Serverlist

The problem

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.

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)

The solution

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).

What do I want / what can you do?

I would like the opinion of as much people as possible. If you disagree with the problem/solution, please comment why. If you agree, don't hesitate to show you're there as well. Together we can realize it and stop discrimination.

most ppl are sorting servers by their own choice anyway (mostly by ping or player count)

most ppl are sorting servers by their own choice anyway (mostly by ping or player count)

You can still see the problem here...

The servers at top will have the most players (usually), and if other players sort by player count...

And do you have any hard facts of the % of people sorting it on their own? Even if it would be 99%, thats still no excuse to discriminate the other 1%. Discrimination seems to continue..

Default order and its "discrimination" is done by game-monitor master server afaik I think there is no problem to implement randomization (anyway, you will have to wait to list fully load - randomizing it while loading will be annoying - i'm mostly searching for servers while list is still loading - and randomize with every new server loaded - just imagine that) - but maybe create a simple poll if users wants their servers lists to be randomized. When server have many player - its mostly because this server is good. If your server is really good but just starting - after few weeks it will be on the top anyway. I made a stats script for HSN DD/DM - they was just starting, having around 4-7 players. Now they are full AFAIK (not playing MTA anymore, so not sure, last time I was playing it was full most time, they could increase max players too). If you make just-another-freeroam/paradise-rp/j-rpg/stock-version-of-race or whatever - even randomizing won't help you. Dissapointed ppl will disconnect.

And do you have any hard facts of the % of people sorting it on their own?

Nope, I wasn't creating any polls through ppl, I just have seen many of my friends doing this on various multiplayer games. It's logical - who wants to play on empty server or with mega lag? The "natural reaction" is to sort by players count or ping

Even if it would be 99%, thats still no excuse to discriminate the other 1%.

Discrimination is everywhere. MTA is not working on Mac's for example. For USA this could be even more than 1% - from what I can read over the internet.

Also I wouldn't use the word "discrimination" to describe default server sorting on multiplayer game.

You can sort the list you see by any column. It's not really ordered by when a server was added, the server browser sends queries to lots of servers at once and the ones who reply faster get on the list earlier. So it's just a matter of reply time.

Pretty much everything Varez said is my thoughts.

You would need more proof that people DO NOT use filters such as player count, ping, etc. to sort server lists. Otherwise, why would all retail ("professional") games have them? I for one always sort by ping and player count. You are playing the game and want to play with other people with the least lag. It's just that simple. I don't think any preliminary order before sorting makes much of a difference.

Default order and its "discrimination" is done by game-monitor master server afaik I think there is no problem to implement randomization (anyway, you will have to wait to list fully load - randomizing it while loading will be annoying - i'm mostly searching for servers while list is still loading - and randomize with every new server loaded - just imagine that) - but maybe create a simple poll if users wants their servers lists to be randomized. When server have many player - its mostly because this server is good. If your server is really good but just starting - after few weeks it will be on the top anyway. I made a stats script for HSN DD/DM - they was just starting, having around 4-7 players. Now they are full AFAIK (not playing MTA anymore, so not sure, last time I was playing it was full most time, they could increase max players too). If you make just-another-freeroam/paradise-rp/j-rpg/stock-version-of-race or whatever - even randomizing won't help you. Dissapointed ppl will disconnect.

And do you have any hard facts of the % of people sorting it on their own?

Nope, I wasn't creating any polls through ppl, I just have seen many of my friends doing this on various multiplayer games. It's logical - who wants to play on empty server or with mega lag? The "natural reaction" is to sort by players count or ping

Even if it would be 99%, thats still no excuse to discriminate the other 1%.

Discrimination is everywhere. MTA is not working on Mac's for example. For USA this could be even more than 1% - from what I can read over the internet.

Also I wouldn't use the word "discrimination" to describe default server sorting on multiplayer game.

I think many people use the search filter to e.g. search for "dm" or "race". Servers at the bottom will not gather any players this way.

We can call it discrimination because that's what it is. New servers are treated differently from older servers. That's not a good base to build on.

You can sort the list you see by any column. It's not really ordered by when a server was added, the server browser sends queries to lots of servers at once and the ones who reply faster get on the list earlier. So it's just a matter of reply time.

It has been confirmed that it is.

Pretty much everything Varez said is my thoughts.

You would need more proof that people DO NOT use filters such as player count, ping, etc. to sort server lists. Otherwise, why would all retail ("professional") games have them? I for one always sort by ping and player count. You are playing the game and want to play with other people with the least lag. It's just that simple. I don't think any preliminary order before sorting makes much of a difference.

I'm not saying people don't use the filters so I do not have to give proof for that.

You're saying any order doesn't make much difference but thats exactly what the master server is currently doing. It orders based on servers' age. What you mean is a random order (= no order) is the best.

I think many people use the search filter to e.g. search for "dm" or "race". Servers at the bottom will not gather any players this way.

You think.. So now give us a proove

And as I said - there WAS a lot of dd/dm servers when HSN was starting. After few weeks they was (and are) on the top. This means - good server will get to the top. Bad servers will stay down.

Pretty much everything Varez said is my thoughts.

I hate you ;]

It has been confirmed that it is.

Where? By who?

You totally misinterpreted my post:

You can still see the problem here...

The servers at top will have the most players (usually), and if other players sort by player count...

And do you have any hard facts of the % of people sorting it on their own? Even if it would be 99%, thats still no excuse to discriminate the other 1%. Discrimination seems to continue..

You would need more proof that people DO NOT use filters such as player count, ping, etc. to sort server lists. Otherwise, why would all retail ("professional") games have them? I for one always sort by ping and player count. You are playing the game and want to play with other people with the least lag. It's just that simple. I don't think any preliminary order before sorting makes much of a difference.

I'm not saying people don't use the filters so I do not have to give proof for that. You're saying any order doesn't make much difference but thats exactly what the master server is currently doing. It orders based on servers' age. What you mean is a random order (= no order) is the best.

The response is to what you wrote there in red means you are trying to say the % has a probability of being low so we must defend that the % is high with proofs. I am saying the opposite is true. Since virtually all major retails games have these filters you would be hard pressed to prove the % is low.

Secondly, I am saying the initial order is a moot point, because most likely nearly everyone sorts out the list (relating to what I said in the above quote). I have run a server and I can say there are plenty of people that join out of interest. Particularly if you do not run generic gamemodes that everyone else is running. If you are running something new and exciting you will attract people.

It is the same as any other game. You need to be skilled in the way you present your server in name, content, and server bandwidth (pings). Some make it and some do not, just like every other game with a bunch of empty servers. There is only so much space in the community for the same gamemodes.

Mr. Ransom, why shouldn't the serverlist be randomized? It doesn't matter if you sort the list on ping, players or whatever: the oldest servers are always first shown. That is the problem, not any filters, not anything else. Do you understand that? So why shouldn't we take out that inequality as well and randomize the list every X minutes?

I expect a great reply from the only person with some good theories with supported arguments (however it's sad your theories don't have anything to do with the problem I'm pointing at).

I would like to redirect you to viewtopic.php?f=102&t=29594 for any further discussion and please vote if you think something should be done about it, or if you think inequality and discrimination is totally ok. It's your choice

or if you think inequality and discrimination is totally ok. It's your choice

again: all sentences written by you are written in way causing reader to think the same.

you are taking the positives, and offering them OR negating positives in another choice. you dont say anything about "the other side".that's why you have 80/20 in your "poll". very simple manipulation, and well - its working. im impressed (and this is not some kind of joke, really).

btw: you should think about politican career