<!--quoteo(post=1570410:date=Oct 18 2006, 02:37 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Oct 18 2006, 02:37 PM) [snapback]1570410[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I'd disagree at large on a few points here.
a) the admin is not always right, .... If a legitimate intelligent complaint can't be formed then nothing should be said.
b) Don't run as a dictatorship. ..., be a benevolent monarchy if you want success, fascist monarchy's will fail. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually thats sort of what I was getting at... by "the admin is right" I didn't mean there cant be discussion but there cant be arguement. As puzl said sensible mature discussion in the forums and perhaps occasionally you'll have to have a private word with your admin when he is wrong. However in the public eyes the admin should be seen as "the boss" so when an adjustment is needed it should be done in such a way that you are not seen as overruling your admins. You cant be there all the time so you have to trust your admins 100%. If you cant then they shouldn't be admins.
By dictatorship I mean dont open everything up to a vote. In fact dont open anything important up to vote. Go with what you feel is right, after discussion if you want. Sure you should listen and respect players input but run things your way with a firm decisive hand. Remember that the members that shout out and make themselves heard are the minority of the players that visit your server(s). So perhaps a benevolent monarchy is more fitting an analogy but remember that the lords do not and can not represent the people, however much they might genuinely want to.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited October 2006
Good luck with it FireWater, I do think there is a demand for servers that are friendly to highly skilled players. However, I've seen it tried multiple times with varying levels of success. One server in europe had a horrific problem with stacking. There was also a problem with a plentiful supply of early fades but no second hive. Enforcing good teamplay is usually where the drama starts.
Your objective of building a community that is free from favouritism, status and less than perfect adminning will fail. People make mistakes, people respect those that deliver results, and it is natural to give the benefit of the doubt to a friend over a stranger. Even government organisations with a charter to be fair and open suffer from the problems you describe. This is because all of these groups are collections of humans, and we simply cannot be principled as a group. There will always be a weak link, and there will always be shortcuts that must be taken in the interests of efficiency. You might be able to control your own decisions, but you will not be able to control those of a group, and you will not find a group of admins that fit your very strict requirements.
Just make sure the admins have common sense and aren't power hungry.
So annoying when I'm on one of Europe's most popular NS servers and an admin does something like:
"amx_csay Never fear, [admin's name] is here!"
And my paltry 800x600 screen shows the muscle-flexing text over most of my view. >_<
NTFM and the ill-fated 3hives were the only communities that got this right. The admins were there to ensure the games were running smoothly- not to make it a graphical IRC channel. In my opinion, the latter sucks!
RIP NTFM.
[EDIT]
Another example of suckiness is when I join a server and my screen fills with the most obvious of rules such as "Don't hack" or "don't flame admins", and my favourite "structure blocking is banned but medspamming and catspamming is allowed". I have to sit in the readyroom for a half a minute waiting for that damned text to disappear <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
NTFM ran for a hell of a long time- and made a switch from NS to NWN which is about as polar as it gets.
3hives was doomed to failure as competitive players won't start populating servers unti it's already half full; and the high-skilled playerbase wouldn't attract the lesser-skilled public players who want a friendly community as much as a good game.
Its easier to minimize the politics when there are clear boundaries as to what is a violation and what is not.
If someone breaks a rule, they get reprimanded, admins as well. There will be clear boundaries as to what constitutes a rule being broken, and a rule not being broken unlike the two examples I have provided. Those were the situations were being political either makes or breaks you.
Ironically, I think I am going to take Wyz's advice and basically tell anyone to F Off who doesn't think I can do this.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1570523:date=Oct 19 2006, 02:31 PM:name=Garet_Jax)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Garet_Jax @ Oct 19 2006, 02:31 PM) [snapback]1570523[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> NTFM ran for a hell of a long time- and made a switch from NS to NWN which is about as polar as it gets. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wasn't trying to criticise NTFM. I never played their regularly, as I wasn't really playing NS much back in those days and when I did I played on neXt. But I do admire any community who have continued to run NS throughout the history of the game and remain popular. You may have issues with their methods, but you cannot dispute their success, and long may it last. Sure, it doesn't suit your specific needs, but it certainly suits some specific needs. This is why I've often challenged you and your friends to build their own community, and whey I stuck my neck out to support you with 3hives.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> 3hives was doomed to failure as competitive players won't start populating servers unti it's already half full; and the high-skilled playerbase wouldn't attract the lesser-skilled public players who want a friendly community as much as a good game. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It wasn't just the players now was it? Lets be honest. I used to see 2-3 dedicated 3hives players trying to get the server started while 2-3 3hives <b>admins</b> were over on YO. You absolutely have to have a dedicated core team to kickstart a server. You need people who are willing to put the work in upfront to get the ball rolling. You need givers, not takers. lump put in a huge effort to get that server off the ground but it never really took off like it could have. Furthermore, some of the members were questionable. A senior jarhedz admin joined one night to check out the new community and two 3hives regulars webbed him for over 5 minutes until mp_combattime expired. So the pub players who didn't join were not just looking elsewhere for a friendly environment, they were in fact, avoiding a hostile environment.
