Vote for a fair, fast and non-discriminating serverlist

[Glo]

Problem 1

I noticed the server list is currently ordered in the following way:

- servers that went online first (= oldest servers) are at the top of the list

- servers that went online later (= newer servers) are somewhere between the top and bottom of the list

- servers that just went online (= newest servers) are at the bottom of the list

In short: the oldest servers are always at the top, and the newest always at the bottom. The current list is unfair.

How come?

The server list is based on this theory, and it's not randomly shuffled so it will stay exactly like this.

Example?

Your friend started a server 2 years ago. You have just started one. Your friend's server is most likely one of the oldest MTA servers out there, so it will be somewhere near the top. However, your server is relatively new so it will be at the bottom.

What's bad about this then?

It's not really bad. It's just unprofessional. New servers will get less players, so if you have a great serverscript you will either have to wait for a long time or be happy with a few players.

Will this ever change?

No, it will not, because the list is not randomly shuffled. Your server will always be at the bottom! (until new ones get added, of course)

Problem 2

I noticed the serverlist does not delete non-existing servers.

How come?

It's the Game-Monitor theory: servers added will not be removed. The system doesn't use some sort of announce at X interval theory, if it would then only active servers would be listed and non-active (or non-existing) removed automatically (because they don't announce anymore).

What's bad about this then?

This means the serverlist takes more time to complete, because the client still has to query all these once-added servers that don't even exist anymore. This in turn discriminates active servers because they will appear later.

Solution (for both problems)

The serverlist should be randomly shuffled each X minutes. This way servers will have a unique position that changes over time. There will not be any discrimination of new servers anymore (all servers have the same chance of being seen, as the list is random).

The serverlist should also remove non-existing/non-active servers. It's up to the MTA team to decide how to do that, but the announce theory I described a few lines up is most likely the easiest way.

IF YOU CHOOSE OPTION "NO" PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK WE SHOULD KEEP DISCRIMINATION AND KEEP THIS UNFAIR AND SLOWLY SLOW GETTING LIST!

* Notice "the current list unfair" on both "yes/no" options. The current list is INDEED unfair in any way, nothing can be changed about that by saying yes or no (it's a true fact, not an opinion).

[dzek (varez)]

You could just edit your post in your older post.

For first-time visitors check out related topic

What's bad about this then?

It's not really bad. It's just unprofessional. New servers will get less players, so if you have a great serverscript you will either have to wait for a long time or be happy with a few players.

As i said in this topic - less than month is needed to make your good server to be on the top.

Will this ever change?

No, it will not, because the list is not randomly shuffled. Your server will always be at the bottom! (until new ones get added, of course)

This is just a lie. Servers are moving through the list, you really don't get the idea of initial sorting that game-monitor.com is doing. Maybe go to their site and find some informations? There should be something about that.

Problem 2

Problem 2 is a lie too. Game-monitor is removing inactive servers after some time. You have to run your server for at least 24h to get it added to their list because they don't want temporary servers on their list. They also give you time to be down (due to connection/power/technical problem for example). You don't want your top server to be removed from list only because there was connection problem on your server for 3 hours!? But if it will stay like that for few days - they will remove you. Everything is well-thought for keeping the list clean and.. fair.

The serverlist should be randomly shuffled each X minutes. This way servers will have a unique position that changes over time.

This will need involving additional server from MTA team to organize the list. Your MTA client is downloading server list directly from game-monitor.com. Client-side randomization each time list is fully loaded IS possible (but would be annoying as hell!).

More of my thoughts are in this topic.

Summary:

All these yelling about fictional problems (MTA is using game-monitor for few years, a lot of servers are online, even more was online for some time), DISCRIMINATION etc - and nobody was complaining. I think the reason of all this is because YOUR server is unpopular. So listen to this little solution: wait 3-4 weeks. If your server is good - you will notice player count jump. If your server will still be empty one - your server is NOT INTERESTING and you should deal with it.

[dzek (varez)]

And you know what?

Your poll is DISCRIMINATING and UNFAIR. These answers are made only to be right with your thoughts. So why creating a poll?

You could put there "yes/yes" and it would be THE SAME.

[Glo]

You could just edit your post in your older post.

For first-time visitors check out related topic

Stop telling me what to do. You try to push your opinion through all of this forum, not everybody takes that (at least I don't). Grow up.

