Spring RTS Engine

Don't team up with strangers.

smoth wrote:we should NEVER EVER tell new players that 1 chevron means noob as they would be assuming that all chevs are noobs and I know fuck tons of you guys smurf.

Agreed, thats why i swithed smurf icon for the 1 chevron Sadly, nobody else thinks this is a good idea... (so far 2 guys agrees to this).

Jazcash wrote:We need more people like Beherith for moderators.

You're joking, right?

TradeMark wrote:

Jazcash wrote:We need more people like Beherith for moderators.

You're joking, right?

Not really, no.

I'll have a social experience with your mama!

What is this thread about?
It is not the people its the system.
Like software its not the users fault its the software's fault.
The structure should change (in this case the forum or lobby)to promote good interaction and demote bad interaction...
Also there is a bit of magic in a few trolls here and there...
If you take all the whorehouses and bars away where will people have fun?

Didn't know you cared smoth. But this is really an old issue that has been discussed for quite long, although you examined a few reasons why certain kinds of approaches cannot work, you didn't suggest any solutions.

In my opinion an integrated ELOesque-rating system is the best way to go. That would mean new/modified lobby clients, modified lobby server, new widgets and maybe some new lua hooks.

Perhaps somebody/group of people doing a CompSci program could do that as a project.

Spring has a lot of redundancy when it comes to utilities, we have Tasclient, Springlobby, Zero-K lobby, AF-lobby, a bunch of different kinds of bots, many widgets, but nobody spearheading a well-planned open matchmaking system.

edit: User authentication can be done by other means than buying a copy of the game, just because spring is free, doesn't mean a matchmaking system needs to be for free(If it's distributed separately I think?). Right now donations are used to maintain servers, but if spring was to grow in popularity, donations would probably not be enough to sustain the increased load, so it would be pretty reasonable to charge a fee to play online. Anyway most people seem to be against paying for what they could get for free..

Presenting Zero-K Lobby!


"The Answer to All of Your Problems!"

Cheesecan wrote:In my opinion an integrated ELOesque-rating system is the best way to go. That would mean new/modified lobby clients, modified lobby server, new widgets and maybe some new lua hooks.

Perhaps somebody/group of people doing a CompSci program could do that as a project.

Cheesecan wrote:...nobody spearheading a well-planned open matchmaking system.

Switch Today!
The Future is Now!

congrats you finally played a 5v5 team oriented game.

Looks like it was made in vb.

Jazcash wrote:Looks like it was made in vb.

I no, rite? Go make some UI concepts and throw them at Licho/Quantum!

I can't accept it smoth! I can't!

If I keep myself to a high standard, everyone else should as well :[.

the ZK lobby GUI is the worst thing in the world

one day I plan on supplanting the lobby using the new laulobby stuff.



I do care but got tired of seeing people talk in circles about it. Normally I would say nothing but I wanted to see if the industry came up with any new solutions(which it hasn't). the free to play games probably are the best ones to look atAnyway, I don't agree that elo is good. People will smurf to play noobs to troll the same. and even worse if matches are based on ELO players will rage MORE at noobs. We have all seen this.

so ELO is not the answer imo. ZK lobby is not the answer it is just a lobby. My whole point is saying we have a better version of the same shit does not cut it.

also guys please take the anti-zk lobby shit out of here..

in fact can a moderator just split this zk crap out ALL OF IT.

Right then, back on topic.

A proposed solution, adapted from something I said in the lobby:

[1uP]MidKnight wrote:A fairly obfuscated solution idea:

get lobbies to adopt a 'report a player' button, which sends a little issue description and the last 5 minutes of the log (possibly limit it to once per hour?).
Then, a mod can look at that and warn the player.

Also, support for 'moderated' battles and chat channels: 'moderated' battles and channels don't allow people to join or talk (respectively) if the person is on 'moderated' status, kind of like probation.

In theory, most autohosts would be moderated, and player-hosted battles (possibly) would have a checkbox for that option. Mods can just hit a button and mete that out for a set period of time (say, 3 days, or a week?)

So instead of just random complaints, everything is formalized, and someone can go through the queue like once a week and deal with things

How is Zero K the solution if its the ZERO-K lobby..the lobby of the game Zero-K as oppose to the spring lobby.....

fuck yeah i am on a screenshot

I would prefer a lobby that doesn't need me to run Windows.

Jazcash wrote:On a slightly relevant note, Spring used to have lots of moderators play games and moderating battles and players and stuff. The only two moderators left still playing BA are Aegis and Lion who are both American. Any chance of us getting a few more active BA players for moderators? There's a couple of guys I think would do a good job.

Beherith and I have been discussing playing BA again. He does play FFA from time to time. You may indeed get more active BA players in moderation, I'm working out how I want to run another moderator nomination drive in the new year among some other things.

zwzsg wrote:What I'm saying, is that more moderator doesn't necessarly make the game community better. Moderators, especially voluntary ones, could as well abuse power, kickban new people at the first thing they don't like, let their friend get away with anything, etc...

This is very true, you have to pick your moderators and individual moderators have to monitor one another.

smoth wrote:It is hard to determine who is a good guy for the job. We have people in the moderation staff for this community who have no reason to be moderators and still are because of popular opinion.

If you could elaborate on this, I can take your concerns to a moderation discussion.

Jazcash wrote:Well, half the moderators haven't actually "moderated" in months, regardless of their personality, input or w/e. These people should be de-moderated.

We need more people like Beherith for moderators.

As above, if you could elaborate on this, I can take your concerns to a moderation discussion.

smoth wrote:we do but you guys drove off peet and made neddie sick of your shit.

I won't speak for Peet. I am still here and still active, mostly with side projects and moderation itself. I don't have the time to play as often as I wish.

Neddie wrote: I don't have the time to play as often as I wish.

problem with most/all mods. most trolling happens ingame imo. but tbh most players are braindead so the circle of fail is closing.

how about i send u nomination...