Anyway, back on topic to Firewater, I really do believe there is a market for the type of gaming community you are trying to build and I wish you the best in your endeavours.
Thanks, we are still looking for more people, if anyone is interested and believes in the same philosophy I do, please hit me up with a private message about what your talents are.
<!--quoteo(post=1570551:date=Oct 19 2006, 02:44 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Oct 19 2006, 02:44 PM) [snapback]1570551[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Thanks, we are still looking for more people, if anyone is interested and believes in the same philosophy I do, please hit me up with a private message about what your talents are. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good Luck with the Community
I would help but im Rebuliding one right now lol. Stupid hackers got into my database lol..so yea it sucks. I had over 25,000 members on my forums..
<!--quoteo(post=1570523:date=Oct 19 2006, 02:31 PM:name=Garet_Jax)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Garet_Jax @ Oct 19 2006, 02:31 PM) [snapback]1570523[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> NTFM ran for a hell of a long time- and made a switch from NS to NWN which is about as polar as it gets.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> In the end all the key members of NTFM had given up playing NS and quite frankly didn't enjoy it any more so it tended to stay empty. One or two members of NTFM no longer played on our server because they preffered "proper competative games" and wanted a much higher skill based environment so we handed them the server to see if they could make it work again. I think it lost the ntfm tag at that time but their plans where very similar to firewaters although I must admit the ammount of preperation and study Fw's put into this is impressive.
A few months after this change the server was closed as it had not seen many games in that time. Although NTFM as a gaming community is now closed some of our members persist in maintaining the nwn server which was absorbed by playZen. NWN is quite an old game now though and interest seems to be thinning.
Good luck Firewater, although I think you underestimate the unavoidable political can-o-worms you are heading for.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited October 2006
Define 'objective rules'?
Let me ask you this?
Will it be acceptable on your server, in a 2 alien vs 1 marine game of combat for the following to happen?
The two aliens rush to an early lead by spawncamping and biting the CC until they reach level 5. Then both aliens go gorge, and upgrade to third hive abilities and proceed to web the one marine until the 20 minute round timer expires.
Similiar scenarios can be drawn from DOD, where on many maps it is possible to camp enemy spawn, and indeed many dod leagues forbid players to shoot into enemy spawn.
What objective rule will prevent the above from happening?
Secondly, that second statement you have made is not only arrogant, but a little naieve, and I hope it was simply a joke. If it wasn't a joke, then I predict your endeavour will fail.
Will it be acceptable on your server, in a 2 alien vs 1 marine game of combat for the following to happen?
The two aliens rush to an early lead by spawncamping and biting the CC until they reach level 5. Then both aliens go gorge, and upgrade to third hive abilities and proceed to web the one marine until the 20 minute round timer expires.
Similiar scenarios can be drawn from DOD, where on many maps it is possible to camp enemy spawn, and indeed many dod leagues forbid players to shoot into enemy spawn.
What objective rule will prevent the above from happening?
Secondly, that second statement you have made is not only arrogant, but a little naieve, and I hope it was simply a joke. If it wasn't a joke, then I predict your endeavour will fail. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will enforce rules that have specific boundaries, I probably won't be running an NS server, let alone a combat one. I think the one marine would quit after getting webbed a few times but I will answer your question. Webbing someone over and over is not playing to win, its playing for power. So people who do not hold up the ideals will be most likely temp banned. We are going to have a standard just like everyone else, only ours are going to have objective rules and a skill standard. I'm hoping to attract competitive players (either clanwise or people that just want to play to win, with no formal competitive experience), that will uphold the server ideals.
As far as the DoD thing goes, we will enforce a competitive standard. I haven't played DoD in a long time, so if CAL bans it, then I see no reason for it to exist on the server. Still, I want players to be allowed to play aggressively, improvise, and show off their skill, provided they are following within the few objective rules I will have setup.
I'll agree that the statement was arrogant and I was kidding. I know how some people can be about expressing sexual notions or lack there of. Naive on the other hand I have to disagree. I also fail to see a correlation between my one statement and how successful my server will be, can you enlighten me?
<!--quoteo(post=1570628:date=Oct 20 2006, 11:01 AM:name=Testament)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Testament @ Oct 20 2006, 11:01 AM) [snapback]1570628[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Some people can police a server without giving into ego strokes and cry-babying. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Haven't decided yet, though we will most likely launch the community with a new game.
Its tough to start a CS:S or DoD:S because we would be 1 server in 1000s, without a prior reputation.
We earliest launch date is december. So hopefully we can have some fansites to generate interest and we will have our boxes Co-located.