What's bad about this then?

It's not really bad. It's just unprofessional. New servers will get less players, so if you have a great serverscript you will either have to wait for a long time or be happy with a few players.

As i said in this topic - less than month is needed to make your good server to be on the top.

That's not a factual argument. Its what you have experienced, it doesn't have to be the same for everyone. And it changes nothing of the fact that the list is unfair and discriminating.

Will this ever change?

No, it will not, because the list is not randomly shuffled. Your server will always be at the bottom! (until new ones get added, of course)

This is just a lie. Servers are moving through the list, you really don't get the idea of initial sorting that game-monitor.com is doing. Maybe go to their site and find some informations? There should be something about that.

No, its not randomly sorted. Stop giving false arguments (count: 1)

Problem 2

Problem 2 is a lie too. Game-monitor is removing inactive servers after some time. You have to run your server for at least 24h to get it added to their list because they don't want temporary servers on their list. They also give you time to be down (due to connection/power/technical problem for example). You don't want your top server to be removed from list only because there was connection problem on your server for 3 hours!? But if it will stay like that for few days - they will remove you. Everything is well-thought for keeping the list clean and.. fair.

The serverlist should be randomly shuffled each X minutes. This way servers will have a unique position that changes over time.

This will need involving additional server from MTA team to organize the list. Your MTA client is downloading server list directly from game-monitor.com. Client-side randomization each time list is fully loaded IS possible (but would be annoying as hell!).

More of my thoughts are in this topic.

No, it has been confirmed that its not. Stop giving false arguments (count: 2)

Summary:

All these yelling about fictional problems (MTA is using game-monitor for few years, a lot of servers are online, even more was online for some time), DISCRIMINATION etc - and nobody was complaining. I think the reason of all this is because YOUR server is unpopular. So listen to this little solution: wait 3-4 weeks. If your server is good - you will notice player count jump. If your server will still be empty one - your server is NOT INTERESTING and you should deal with it.

It's not fictional. Your arguments are non-factual. The list is not randomized, thats a fact, anyone can check if its true or not. What you're saying can't be checked so it's not a fact.

Don't tell me my reasons behind posting this. I have never posted a reason, I only said I noticed this discrimination.Stop giving false arguments (count: 3)

Besides, this is not about popular/unpopular servers. This is about equal chances. Your IQ must be very low. You can't or don't even read what I'm saying. All you're doing is giving non-factual arguments and calling me names. Who is the one yelling?

And you know what?

Your poll is DISCRIMINATING and UNFAIR. These answers are made only to be right with your thoughts. So why creating a poll?

You could put there "yes/yes" and it would be THE SAME.

No, this poll is completely fair. It addresses a problem, and problems are to be solved, not to be shouted away.

Yes/yes is not the same as yes/no. What you say is: "No, the current list is unfair. We should not randomize the list, unfair listing is ok. We should not delete non-existing servers from the list, we want the server browser take as long as possible to list all servers."

That's not the same as: "Yes, the current list is unfair. We should randomize the list, so all servers have equal chances. We should also delete non-existing servers from the list, because that speeds up the server browser."

There's no other answers possible. You must agree that the list is unfair (it is a fact). If you can't agree with that you better not vote at all. After having agreed with that you can tell us your opinion, you either think it should be changed to a fair system or you think discrimination and inequality is completely right.

--

Let me know express my view on you, you owe me that one after having done 3 times on me now:

You're a right-wing idiot only thinking about your own "popular" server and you're attacking the weak for saying something about this discrimination. Be social to others! You're completely sick if you think this list is 100% fair.

We should go to the police and trial you for this completely ridicilous comments and your approval of discrimination based on marks.

[dzek (varez)]

Stop telling me what to do. You try to push your opinion through all of this forum, not everybody takes that (at least I don't). Grow up.

As a moderator I'm thinking there is no reason to have two topics about same problem.

Probably you don't want others to see my last arguments, and 2 or 3 posts from MTA team agreeing with me.

That's not a factual argument. Its what you have experienced, it doesn't have to be the same for everyone.

Let me repeat: GOOD server will be moved to the top. BORING server will stay at bottom. Just need some time. Even REVERSING the list and having all these BORING servers on the top is non sense - players will disconnect anyway.

