig.
My below spec PC just cost 600 GPBs/1200 USDs. And thats without British VAT and at some of the lowest prices going at the time.
Quote:
“Oh and If I get personal, it is only when someone attacks Adam. Know that for future reference.” … “Urban didn’t come whining to me or Adam.”You ignore, then highlight the issue I described in my previous post. Its not admin abuse, its your friends above all, which when put into practice results in admin abuse. Its called, favouritism. And you act smart enough to know this.
You can’t hide dark deeds behind shiney intentions and ‘act’ the high and mighty when the original arguement is unfortunately initially flawed.
You’re obviously a keen person with a fairly good and expanding intellect, if you’d learned in this instance instead of acting based on your feelings you could’ve easily come back with a very valid arguement, and you probably still should. Unfortunately you’re pushing dramatics over logical and ethical outcomes.
People react badly to people who act badly. Language should be moderated some what to fall inline with Club and Campus standards. And, often people involved in this instance are the ones reminding people like me about this fact. But again, people react badly to people who act badly.
I’II conclude by saying that Clubs like these are a learning experience for all actively involved. This instance again is a learning experience, its not an instance to chastise the Club but to reinforce the message of the experience to further the Club and its main assets, which are those who respect it and those who run it. This is probably something that you’re trying to do, but the approach can be faulted this time round.
I’ve got limited literature to go on here, but this seems very similar to a situation I’ve seen reguarly over the past decade, thats happening far more frequently due to the change in the demographic of internet users.
You have an immature person. Someone with a level of maturity but a penchant for a certain type of attention. And a problem.
This thread is an awfully wordy battle over banning on behalf of one person who has, and will probably admit to atleast partially bringing it down on themselves.
There is no real boon/gain or loss to a ban from a forum like this. Especially when you still manage contact with the person in question. Its just a matter of (in third person) ‘my opinion on the situation benefits my social environment’.
Someone you want gets unbanned and you have your happy environment the way you personally like it.
The fact that your personal social environmental preference is accepting of a certain type of behaviour due to perhaps a fondness or feeling of maternal protection should have no bearing on rules or common desireable etiquette. It is the preference and purpose of the forum that are paramount.
A person who permits themselves to continue to perform actions that run counter to the well-being or interests of other members of the community for nothing more than defining their own character is a social problem to the community. It is unfortunate that the action to counter such activity is normally the revocation of privillages afforded to someone, but 24/7 moderation or individually baby sitting is not the purpose or role of the administration or the community at large.
This isn’t a, ‘play nice’ situation. This is pure forum moderation ethics. The administration may post to the extents we all do, but you can’t use those posts to argue motives when actions are pure proceedure.
There will always be that annoying ‘guy… or girl’ that makes you THINK. But fortunately, here atleast, there will always be administration, and we don’t have to suffer an imperfect world for the benefit of the few, the uncouth or those who refuse to think.
Whats the current timeframe for moving to Sourcemod? Is it just a matter of time depending on when access to the server box is regained? Or will it be awhile before we see these sort of changes?
Not important questions, but I’m just being overtly curious.
Just put in a delay on the player switch, so it makes the switch the second before the teams are reset, instead of at the exact moment the round is won.
The ignorant conjecture I was refering to was the fact that people keep coming back and saying that stacking is wrong. Everyone agrees, yet everyone demonizes a defence of DcPN. The fact of the matter is, they’re not stacking, and the majority of the issue arrised over night as one person retaliated against the Administration. Again no one is saying that was the right move.
None of this, is as you’re taking it, a personal attack on you or WCUGaming, but you have a public forum full of public opinion, if you take personal offense to mine, all you have to do is stop reading. Which, I did do until I was brought up.
The fact that you seem to insist on making this a personal matter is getting old. Now in the interest of politeness, feel free to reply and have the last word.
Whats the ETA on the next update? The way things stand right now, if its going to take a while to get major changes made it might be worth ripping the artificial logic out of the balancer and just leave it as an anti stacking device for the time being. Right now its consistently stacking the players with the highest K:D onto one team.