With that in mind, we are thinking that TF2 and Nuclear dawn would be good games to launch with. Then we can hopefully kind of branch backwards if you will, by supporting CS:S and maybe DoD:S.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
How do you differentiate between playing to win and playing for power in this case? I can think of several ways, but none of them are objective. I'm guessing your answers will sound remarkably like the ones used against spawn camping. I simply can't accept that you can produce effective server rules without some subjectivity. Sometimes, you will have to go with your own experiences to decide on whether a rule will improve the server or not. Sure, you can delegate to CAL, but then you are still accepting rules that aren't entirely objective. I mean, why shouldn't the players in dod be allowed to shoot into spawn? If 4 players can hold down the other team while one caps the flag, why should anyone stop them from doing so?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I'll agree that the statement was arrogant and I was kidding. I know how some people can be about expressing sexual notions or lack there of. Naive on the other hand I have to disagree. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It has nothing to do with sexual notions. You are naieve to attach motive to behaviour based on a really poor and very irrelevant generalisation.
Why do you care so much about eStatus? Your quick to dismiss it as sexual inadequacy yet you look for people with "significant pull in other game's communities" in your call for help. I must not understand what you mean by eStatus.
Puzl has a point about 3hives and successful server communities. The vast majority of players will not be competetive high skill players, they will be pub allstars and regulars, and new players who found a place they enjoy. The competetive and experienced players will join a server when it's populated with a few other good players, or it's near their preferred size (12+ players in NS).
What I see as a prerequisite for any good server is being able to draw in and keep the average regular non competetive players of the game, without these you won't have any base to get games going at all. The challange would then be to create an athmosphere where skill is appreciated, but any attitude problems or gameplay flaws that accompany the skillful players are worked away. Just as you take examples of other servers letting players with status get away with alot of things, you must make sure those with status on your server - the skillful ones - dont get away with belittling worse players etc. The point as I understand is to foster an athmosphere where skill is rewarded and where people can grow regardless of skill as long as they are motivated, not an athmosphere anyone that don't meet the standard immediately get socially executed.
I don't want people to think that because they aren't skilled they cannot play on the server, which is why we want to offer education (kinda like #nslearn if you will) for those who want to get better.
I have two goals:
1. Keep out the scrubs (www.sirlin.net for a definition). These players will probably weed themselves out.
2. Encourage the highest level of play possible. I want to reward skill not ban it. Hamptons and NSA were filled with people who wanted to play at high levels, and those were some of the best games I played pub wise. They never had a problem maintaining server populations.
There are several players that subscribe to this philosophy, several that don't. People who want a high level play without signing up for CAL or CEVO will play here.
Those who want more casual experiences are more than welcome to go elsewhere and I would be more than happy to setup a referral system with other communities.
<!--quoteo(post=1570639:date=Oct 20 2006, 01:24 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 20 2006, 01:24 PM) [snapback]1570639[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> How do you differentiate between playing to win and playing for power in this case? I can think of several ways, but none of them are objective. I'm guessing your answers will sound remarkably like the ones used against spawn camping. I simply can't accept that you can produce effective server rules without some subjectivity. Sometimes, you will have to go with your own experiences to decide on whether a rule will improve the server or not. Sure, you can delegate to CAL, but then you are still accepting rules that aren't entirely objective. I mean, why shouldn't the players in dod be allowed to shoot into spawn? If 4 players can hold down the other team while one caps the flag, why should anyone stop them from doing so? It has nothing to do with sexual notions. You are naieve to attach motive to behaviour based on a really poor and very irrelevant generalisation.
Why do you care so much about eStatus? Your quick to dismiss it as sexual inadequacy yet you look for people with "significant pull in other game's communities" in your call for help. I must not understand what you mean by eStatus. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When I say "eStatus" its more or less a joke, if my joke offends many people than I will edit my previous posts as it seems to be the motive for the follow up posts. Of course people can have status in communities and still function in their real lives. For PR, yes I need people who are popular in general fan sites or other communities to promote our community and its message. Not gonna hire a PR person who has poor or even negative relations, thats just stupid.
The rules in game will be setup with the most objectivity possible. I don't plan on running an NS server or DoD, probably not even games where spawn camping is an issue, but if the time does come I will setup rules that promote our ideals while keeping those who do not wish to follow said ideals but still desire to play or disrupt the server out.
Also puzl I really would like to know how a single comment can doom my community, and at the same time you can call me out on ignorance and generalizations.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
Nothing has doomed your community, I think you've a great chance of creating a gaming community that is friendly to skill. I just think that already the standard cliché are being tossed about and that does not bode well for a community that sets out to be objective and fair to everyone, with no favouritism nor buddy system.
<!--quoteo(post=1570705:date=Oct 21 2006, 07:37 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 21 2006, 07:37 AM) [snapback]1570705[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Nothing has doomed your community, I think you've a great chance of creating a gaming community that is friendly to skill. I just think that already the standard clich are being tossed about and that does not bode well for a community that sets out to be objective and fair to everyone, with no favouritism nor buddy system.
But what do I know? What gaming communities has sirlin run btw? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You didn't answer my question, you merely just reversed what I allegedly did (by generalizing) and applied to me of that very same concept you were offended at the notion of. I guess it was just the anger speaking, because you were sending mixed messages, unless of course your true colors came out after the initial offense (which as a result I have edited).