No, its not randomly sorted. Stop giving false arguments (count: 1)

Point me to a sentence when i said it's random (false arguments count: 0)

No, it has been confirmed that its not. Stop giving false arguments (count: 2)

Who told you that? Write down few names/IPs of inactive servers. After week - go to the game-monitor - you won't find them. If they wouldn't removing old server - the list would have 3000 servers. And you should be able to find my 6-moth-ago-shutted-down-server. So the person giving false arguments is currently you. I won't count. MY false arguments count: still 0. Cool.

What you're saying can't be checked so it's not a fact.

What can't be checked?

Don't tell me my reasons behind posting this. I have never posted a reason, I only said I noticed this discrimination.Stop giving false arguments (count: 3)

I said I think blah blah, not said anything I'm sure in this case. So false ARGUMENTS is still zero, I'm sorry.

Your IQ must be very low.

When somebody is out of arguments - he/she is starting to insult others. Are you running out of arguments?

You can't or don't even read what I'm saying.

WHAT? Every reply I'm quoting you and replies are related to your sentences. Stop giving false arguments

All you're doing is giving non-factual arguments

List them please.

No, this poll is completely fair.

Uhm, I know something about people and poll manipulation techniques. Your answers ARE meant to be same as your PERSONAL thoughts. And you know that.

You must agree that the list is unfair (it is a fact).

I'm agreeing that it's not random. I never said if it's fair or not.

There's no other answers possible.

C'mon change it to "yes/yes".. You will be not blinding peoplel.

You're a right-wing idiot

Insulting again? Thanks, but I'm not a kid, won't do my revenge.

thinking about your own "popular" server

I don't have any server. In fact - I'm not playing MTA anymore for some time.

you're attacking the weak

What? Attacking? I'm just denying your curious "arguments".

Be social to others!

Yea, I want every new server to be on the top, and popular servers should be visible only every 4 refreshes....

This won't help boring servers anyway.

You're completely sick if you think this list is 100% fair.

Again: I never said if it's fair or not.

We should go to the police and trial you for this completely ridicilous comments and your approval of discrimination based on marks.

I like good jokes and the end of long posts

Edit:

I know it's not related to topic but: How old are you?

[Glo]

Let me repeat: GOOD server will be moved to the top. BORING server will stay at bottom. Just need some time. Even REVERSING the list and having all these BORING servers on the top is non sense - players will disconnect anyway.

I never said we should “reverse” the list. Why did you leave out

And it changes nothing of the fact that the list is unfair and discriminating.

? It is a strong argument against your theory as well as that your theory isn’t factual. (false argument count: 1)

Point me to a sentence when i said it's random (false arguments count: 0)

What you said before:

This is just a lie. Servers are moving through the list, you really don't get the idea of initial sorting that game-monitor.com is doing. Maybe go to their site and find some informations? There should be something about that.

You are clearly saying that I don’t have any idea about the current system. I do, its not random. That’s a fact. And it seems you agree with that, so why did you tell me that “you really don’t get the idea of initial sorting that game-monitor.com is doing” – its totally not relevant to the problem. (false argument count: 2)

Who told you that? Write down few names/IPs of inactive servers. After week - go to the game-monitor - you won't find them. If they wouldn't removing old server - the list would have 3000 servers. And you should be able to find my 6-moth-ago-shutted-down-server. So the person giving false arguments is currently you. I won't count. MY false arguments count: still 0. Cool.

Somebody from the MTA team. You seem to not trust my words at all. Why should I trust yours? I want respect to come from both sides, and as you’re a moderator (if you’re going to attack me on where you would have said that: read your own post) you especially should not be this aggressive to others trying to fix a problem.

What can't be checked?

If you finally NOT remove your quotes from my quotes… you’d already know the answer. Why are you doing this? The only reason I can think of is hiding the words you said to make it look like as if I’m coming up with things that weren’t said. You have the ability to explain in your reply (if you want of course).

Again, you have said:

If your server is good - you will notice player count jump. If your server will still be empty one - your server is NOT INTERESTING and you should deal with it.

That can’t be checked. It’s your theory but it’s not a fact. (false argument count: 3)

Why do you still cut the part where I’m giving arguments against your ridiculous (false) arguments and (false) accusations? Do you agree the poll is fair now? I clearly explained it (you didn’t quote unfortunately, why not?) but I can do it again if you want.