Sorry I would’ve corrected that comment myself, but frankly, explaining how something is wrong to be confronted by ignorant conjecture was just to hilarious and has dragged the whole issue back down to the depths of schoolyard politics.
The official stance is, the issue will not be resolved. Fair enough, I guess we’ll all have to make the most of the situation in game. As Liam already stated.
I would’ve just rather avoided needless confrontation and e-penis wielding while trying to play.
That’d be fun, having a top 5 capable player able to steal 10 points off everyone again. I can see that going down well.
As a suggestion.
After balancing team numbers….
How about making the Balancer total all kills on both teams, total all deaths on both teams, then subtract the Deaths from the Wins. And then make it check the difference between both teams Values at the end of the round, If the difference is greater than the 2/3rd of the number of players in the server it places the lowest scorer on the losing team onto the winning team then looks for the a player on the winning team with a score (Kills minus Deaths) that is greater than half the initial difference between the two team values + the number of kills of the person just switched from the losing team. This chosen person is then switched to the losing team.
If the team that lost the round has the higher Team Value, only balancing based on team sizes occurs.
Example .start
Team CT Wins the round.
Teams are balanced if necessary
Check if Winning team has a greater Team Value.
Team CT = 24Kills 12Deaths
Team T = 23kills 21Deaths
Team CT Value = 12
Team T Value = 2
Lowest scorer (2Kills) from Team T is switched to Team CT.
Difference in Team Values = 10
Divide by 2 = 5
Plus Switched players kills = 7
Is there a Player on Team CT with 7+ kills?
Look for CT player with kills = to 7? Increment till a player is found.
If no player is found with 7+ kills, Switch CT player with highest Kills to Team T.
.end
What Facist is showing has been the norm since the update you mentioned previously. I’ve seen very little balancing myself, though I have been switched a lot more, but normally only to even teams when someone else stacks and only when my score is low.
Over the past week I haven’t seen the Balancer move a high scoring player once. And on the occasions I’ve seen teams balanced on account of player numbers, I often only see the leading team being given the additional player.
I’ve tried to keep track of the balances made by the Team Balancer, but its been difficult because much more often than not no balancing takes place. This isn’t the case 100% of the time, as a few rounds I’ve played in have had a significant amount of players being moved, although its hard to say whether it Balanced teams or not (it could’ve all been down to one or a few players stacking, it didn’t seem to be down to the Balancer trying to balance out Win, Streak or Score variables etc).
I guess the issue of being blind to the issue is an issue that cannot be resolved.
But you will never truely resolve anything for a communal space by only seeing from one or a limited perspective. The sadest part is that there are two sides and both are pretty much reflections of each other, the rule just serves to benefit one group of people while making life harder on another when an Admin chooses to do so. The game isn’t perfect so I guess the rules don’t have to be either.
But frankly I don’t trust the loop-hole of allowing Admins to interfere with clans on a whim, as had been happening, which brought around the retaliation of as far as I know one individual, which then leads to arguements and strife and then the resolute impression that Admins now have totalitarian power when dealing with clans, specifically DcPN which represents a good sized portion of the active playing community.
Yes as you say, you can’t ban tags, nor can you moderate clans without tags, nor social circles which dominate and upset the team balances far more than clans have or will.
It’s WCUGs place to choose who they support. I guess according to this rule being used by some as an anti-clan device, I would be wrong to assume they support their public community as a whole or that they in one way support any part of it. Obviously according to what you say WCU Gaming supports its non-affiliated individuals which is most likely the servers minority, over their affiliated ones. And anyone in a clan will have to forgo their individual rights they were previously allowed, unless they’re sneaky and wear no tags or do not declare clan affiliation in which case stacking is fine. Because all too often its an Admins team that gets stacked, and not all admins are as good as Goat and the like.