Sirlin has not run any game communities as far as I know, so this will be an experimental run to see if it works or not. His theory is the model I use for my community. The two examples I provided earlier use a similar "play to win" model which I feel contributed immensly to their popularity. So while no, sirlin has not run a community, there is evidence to suggest that his theory can apply to a public community who's goals coincide with the goals of the theory, and the server.
If I am not fair to everyone, then I will become that which I find kind of pathetic, in sometimes a comedic way, but in the end just sad. Not to mention being a hypocrite. The good news is I will minimize the rules that will be the most subjective, like ones that just give an excuse to ban, and focus on ones that will keep the server running effectively.
I don't think its as difficult as you think it is. Maybe we have two seperate paths, I'm not sure at yours but I will take a guess. Enforcing the rules in a game community is about how respected the enforcers are. In a normal Good Ole Boy community, people who have admin tend to get it through just relations with the owner, no real qualifications other than being a good ole boy. These admins tend not to be respected by players of skill simply because they have not neccesarily achieved their posistion through merit, merely eSocial status. Its difficult to follow rules henceforth of those a person does not respect. Especially rules that set players up to be made as examples to maintain or perhaps even grow status within their own community. Note that status is gained not through any positive means, but for the ability to take away one's place on the server (i.e. a ban).
Here is where I differ. My community is based on the foundations of competitive play, which will most likely attract those who are competitive. They will most likely found ot that myself and my admin staff (who will most likely be current/former competitive players) are offering a place to showcase their talent through positive means, as that is part of our goal in our community. Allowing this place to break from the normal powertripping admins by offering them rewards for their talents will most likely generate respect for the admin staff as they are the ones issuing the rewards. That respect is earned through positive affect, as the players can benefit from playing on the server. Since there are rewards and benefits (i.e. escaping the norm, not worrying about powertrippy admins, etc...) these players in order to want to keep playing there will abide by the simple rules I will have created for the community.
Basically to sum it up, I choose the carrot over the stick. As the stick will usually provide the most minimal amount of compliance. Thats not to say that there will not be bans issued if the rules are constantly broken, its to say there are other ways of solving a problem other than completely removing it.
Are there any more questions? Or is there something I am missing.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited October 2006
I've no personal stake in this discussion, but you have. I've been offering my opinions and advice in a freeform discussion, and it appears that I have somehow come across as being either offended or defensive, when neither are my position. You know very little about my admin style of philosophy, or the gaming communities I have been involved with. A lot of what you describe are central to what jarHedz are about. I like to think we take the best of both worlds and try to encourage excellence in a mature environment where respect is required. I've never banned someone for being good at a game, I've only ever banned a handful of people for cheating, and only then when the evidence was conclusive and <b>never</b> in the heat of the moment. jarHedz has always been supportive of clans, and pretty much all of our servers have been adminned by clans who are given significant control of the server.
Social networking is required to build a community, because by definition a gaming community is the application of social behaviour to gaming. You can't ignore these things you write off as favouritism and prejudice, because in most cases they are simply the manifestations of common sense. People need to prove themselves competent at a game to be given control of a server, but they also need to prove themselves mature, sensible and objective, and the reality is that the more you know people the more accurate your assessment of these qualities will be. Assuming two people of equal skill, do you trust the guy who is constantly shooting his mouth off and never takes internet discourse seriously, or do you trust the guy who seems level headed and mature? ( I feel these qualities are generally mutually exclusive )
Why am I still having this discussion? I'm simply interested in this topic, having been through what you are about to do a few times, I'm curious to hear your insights on it. If my opinions, criticisms and predictions are going to turn this into a me vs you, then I think it is better for both of us if we just drop it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> and my admin staff (who will most likely be current/former competitive players) <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you'll allow me to make one more observation, I find it hard to distinguish this from other situations of eStatus or the buddy system. You've just substituted a priority for behaviour with a priority for game competence. I accept that my observation is probably a little simplistic, but I honestly feel that your generalisations are very simplistic and I urge you to open your mind to a more balanced view of what a gaming community is before you close your doors on the types of people who are really needed to keep a gaming community running. You will need people who have people skills too, admins who can diffuse tension and calmly avoid disputes. There will certainly be plenty people who meet your requirements and my requirements and these are the admins you need. I would also prefer to hire a good admin who isn't so hot at the game, than a class act who has difficulties enforcing rules without seeming arrogant or rude.
I think our opinions are a lot closer to each other than you seem to think. There's no need to look for an enemy in me, I gain nothing from your success or failure.
Perhaps our goals are closer in line after re-evaluation, however I did notice you taking a little spin when I made the comment about my girlfriend with regards to ego boosts.
Of course there is going to be subjectivity, but that does not mean that people who break the rules should not be reprimanded just because I like them personally. Likewise I hope that the way I enforce the rules will be that people who I will develop favorable relations with, would have enough respect to follow the rules.
Bare in mind, these rules are going to be a basic code of conduct, enabling fair play etc...
Any gameplay altering changes will be defined objectively as possible, because as I said with regards to online gaming, I do not believe in the political end of things, I believe in efficiency and effectiveness.