BTW, it doesn’t surprise me that half of your post is based on re-personally attacking me after I “insulted” you 1 time (after you personally attacked me twice). According to your own theory you seem to have ran out of arguments…

[Taalasmaa]

Hmm, well.

I think the current list really sucks. I'm not saying I have non-popular server, I actually got one very famous one, but it's true.

Varez, even if there is a really good server, better than valhalla and it wont get the "start" players (10 players daily) it wont never get popular, everybody just ignores all those "less people" servers. Example, gamenet.fi WFS was one of the most wanted server on DP2.3, when moved to MTA 1.0 WFS died, it didn't come online for like two months and when finally got it up, nobody came there because of it was ignored because it was on the bottom on the list.

In fact, this update would be one of the bests updates I have ever seen around here. I'm afraid varez or anyone else don't wanna this update because they are scaring that they will loose some players from their own servers...

I think many people would love this update, really love it. It would bring maybe new players to MTA, also.

Varez, of course if you have patience, you will get the players (I waited almost two years for it) and now I finally got those players. But instead of waiting those players we would take this update.

Uhm, well. I have spoken.

Thumbs up for Glo

Best Regards

Taalasmaa

[dzek (varez)]

ah, write my nickname w/out capitals, thanks.

I'm not scared, as i dont own any server

[Taalasmaa]

ah, write my nickname w/out capitals, thanks.

I'm not scared, as i dont own any server

Oh my f*cking god.

Are you afraid writing your nick with capital letters will hurt your ego?

[dzek (varez)]

why are you trying to insult me too?

i just dont like it, something wrong with it?

[Taalasmaa]

why are you trying to insult me too?

i just dont like it, something wrong with it?

Yeah you did, didn't you started the insulting? I don't really like you, first of all, when somebody is suggesting a great update, you come and yell, insult the writer of topic and so. Maybe look into mirror?

[dzek (varez)]

next one.. tell me where i was insulting anybody?..

[SnoopCat]

lol this is getting funny

[12p]

@varez + Taalasma: Please, if you have to discuss, don't do here, do it by PMs, please.

As well, I vote for a randomized server list.

[Telepath]

Here I was rambling through the forums and these two topics cracked me up (more accurately, it was their original poster). Good thing that I finally managed to fill the registration form.

My purpose is not offending anyone here, but all that you (OP) have written here can only be called "funny", if anything.

More active servers are on top. They have better gamemodes. They have a base playerbase. How do you gain an advantage over that? You make an unique mode and advertise it well. With that taken care of there is no reason for you to not to become a popular server. If you are unable to do that, might as well not host a new server and complain because it is empty.

In any event, it is very esteemed of you to utilize this serverlist scanning delay into that poll of yours. Really nice setup you got there, since there is no way in hell one could ask for both a non-randomized serverlist and reduced server scanning delay. May I also add that voters who do not share opinion with you have to confess that they sympathize despotism? Irony coming from someone who posts a one-sided poll about a "problem", to the Suggestions section of the forum.

Now let me get to the "solution", that is the most well-thought of all. Since it is impossible for the new servers with creative and intriguing gamemodes to receive new players who never bother searching for something different, you think it is fair and reasonable to give those new servers the number of servers/servers per page*2 chance to receive fresh players (this is a very optimistic calculation, even then). Those fresh players (talking about people who are new to the game) new servers receive are at the expense of the well-established servers that used to be pretty popular (not some time after the anti-discrimination hammer). Owners of all servers, notably the new servers are happy since their chance to grow is based on the same formula. In short, democracy has come to the MTA:SA server list. Note; I did not make up all this, you did.

Here you will see what I think about the current system, followed by a democratic one. Don't ask me for facts as my thoughts are based on what I understand from common sense. Not that you haven't failed enough with both being the original poster and giving a solid proof about anything you had written. Yes, it is mainly the OPs who give proof, not the commenters.

Servers are sequenced upon how active/popular they have been on a long term. Players choose servers based on number of players, gamemode and pingtime. Players scroll through the servers (they are aware that there are more servers than what is initially shown). Some people do search for a new, better gamemode.

People should not host new servers if they are going to host the cloned/slightly modified gamemode. The only reasonable time to host a new server is when you have something you think is truly unique and will contribute to the community. Even then you should not expect users to find their way themselves, you should let people know how awesome your gamemode is (post information/screenshots about your scripts). Depending on your karma and gamemode, you will eventually (less than a month? More than a month? No one knows) become a popular server. Just like growing up, it takes time.