Some Admins use loop-holes too. Some Admins like to “… don’t see …” when it benefits them and seemingly see more than anyone else when when things don’t go their way.
If Rules allow such things to happen, then they’re no longer rules, they’re just become officially recognized excuses.
Heh. Thanks. ^.^
Still though, the differing rule is just officiating the process of persecuting clan players, negatively effecting the server by forcing clans to play elsewhere and players who wish to join clans to look to other servers. Because it puts bias against clanners into play.
A less bias option would be to ban clan tags from the Server, but this would only serve as an example of how ridiculous clan persecution is and how non-enforceable it is.
You have admins and players a like shouting clan stacking when 2 clan members are on one team and 3 are on another because the rule allows them to do so. What are they, the clan players, to do? Leave their clan so that they’re not breaking a rule that eventually comes down to anger and spite fueled opinion?
When there are no admins, and often when there are, the Balancer is law. Then why when a clan plays on the server they can be automatically targeted and blamed for ‘breaking the server’ and forcing others not to play?
The rule is simply an aggresive and childish way to fight back, and causes the exact same problem is supposed to solve by forcing the clan side of the player base away from the server. If the original rule was enforced properly and hadn’t evolved to be a tool to lay blame none of this problem would exist.
Its night now, we should have good nights.
Wrong. “10. Team stacking will not be tolerated. Clans may be broken up by player.”
READ: MAY
NOT READ: Clan stack.
Thanks. You too.
I’ve seen some really poor balancing happen on occasion this morning. Half of it just confuses me but I’II try and explain incase someone can make sense of it. Here we go…
#1 The leading scorer on the winning team never swaps teams.
#2 The leading team have all positive K:D ratios the losing team have all negative K:D ratios and no balancing takes place.
#3 The lowest ranked player on the winning (utterly dominating) team with 0 kills and multiple deaths gets switched to the losing team to Balance when someone specs/leaves.
Its felt all morning like the balancer has been more concerned about team numbers, which is a valid issue, but the swaps it has and the swaps it hasn’t made have been allowing one team to dominate.
I played nuke earlier where my team was completely destroyed each round by constant strong rushes by a much more experienced team, towards the end of the game I was switched to the CT team when I was the leading T scorer and swapped out for a Mid ranked CT, the CT team then continued to dominate and I switched back to the T team to help even things out a couple of rounds later because I couldn’t stand hearing the constant calls of ‘Rape!’ from the CT side.
Through out all this the Balancer concentrated on keeping teams numbers fair, as often new comers stacked the winning team, but it allowed the CTs to have the extra man when one was available and also never moved either of the top two possibly three CT top scorers.
Also on a number of occasions over various maps the balancer would switch the losing teams top scorer to the winning team, instead of vice versa, which seemed a little like maybe an erroneous line in the code.
Quote:
it doesn’t matter to me but its the rules that were laid down, so I follow them.Just to clarify, the rules ARE NOT, to split up clans, as has become the normal behaviour by admins. Its to stop team stacking, not clan stacking. It simply states that clans may be broken up because generally Clans like to stick together and therefore they will normally bear the brunt of these ‘moves of fairness’.
The “I’m following the rules’ attitude is frankly bull. Its an excuse. Players get *edited*ed off all the time, they blame everything, and so do admins, and sometimes they even agree on a cause for the sake of having something to *edited* at. Recently DcPN have took a lot of flack because they were easy targets for blame, thankfully though the childish behaviour is on a decline (eg. Brackets been away a lot and not *edited* stiring
).Personally, I’d like to thank the DcPN guys for helping populate the server and for giving some *edited* decent games. And for all the times they’ve made the server a little more enjoyable by evening the teams.
Clan stacking is such a null issue. No one would complain if they all sucked. Therefore the issue is team-stacking, and seemingly no one complains when one team is raping another for points. The balancer is there to solve this problem anyway. If someone avoids the balancer, kick, ban, whatever.