My server(s) are/is not the universal solution for all gamers. Its a solution for players that do not have fear being banned for being talented, and likewise can compete at the higher end of the spectrum with regards to free form pub gaming. I want to offer an alternative to the norm for those skilled players, and for those that want to learn how to improve their game as well.
While I agree with the design I'm having some problems understanding what material structures you are intending to put in place that encourages playing to win while still successfully discouraging playing for power (already covered), Playing to ruin the game (hacking and greifing), and not necessarily encourage playing for fun (just fudging around in the game, trying to win, but not necessarily using all tactics available).
Inevitably I think what you want to do takes alot of research into whatever game you are hosting. With that being said, I can hook you up if you start a source forts server <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Good thing I am running a server with people who have run a successful game community, so that cuts down on the research.
Still there are a lot of unanswered questions that I am having my guys check out.
I can discourage play for power by encouraging the shortest game possible.
I can't really disable play for fun (though I think playing to win is fun), as part of my server rules is to have fun.
I am hoping however that those who do not want to play to win will be weeded out of the server since we are encouraging a high level of skill, and generally those players will probably get rocked more often than not and go elsewhere.
Your conclusion based on a poor analysis of my premise.
I said there is nothing wrong for playing for fun, as there are plenty of servers that support that notion.
I support "have fun, play to win", meaning that I want people to have fun, but to play to win also, not just play to play.
Now sonic, I don't think you would try to start trouble now would ya? I mean that was just be really really stupid thing to do, so I know thats not what your doing, though I would ask next time you are going to pose such a question, please read my posts thoroughly and not through your "OMG ITS FW SO ITZZZ MUST BE BADZ " lens, just try to view it where I am coming from.
Comments
I'd disagree at large on a few points here.
a) the admin is not always right, .... If a legitimate intelligent complaint can't be formed then nothing should be said.
b) Don't run as a dictatorship. ..., be a benevolent monarchy if you want success, fascist monarchy's will fail.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually thats sort of what I was getting at... by "the admin is right" I didn't mean there cant be discussion but there cant be arguement. As puzl said sensible mature discussion in the forums and perhaps occasionally you'll have to have a private word with your admin when he is wrong. However in the public eyes the admin should be seen as "the boss" so when an adjustment is needed it should be done in such a way that you are not seen as overruling your admins. You cant be there all the time so you have to trust your admins 100%. If you cant then they shouldn't be admins.
By dictatorship I mean dont open everything up to a vote. In fact dont open anything important up to vote. Go with what you feel is right, after discussion if you want. Sure you should listen and respect players input but run things your way with a firm decisive hand. Remember that the members that shout out and make themselves heard are the minority of the players that visit your server(s). So perhaps a benevolent monarchy is more fitting an analogy but remember that the lords do not and can not represent the people, however much they might genuinely want to.
Your objective of building a community that is free from favouritism, status and less than perfect adminning will fail. People make mistakes, people respect those that deliver results, and it is natural to give the benefit of the doubt to a friend over a stranger. Even government organisations with a charter to be fair and open suffer from the problems you describe. This is because all of these groups are collections of humans, and we simply cannot be principled as a group. There will always be a weak link, and there will always be shortcuts that must be taken in the interests of efficiency. You might be able to control your own decisions, but you will not be able to control those of a group, and you will not find a group of admins that fit your very strict requirements.
So annoying when I'm on one of Europe's most popular NS servers and an admin does something like:
"amx_csay Never fear, [admin's name] is here!"
And my paltry 800x600 screen shows the muscle-flexing text over most of my view. >_<
NTFM and the ill-fated 3hives were the only communities that got this right. The admins were there to ensure the games were running smoothly- not to make it a graphical IRC channel. In my opinion, the latter sucks!
RIP NTFM.
[EDIT]
Another example of suckiness is when I join a server and my screen fills with the most obvious of rules such as "Don't hack" or "don't flame admins", and my favourite "structure blocking is banned but medspamming and catspamming is allowed". I have to sit in the readyroom for a half a minute waiting for that damned text to disappear <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
3hives was doomed to failure as competitive players won't start populating servers unti it's already half full; and the high-skilled playerbase wouldn't attract the lesser-skilled public players who want a friendly community as much as a good game.
If someone breaks a rule, they get reprimanded, admins as well. There will be clear boundaries as to what constitutes a rule being broken, and a rule not being broken unlike the two examples I have provided. Those were the situations were being political either makes or breaks you.
Ironically, I think I am going to take Wyz's advice and basically tell anyone to F Off who doesn't think I can do this.