Randomizing the server list will not affect the current playerbase. All except fresh players will know where to play on and where to not. New players will join servers more randomly. Popular servers with well-laboured gamemodes will give their potential fresh blood to random servers with **** gamemodes. The new, empty servers which deserve new players will not benefit much since all servers are equal. It will be harder to start and learn the game with a better experience, since high ranking servers with interesting gamemodes are god knows where. Here is the interesting part, server hosters who have decent gamemodes will find themselves handicapped because of this equalization they voted for.

Your ideas of equalizing everyones chances may have been claimed as a sign of goodwill but only in communism everyone gets the same bread regardless of how much they have worked. While desirable in theory, equalization could have never been implemented without corruption. It is common sense that popular servers are rather higher on the list, it is not discrimination that empty servers with **** gamemodes are lower. Give me a proof about anything you have written before questioning my common sense.

Here you got my reason. I would go off-topic about your narrow "this is irrevelant! that is irrevelant!" or "non factual (lol) argument Count.1" tactics but so much for a single post.

Note: No, I don't own a server. I wouldn't want my work to have the same place as a half-done clone in the long run, which is why I posted this.

[12p]

I'm sure it will change a bit the playerbase. 'cause some actual servers are TOO USUAL. For example, "Gamenet 100% Zombie Mod", is a good server. But is getting a bit bored; all time, the same thing...

If there are new servers made by new scripters, with good ideas and made by theirselves? What about that? Isn't just they work a lot his brains only to get 0 players 'cause his position in the list. This randomized way is good to "at least" give an opportunity to new servers, and beat old and bad servers, if new ones are better!

And I have a complementary suggestion for this: make a "critics system" (or voting system); players vote 1-5 on each server (if they want), then it will make players know which are good servers (by another players' opinion).

[dzek (varez)]

Nice said Telepath, but i think most ppl are argument-proof. they only think it will help them gaining players, ignoring the fact that players sort their server list anyway, and even if it would be impossible-they will NOT play on boring server even if it will be first on the list all the time

[Glo]

Here I was rambling through the forums and these two topics cracked me up (more accurately, it was their original poster). Good thing that I finally managed to fill the registration form.

If you reply here because of the person who started the topic you already are at the wrong address. People voting and replying here are doing that because they feel discriminated and want to solve this problem (except varez).

More active servers are on top. They have better gamemodes. They have a base playerbase. How do you gain an advantage over that? You make an unique mode and advertise it well. With that taken care of there is no reason for you to not to become a popular server. If you are unable to do that, might as well not host a new server and complain because it is empty.

Stop telling people to XXX if XXX. For the last time: more active servers are NOT on top. The oldest servers are on top. That's a huge difference.

In any event, it is very esteemed of you to utilize this serverlist scanning delay into that poll of yours. Really nice setup you got there, since there is no way in hell one could ask for both a non-randomized serverlist and reduced server scanning delay. May I also add that voters who do not share opinion with you have to confess that they sympathize despotism? Irony coming from someone who posts a one-sided poll about a "problem", to the Suggestions section of the forum.

So you really think it's not a problem that new servers are discriminated? I see why you have chosen for option 2. You don't even have the right so speak as you're not a community member nor server owner. Because I'm always nice to everybody unlike some other persons here, I will take some time to answer your (false) accusations and (false) arguments.

Here you will see what I think about the current system, followed by a democratic one. Don't ask me for facts as my thoughts are based on what I understand from common sense. Not that you haven't failed enough with both being the original poster and giving a solid proof about anything you had written. Yes, it is mainly the OPs who give proof, not the commenters.

Please look up what "democracy" stands for. We don't want a democratic serverlist, we want an equal and non-discriminating serverlist. Again, because I'm here to defend the rights of the discriminated in our society, I will take time to reply.

Servers are sequenced upon how active/popular they have been on a long term. Players choose servers based on number of players, gamemode and pingtime. Players scroll through the servers (they are aware that there are more servers than what is initially shown). Some people do search for a new, better gamemode.

People should not host new servers if they are going to host the cloned/slightly modified gamemode. The only reasonable time to host a new server is when you have something you think is truly unique and will contribute to the community. Even then you should not expect users to find their way themselves, you should let people know how awesome your gamemode is (post information/screenshots about your scripts). Depending on your karma and gamemode, you will eventually (less than a month? More than a month? No one knows) become a popular server. Just like growing up, it takes time.