This entire thread is practically just Clan persecution, its incredibly sad and people then go on to wonder why Bracket or anyone else for that matter come back and act like they do, you create the perfect environment for a lot of this.
As the rules say Clans ‘MAY’ be broken up, but if friends want to play together then either an admin or the balancer should decide otherwise ‘IF NECESSARY’, not just because it can be done under the rules and not just because random idiots complain when in actual fact its just an excuse for losing. Whining players arn’t admins for good reason, and the responsibility of balancing teams shouldn’t be left in the hands of the individuals either as this isn’t a perfect world and its just asking for trouble.
Just because you’re a clan and your members do pretty decently, shouldn’t mean they get crap from people -including admins, just because they play together. Admins should sort the problem (when there is a problem to sort), they have no need to *edited* about it when they can act on it. And they shouldn’t support the detrimental attitudes of players who harrass Clans because they’re seen as valid targets.
Just because someone create a clan shouldn’t mean WCU becomes a less enjoyable server for them to play on. Just as Clans shouldn’t make WCU a less enjoyable server to play on for the less abled player.
Hmm, will have to see how that works, I can see switching the best players from one team with the worst of the other going very wrong. As often its simply 2 or 3 people who over power any one team anyway.
Does the balancer take into account CT vs T team wins?
Assault only sucks when all the people who are experienced go on the T team because they know they’ll rack up points. Assaults a map to be played for fun and not for point whoring. It might be interesting if the balancer could be used to actually swap the entire teams around just for Assault as well as the best players (if necessary) each round. It’d stop every decent player piling on one team.
I don’t remember the whining, … I was paying attention to the game and actually playing it at the time.
The team balancer either, works really well, or it creates a bigger problem. But simply the fact that it causes some or any change to the teams is a plus side as an entire map cannot be brought to a stand still by one over powered team for the full 30 minutes. Which would be the situation without the balancer.
As for Italy, that was a joke. Everyone who was experienced enough to know it was a map that majorly favoured the terrorists went T, including myself. I then swaped to CT when the teams were clearly stacked and spent the next 5-6 rounds being awped and flashed on the left and right and held in the apartments until the far more experienced T team came around from behind to annihilate any of the team that managed to survive long enough to die last. The “Is this map good” vote was a load of crap, and anyone with half a brain knew it, the Ts all voted Yes and the CTs all voted No, which is where the Split vote came from, then I personally didn’t even see the second vote and I doubt many other CTs did too because the CT team had a hell of a job on their hands to get anywhere near the Hostages and little time to react to being shot at let alone a vote due to the constant rushing by a team that could actually aford rifles, so of course the vote went in favour of those who were easily racking up points. The balancer eventually did its job though, half way through the map we finally had a little organization on the CT team due to being brought over from the T team.
The balancer is fine, but lacks judgement, thats why you need Admins. Unfortunately we’re all prone to lapses in judgement from time to time, including Admins.
One thing I’d look into though is how the balancer switched Zoso 3 rounds in a row when he was only middle of the score board for both teams (I believe this was on Nuke,) while the CTs had 2 LightRomantics players who had 3-4 times the amount of kills as anyone else. It sorted it out in the end but that does seem a little erroneous. Perhaps people avoiding the balancer by Specing?
The demo topic in the How To section is simply about recording your own demos, then watching them.
To watch the demos you download, you need to place them into,
C:\Program Files\Steam\steamapps\<yoursteamname>\counter-strike source\cstrikeTo play them, access your console as normal (~ tilde key) and type,
playdemo portjump1… its also beneficial to note that simply entering the first letter of the demos file name after ‘playdemo’ will produce a quick list of all demos with names starting with the same letter.
eg.
playdemo pplaydemo portjump1playdemo portjump2playdemo portjump3How about keeping the current point system for ‘Skill’ and just use the same system WITHOUT the negative modifers from deaths as ‘Total Points’?
Because it seems to be that some people want a point system that is more level-like, eg. little or no negative progression and some want a skill system that more or less represents your K:D.