NTFM ran for a hell of a long time- and made a switch from NS to NWN which is about as polar as it gets.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wasn't trying to criticise NTFM. I never played their regularly, as I wasn't really playing NS much back in those days and when I did I played on neXt. But I do admire any community who have continued to run NS throughout the history of the game and remain popular. You may have issues with their methods, but you cannot dispute their success, and long may it last. Sure, it doesn't suit your specific needs, but it certainly suits some specific needs. This is why I've often challenged you and your friends to build their own community, and whey I stuck my neck out to support you with 3hives.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
3hives was doomed to failure as competitive players won't start populating servers unti it's already half full; and the high-skilled playerbase wouldn't attract the lesser-skilled public players who want a friendly community as much as a good game.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It wasn't just the players now was it? Lets be honest. I used to see 2-3 dedicated 3hives players trying to get the server started while 2-3 3hives <b>admins</b> were over on YO. You absolutely have to have a dedicated core team to kickstart a server. You need people who are willing to put the work in upfront to get the ball rolling. You need givers, not takers. lump put in a huge effort to get that server off the ground but it never really took off like it could have. Furthermore, some of the members were questionable. A senior jarhedz admin joined one night to check out the new community and two 3hives regulars webbed him for over 5 minutes until mp_combattime expired. So the pub players who didn't join were not just looking elsewhere for a friendly environment, they were in fact, avoiding a hostile environment.
Anyway, back on topic to Firewater, I really do believe there is a market for the type of gaming community you are trying to build and I wish you the best in your endeavours.
Good Luck with the Community
I would help but im Rebuliding one right now lol. Stupid hackers got into my database lol..so yea it sucks. I had over 25,000 members on my forums..
Dont let that happen to you lol.
NTFM ran for a hell of a long time- and made a switch from NS to NWN which is about as polar as it gets.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the end all the key members of NTFM had given up playing NS and quite frankly didn't enjoy it any more so it tended to stay empty. One or two members of NTFM no longer played on our server because they preffered "proper competative games" and wanted a much higher skill based environment so we handed them the server to see if they could make it work again. I think it lost the ntfm tag at that time but their plans where very similar to firewaters although I must admit the ammount of preperation and study Fw's put into this is impressive.
A few months after this change the server was closed as it had not seen many games in that time. Although NTFM as a gaming community is now closed some of our members persist in maintaining the nwn server which was absorbed by playZen. NWN is quite an old game now though and interest seems to be thinning.
Good luck Firewater, although I think you underestimate the unavoidable political can-o-worms you are heading for.
1) Mostly objective rules, no BS game play altering ones.
2) Edited because people are becomming offended.
Let me ask you this?
Will it be acceptable on your server, in a 2 alien vs 1 marine game of combat for the following to happen?
The two aliens rush to an early lead by spawncamping and biting the CC until they reach level 5. Then both aliens go gorge, and upgrade to third hive abilities and proceed to web the one marine until the 20 minute round timer expires.
Similiar scenarios can be drawn from DOD, where on many maps it is possible to camp enemy spawn, and indeed many dod leagues forbid players to shoot into enemy spawn.
What objective rule will prevent the above from happening?
Secondly, that second statement you have made is not only arrogant, but a little naieve, and I hope it was simply a joke. If it wasn't a joke, then I predict your endeavour will fail.
Define 'objective rules'?
Let me ask you this?
Will it be acceptable on your server, in a 2 alien vs 1 marine game of combat for the following to happen?
The two aliens rush to an early lead by spawncamping and biting the CC until they reach level 5. Then both aliens go gorge, and upgrade to third hive abilities and proceed to web the one marine until the 20 minute round timer expires.
Similiar scenarios can be drawn from DOD, where on many maps it is possible to camp enemy spawn, and indeed many dod leagues forbid players to shoot into enemy spawn.
What objective rule will prevent the above from happening?
Secondly, that second statement you have made is not only arrogant, but a little naieve, and I hope it was simply a joke. If it wasn't a joke, then I predict your endeavour will fail.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will enforce rules that have specific boundaries, I probably won't be running an NS server, let alone a combat one. I think the one marine would quit after getting webbed a few times but I will answer your question. Webbing someone over and over is not playing to win, its playing for power. So people who do not hold up the ideals will be most likely temp banned. We are going to have a standard just like everyone else, only ours are going to have objective rules and a skill standard. I'm hoping to attract competitive players (either clanwise or people that just want to play to win, with no formal competitive experience), that will uphold the server ideals.
As far as the DoD thing goes, we will enforce a competitive standard. I haven't played DoD in a long time, so if CAL bans it, then I see no reason for it to exist on the server. Still, I want players to be allowed to play aggressively, improvise, and show off their skill, provided they are following within the few objective rules I will have setup.
I'll agree that the statement was arrogant and I was kidding. I know how some people can be about expressing sexual notions or lack there of. Naive on the other hand I have to disagree. I also fail to see a correlation between my one statement and how successful my server will be, can you enlighten me?
<!--quoteo(post=1570628:date=Oct 20 2006, 11:01 AM:name=Testament)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Testament @ Oct 20 2006, 11:01 AM) [snapback]1570628[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Some people can police a server without giving into ego strokes and cry-babying.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where?
Its tough to start a CS:S or DoD:S because we would be 1 server in 1000s, without a prior reputation.
We earliest launch date is december. So hopefully we can have some fansites to generate interest and we will have our boxes Co-located.