Really, nobody of the "against" people (people who approve widespread discrimination) do their homework before replying. Servers are NOT ordered based on how active/popular/XXX they are. They are ordered based on how OLD they are. OLD = TOP, NEW = BOTTOM. Your speech about "cloned" gamemodes doesn't make sense at all, its TOTALLY NOT what the problem is about. Stop trying to influence people with false arguments and big stories...

Randomizing the server list will not affect the current playerbase. All except fresh players will know where to play on and where to not. New players will join servers more randomly. Popular servers with well-laboured gamemodes will give their potential fresh blood to random servers with **** gamemodes. The new, empty servers which deserve new players will not benefit much since all servers are equal. It will be harder to start and learn the game with a better experience, since high ranking servers with interesting gamemodes are god knows where. Here is the interesting part, server hosters who have decent gamemodes will find themselves handicapped because of this equalization they voted for.

Current player base of what? Servers? Of course it will. New servers will be at top now and then and will receive more new players because of that. There's nothing negative to old servers because they have EQUAL chances. So I don't get why you are talking about "popular" servers - all servers are equal for us so they get equal chances. You're saying that servers with good scripts will suffer from this randomization, equality and non-discrimination. Why? They will have equal chances: new or old. Everybody will benefit, and especially servers with good scripts because more players will join and become regulars because the script is good. What you want is that only already popular (= NOT GOOD, BUT OLD!) servers should get players. That's discrimination.

Your ideas of equalizing everyones chances may have been claimed as a sign of goodwill but only in communism everyone gets the same bread regardless of how much they have worked. While desirable in theory, equalization could have never been implemented without corruption. It is common sense that popular servers are rather higher on the list, it is not discrimination that empty servers with **** gamemodes are lower. Give me a proof about anything you have written before questioning my common sense.

What has communism got to do with the randomization of a serverlist? And corruption? You're talking about irrelevant stories all the time. And again: NOT GOOD, but OLD servers are at the top. NOT BAD, but NEW servers are at the bottom. You don't have any idea what you are talking about. In every (false, non-factual) argument you give you don't even get the problem (again, problem = NEW: bottom - OLD: top, not anything else!!!), so why should we take this serious?

Here you got my reason. I would go off-topic about your narrow "this is irrevelant! that is irrevelant!" or "non factual (lol) argument Count.1" tactics but so much for a single post.

No, you can't give any true factual arguments - just take a look at your own post, its full of irrelevant crap and personal opinions. Stop talking nonsense!

Invalid, non-factual argument count: every word you said (you broke the record, congratulations)

Edited October 22, 2010 by Guest

[Glo]

Nice said Telepath, but i think most ppl are argument-proof. they only think it will help them gaining players, ignoring the fact that players sort their server list anyway, and even if it would be impossible-they will NOT play on boring server even if it will be first on the list all the time

Then why do you agree with mr. Telepath that popular servers (according to mr. Telepath and you popular servers are GOOD servers) will suffer from the equal and non-discriminating serverlist?

And again: it doesn't make sense at all. It's NOT about BORING/GOOD/XXX servers, its about equal chances for ALL servers . Stop talking about nothing and focus on the real problem.

[dzek (varez)]

I see you ignored my last post, running out of arguments?

Stop telling people to XXX if XXX. For the last time: more active servers are NOT on top. The oldest servers are on top. That's a huge difference.

But it's not true anyway..

Then why do you agree with mr. Telepath that popular servers (according to mr. Telepath and you popular servers are GOOD servers) will suffer from the equal and non-discriminating serverlist?

You still are saying what is comfortable for you to say. I didn't say I'm agreeing with Telepath in all things. You are putting not my words into my mouth! And this is not the first time you are doing it.

And actually good servers will suffer - because players will be roaming all around the servers looking for a good one for hours (you can't say if server is good after playing less than at least 15 minutes [okay, you can - if its empty (no resources)]) instead of actual playing. Ofc this is just theoretical thing - because players can sort they list however they want anyway.

What has communism got to do with the randomization of a serverlist?

Giving everybody the same (this is what you want - to make every server player count equal - you are calling this "chances"). It's some kind of communism and I hope you know communism is bad thing - servers should have players because they are good, not because somebody thinks they should have equal chances.