With that in mind, we are thinking that TF2 and Nuclear dawn would be good games to launch with. Then we can hopefully kind of branch backwards if you will, by supporting CS:S and maybe DoD:S.
Gotta start small, so thats what we plan to do.
without some subjectivity. Sometimes, you will have to go with your own experiences to decide on whether a rule will improve the server or not. Sure, you can delegate to CAL, but then you are still accepting rules that aren't entirely objective. I mean, why shouldn't the players in dod be allowed to shoot into spawn? If 4 players can hold down the other team while one caps the flag, why should anyone stop them from doing so?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I'll agree that the statement was arrogant and I was kidding. I know how some people can be about expressing sexual notions or lack there of. Naive on the other hand I have to disagree.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It has nothing to do with sexual notions. You are naieve to attach motive to behaviour based on a really poor and very irrelevant generalisation.
Why do you care so much about eStatus? Your quick to dismiss it as sexual inadequacy yet you look for people with "significant pull in other game's communities" in your call for help. I must not understand what you mean by eStatus.
What I see as a prerequisite for any good server is being able to draw in and keep the average regular non competetive players of the game, without these you won't have any base to get games going at all. The challange would then be to create an athmosphere where skill is appreciated, but any attitude problems or gameplay flaws that accompany the skillful players are worked away. Just as you take examples of other servers letting players with status get away with alot of things, you must make sure those with status on your server - the skillful ones - dont get away with belittling worse players etc. The point as I understand is to foster an athmosphere where skill is rewarded and where people can grow regardless of skill as long as they are motivated, not an athmosphere anyone that don't meet the standard immediately get socially executed.
I have two goals:
1. Keep out the scrubs (www.sirlin.net for a definition). These players will probably weed themselves out.
2. Encourage the highest level of play possible. I want to reward skill not ban it. Hamptons and NSA were filled with people who wanted to play at high levels, and those were some of the best games I played pub wise. They never had a problem maintaining server populations.
There are several players that subscribe to this philosophy, several that don't. People who want a high level play without signing up for CAL or CEVO will play here.
Those who want more casual experiences are more than welcome to go elsewhere and I would be more than happy to setup a referral system with other communities.
<!--quoteo(post=1570639:date=Oct 20 2006, 01:24 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Oct 20 2006, 01:24 PM) [snapback]1570639[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
How do you differentiate between playing to win and playing for power in this case? I can think of several ways, but none of them are objective. I'm guessing your answers will sound remarkably like the ones used against spawn camping. I simply can't accept that you can produce effective server rules
without some subjectivity. Sometimes, you will have to go with your own experiences to decide on whether a rule will improve the server or not. Sure, you can delegate to CAL, but then you are still accepting rules that aren't entirely objective. I mean, why shouldn't the players in dod be allowed to shoot into spawn? If 4 players can hold down the other team while one caps the flag, why should anyone stop them from doing so?
It has nothing to do with sexual notions. You are naieve to attach motive to behaviour based on a really poor and very irrelevant generalisation.
Why do you care so much about eStatus? Your quick to dismiss it as sexual inadequacy yet you look for people with "significant pull in other game's communities" in your call for help. I must not understand what you mean by eStatus.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When I say "eStatus" its more or less a joke, if my joke offends many people than I will edit my previous posts as it seems to be the motive for the follow up posts. Of course people can have status in communities and still function in their real lives. For PR, yes I need people who are popular in general fan sites or other communities to promote our community and its message. Not gonna hire a PR person who has poor or even negative relations, thats just stupid.
The rules in game will be setup with the most objectivity possible. I don't plan on running an NS server or DoD, probably not even games where spawn camping is an issue, but if the time does come I will setup rules that promote our ideals while keeping those who do not wish to follow said ideals but still desire to play or disrupt the server out.
Where?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Any server I'd admin.
Also puzl I really would like to know how a single comment can doom my community, and at the same time you can call me out on ignorance and generalizations.
But what do I know?
What gaming communities has sirlin run btw?
Nothing has doomed your community, I think you've a great chance of creating a gaming community that is friendly to skill. I just think that already the standard clich are being tossed about and that does not bode well for a community that sets out to be objective and fair to everyone, with no favouritism nor buddy system.
But what do I know?
What gaming communities has sirlin run btw?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You didn't answer my question, you merely just reversed what I allegedly did (by generalizing) and applied to me of that very same concept you were offended at the notion of. I guess it was just the anger speaking, because you were sending mixed messages, unless of course your true colors came out after the initial offense (which as a result I have edited).
Sirlin has not run any game communities as far as I know, so this will be an experimental run to see if it works or not. His theory is the model I use for my community. The two examples I provided earlier use a similar "play to win" model which I feel contributed immensly to their popularity. So while no, sirlin has not run a community, there is evidence to suggest that his theory can apply to a public community who's goals coincide with the goals of the theory, and the server.
If I am not fair to everyone, then I will become that which I find kind of pathetic, in sometimes a comedic way, but in the end just sad. Not to mention being a hypocrite. The good news is I will minimize the rules that will be the most subjective, like ones that just give an excuse to ban, and focus on ones that will keep the server running effectively.
I don't think its as difficult as you think it is. Maybe we have two seperate paths, I'm not sure at yours but I will take a guess. Enforcing the rules in a game community is about how respected the enforcers are. In a normal Good Ole Boy community, people who have admin tend to get it through just relations with the owner, no real qualifications other than being a good ole boy. These admins tend not to be respected by players of skill simply because they have not neccesarily achieved their posistion through merit, merely eSocial status. Its difficult to follow rules henceforth of those a person does not respect. Especially rules that set players up to be made as examples to maintain or perhaps even grow status within their own community. Note that status is gained not through any positive means, but for the ability to take away one's place on the server (i.e. a ban).
Here is where I differ. My community is based on the foundations of competitive play, which will most likely attract those who are competitive. They will most likely found ot that myself and my admin staff (who will most likely be current/former competitive players) are offering a place to showcase their talent through positive means, as that is part of our goal in our community. Allowing this place to break from the normal powertripping admins by offering them rewards for their talents will most likely generate respect for the admin staff as they are the ones issuing the rewards. That respect is earned through positive affect, as the players can benefit from playing on the server. Since there are rewards and benefits (i.e. escaping the norm, not worrying about powertrippy admins, etc...) these players in order to want to keep playing there will abide by the simple rules I will have created for the community.
Basically to sum it up, I choose the carrot over the stick. As the stick will usually provide the most minimal amount of compliance. Thats not to say that there will not be bans issued if the rules are constantly broken, its to say there are other ways of solving a problem other than completely removing it.
Are there any more questions? Or is there something I am missing.
Social networking is required to build a community, because by definition a gaming community is the application of social behaviour to gaming. You can't ignore these things you write off as favouritism and prejudice, because in most cases they are simply the manifestations of common sense. People need to prove themselves competent at a game to be given control of a server, but they also need to prove themselves mature, sensible and objective, and the reality is that the more you know people the more accurate your assessment of these qualities will be. Assuming two people of equal skill, do you trust the guy who is constantly shooting his mouth off and never takes internet discourse seriously, or do you trust the guy who seems level headed and mature? ( I feel these qualities are generally mutually exclusive )
Why am I still having this discussion? I'm simply interested in this topic, having been through what you are about to do a few times, I'm curious to hear your insights on it. If my opinions, criticisms and predictions are going to turn this into a me vs you, then I think it is better for both of us if we just drop it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
and my admin staff (who will most likely be current/former competitive players)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you'll allow me to make one more observation, I find it hard to distinguish this from other situations of eStatus or the buddy system. You've just substituted a priority for behaviour with a priority for game competence. I accept that my observation is probably a little simplistic, but I honestly feel that your generalisations are very simplistic and I urge you to open your mind to a more balanced view of what a gaming community is before you close your doors on the types of people who are really needed to keep a gaming community running. You will need people who have people skills too, admins who can diffuse tension and calmly avoid disputes. There will certainly be plenty people who meet your requirements and my requirements and these are the admins you need. I would also prefer to hire a good admin who isn't so hot at the game, than a class act who has difficulties enforcing rules without seeming arrogant or rude.
I think our opinions are a lot closer to each other than you seem to think. There's no need to look for an enemy in me, I gain nothing from your success or failure.
Of course there is going to be subjectivity, but that does not mean that people who break the rules should not be reprimanded just because I like them personally. Likewise I hope that the way I enforce the rules will be that people who I will develop favorable relations with, would have enough respect to follow the rules.
Bare in mind, these rules are going to be a basic code of conduct, enabling fair play etc...
Any gameplay altering changes will be defined objectively as possible, because as I said with regards to online gaming, I do not believe in the political end of things, I believe in efficiency and effectiveness.
My server(s) are/is not the universal solution for all gamers. Its a solution for players that do not have fear being banned for being talented, and likewise can compete at the higher end of the spectrum with regards to free form pub gaming. I want to offer an alternative to the norm for those skilled players, and for those that want to learn how to improve their game as well.
Inevitably I think what you want to do takes alot of research into whatever game you are hosting. With that being said, I can hook you up if you start a source forts server <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Still there are a lot of unanswered questions that I am having my guys check out.
I can discourage play for power by encouraging the shortest game possible.
I can't really disable play for fun (though I think playing to win is fun), as part of my server rules is to have fun.
I am hoping however that those who do not want to play to win will be weeded out of the server since we are encouraging a high level of skill, and generally those players will probably get rocked more often than not and go elsewhere.
I said there is nothing wrong for playing for fun, as there are plenty of servers that support that notion.
I support "have fun, play to win", meaning that I want people to have fun, but to play to win also, not just play to play.
Now sonic, I don't think you would try to start trouble now would ya? I mean that was just be really really stupid thing to do, so I know thats not what your doing, though I would ask next time you are going to pose such a question, please read my posts thoroughly and not through your "OMG ITS FW SO ITZZZ MUST BE BADZ " lens, just try to view it where I am coming from.
Thanks!