If you want to reply to this, please reply to my last post to you before.

You are not obligated to reply anyway.

Also:

I voted "no" in this discriminating poll. But actually I have (alomost) nothing against implement randomization (if it will not cause my serverlist to "jump" while/after loading) - me and most ppl will sort servers by own rule anyway. Players that never used that thing - will start, because of too big randomization of boring servers. Summary: Feel free to add it. It will change (almost) nothing. I only hope that new MTA players won't be dissapointed because they will not use sorting feature and can't find anything cool in MTA (because of too much boring servers on the top).

PS. And you can say how do you imagine this randomization?

Forcing Game-monitor to randomize their lists?

Forcing MTA team to cache the servers list and implement randomization in this way?

Randomizing servers list constantly while loading (every new server show up)?

Randomizing servers list after loading the list (so I'm browsing top servers server by gamemonitor and instantly my list gets randomized)?

Last two are shoot in the foot. Paying for custom master-server is not good thing. Forging Game-monitor to do anything is pretty impossible.

Any other thoughts?

[Telepath]

I had already written why I replied here, it is not because I loved your politician wannabe behaviour and then backing it up with childish insults. It is you who makes it look like there is no option more reasonable than giving everyone the same chance based on the same formula. You aren't suggesting to give everyone something, it is just a possibility. That is why it will only get worse as more servers get opened, as even that small possibility will be miniaturized by then.

You'd think if I believed that server sequencing was based entirely on release date formula, I wouldn't be this offended by your constant propaganda posts. Even if this is true, I don't see how randomizing everything is the best damn solution there is.

I have been playing the same since a long time, I have seen servers switch positions. I did not claim that servers are sequenced on popularity, I said that is what they should be based on initially. I countered your fantasy of:

Since it is impossible for the new servers with creative and intriguing gamemodes to receive new players who never bother searching for something different, you think it is fair and reasonable to give those new servers the number of servers/servers per page*2 chance to receive fresh players (this is a very optimistic calculation, even then). Those fresh players (talking about people who are new to the game) new servers receive are at the expense of the well-established servers that used to be pretty popular (not some time after the anti-discrimination hammer). Owners of all servers, notably the new servers are happy since their chance to grow is based on the same formula. In short, democracy has come to the MTA:SA server list. Note; I did not make up all this, you did.

With my thoughts on the current system, followed with what I thought would happen in a randomized one:

Servers are sequenced upon how active/popular they have been on a long term. Players choose servers based on number of players, gamemode and pingtime. Players scroll through the servers (they are aware that there are more servers than what is initially shown). Some people do search for a new, better gamemode.

People should not host new servers if they are going to host the cloned/slightly modified gamemode. The only reasonable time to host a new server is when you have something you think is truly unique and will contribute to the community. Even then you should not expect users to find their way themselves, you should let people know how awesome your gamemode is (post information/screenshots about your scripts). Depending on your karma and gamemode, you will eventually (less than a month? More than a month? No one knows) become a popular server. Just like growing up, it takes time.

I have plenty of reasons to believe "Problem.1" is a lie. I have no reason to believe it could be true, since you (as the original poster) have done nothing solid to back up any of your statements, yet alone that one in particular. I didn't come here to zealously defend that problem.1 is a lie, I have come here to point out how you make anything that doesn't fit with your ideas wrong. The only wrong thing in these two topics is what you are suggesting to fix what you believe is a problem.

As for your third paragraph, I see you want to drive your subtle misguidings away from the topic, and cover it entirely with my incredibility. I am no more credible than you, who claims everything that doesn't suit with him are "false arguments", though he himself has shown nothing of value. As for your oh so subtle poll misguiding, it is true! You can't expect any casual voter to choose unfairness, backed with some random bull**** (i.e serverlist setup takes longer because non-existant servers aren't deleted). Speaking of relevance, I for one only apploud the relation of those problems which are believed to be existant (by you, I don't know on what proof you are basing those claims). I also apploud that you noticed how it would break the time-space continuum if someone could vote for both unfair (lol) listing, and lagged serverlist. Why on earth did you post a damn poll? You need some "dominating numbers of democracy" to back up your lack of self-confidence and ever-lack of proof, is that it? As for my false (lol) arguments and accusations. I have accused you because you didn't make a fair poll (as covered), anyone with half a brain can see it. My argument is that you are misguiding everyone with the claim of "nothing better can be done than randomizing the serverlist", and that is wrong. As for being nice to everyone, yeah, you are being nice to the current dominance who vote for you, but on the other hand you only try to personalize your countered arguments (the fact that randomizing could only be funny rather than perhaps a better rating system).

I know what "Democracy" stands for, you either were not aware that I claimed your idea of "randomizing" is corrupt, pointless on long term and baseless, or you are contradicting with yourself. As I said, your idea doesn't give anyone anything (except it makes the established servers lose), but a chance.

Let's get to your fifth paragraph (I don't bother much with quoting). I will assume you missed the words "I think" in the previous paragraph of mine. You'd think that I wouldn't shout something random and put it up against your fantasy, but you'd rather make it look like "these communists never do their homework". Nowhere in my post have I directly claimed that servers are based on "popularity". I don't know about that, that is how I think it is, or should be. When I said that "More active servers are on top", I did not mention that could be based on release date. Before you bastardilize my words to misguide and personalize my argument of "Randomization is wrong, rating based on popularity is better", give me a proof about anything you have written.

When I was talking about the current playerbase (which I am a part of), even though those people have already found their favourite servers it is still the most likely that they will influence the empty servers with unique modes, in the current system. This will not notably change in the event of "random serverlist" because experienced players will know how to scroll through and customize the serverlist sorting. The "difference" you are talking about is so small and gets only worse in the long run. As more servers start, this "benefit" of equalization will always get worse. I will try to make it better for your argument. Let's consider that the community is constantly growing with new players (I don't believe growth is this big yet, do you?). Some servers will get lucky and receive positive hits to their population, but then they will be handicapped by the ever-increasing amounts of other servers. On the other hand, since all servers are equal, you are actually at a loss as you keep labouring your unique gamemode which deserves more players.

You claim that there is a benefit in your thoughts, yet I see nothing more than a simple formula which equalizes everyone in the chance of getting the first-timers in the game. The current players who don't want to try something new won't look around, those who get bored of their well populated server will, so for them it is the same with a random system. Even for newcomers, it is common sense to join the most populated, i.e "old" server (they can scroll). It is common sense to orientate especially newcomers to the most populated servers.

My "beneficial thoughts" are, as you may have guessed, initial sorting of servers (that which affects newcomers) should be based on how popular the server is. This could be based on averages on a longer time or only the current. This way, labour in scripting actually gets a reward rather than a mere "chance" which only keeps getting worse as the population grows.

You constantly try to make your rivals look like they're not sure of what they are talking about, yet you are the one who is unaware of what you are suggesting. EQUALIZATION DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN "FAIR". You can't think better than anything that counters your argument has got to be false, wrong, irrevelant. This is also obvious from your stupid poll, not just I, anyone could make their own version if it was this simple.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Guest

[Xierra]

Hey hey, guys STOP!

What have you guys done?

Come on, let's just talk about this slowly and not angrily, not blaming.

Man... that was a long post full with angry flames between Glo and varez.

I just don't care about that the server was on the bottom or whatever. But at least we got some servers we need you know, We explore.

I always sort serverlists, so was most of the other players. They could stumble across and get into one of your servers, there IS a chance. So don't worry about serverlist frustration.

And also please don't force us to vote yes. The serverlist is not awful at all. Let's just say it's just according to what game-monitor got, not the MTA SA's serverlist.

So end all of the shouts! I hate flames.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Guest

[dzek (varez)]

When i read your posts, Telepath, I see my English is so simple.. and generally suck.

XX3, I'm trying to be nice, just saying my thoughts, Glo is attacking me only because I think different. I never offended him nor called him idiot or low IQ person. For me it's *almost* normal discussion, each side have their arguments etc etc. Too bad that Glo is playing a bit unfair. Anyway - it's not a flame. Not yet.

[Xierra]

Ohh it's not a flame? Sorry about that.

Well just discuss this thing up fairly. Go on.

[ccw]

Randomizing the server list is not the answer. As mentioned by others, with 500 servers, any 'page 1' snowball effect would be be diluted and lost. Having said that, there are a couple of things we could do to improve the lot of new server owners:

1. Reduce the time it takes for servers to be scanned in the server browser. (This is being addressed in the next nightly)

2. Assist (somehow) in the promotion of new (or interesting) servers