Messages

76

Tech talk / logged at /openttd/ and /openttd/forum

« on: March 01, 2013, 02:39:57 am »

logins and logouts in http://www.n-ice.org/openttd and http://www.n-ice.org/openttd/forum are not synched (from my tests, logins/logouts arent assumed in both - using same browser)
example: making Logout in http://www.n-ice.org/openttd still keep log info in forum (http://www.n-ice.org/openttd/forum)...
Couple tests will be enough for it

77

Introduction / Re: ST2

« on: February 17, 2013, 02:51:20 am »

that's true, he never sleeps, he pretends to sleep:P

totally true, as shown ^^

78

Suggestions / Re: Temperate short goal (?)

« on: December 16, 2012, 03:18:56 am »

this will be a fun thread to follow

79

Suggestions / Re: Two rounds server tournaments

« on: December 15, 2012, 12:28:07 am »

well, I'll try explain with other words; maybe the italic parts get understandable:
- "Admin tournaments died because there were "special guests" that not the usual and regular players"
- "And among chats I saw a glance of it... again!"

I hope you truly understand what was wrongly made. Wasn't ONLY the name itself, but  also what's mentioned above. Or you can simply explain to most regular players why they weren't "special guests"!
Now, instead of picking on a english misunderstanding or not correctly interpreted, why not devote yourself to those suggestions ... by topics and detailed QB, as a start base?!

80

Suggestions / Re: Two rounds server tournaments

« on: December 13, 2012, 01:57:18 am »

well, other suggestion:
- weekly server winners (among all servers sould give enough player base, if not... 2nd ones too);
- Goal: weighted averaged (Nr. players/Servers goals);
- 4x multiplier on points earned ingame (as a normal game)
- No breakdowns (easiest way to balance players are used to it, or not) (optional);
- No air and no ships (it's a tournament server... not a game for begginers);
- Map type could be calculated by a player preference field in player's preferences in website/forum;
- "Timezone" of tournament calculated accordingly the weekly games won (including weighted averaged of each server goal);

Base to start! (edited here for obvious reasons)

Note: Admin tournaments died because there were "special guests" that not the usual and regular players. Nobody likes to be discriminated, but happened, sadly! Only need to check player's memory. And Admin tournaments till now was NEVER "about people knowing each other"... All players could join... the name itself was a discrimination that involved EXACTLY the same player base. If not... badly set! And among chats I saw a glance of it... again!

81

General / Re: Coverage area of station

« on: December 12, 2012, 06:13:08 pm »

in a simple language, "Industries specify acceptance via both the industry and the industry tiles" and "Tile and industry acceptance is decided asynchronously, so they may not match.". The easyiest way to check it is checking each industry tile with Land information tool, to check what's accepted in each tile. In some industries NOT all tiles accepts cargo. About cargo delivered to stations by a industry, all industry tiles do that, including some tiles not marked/drawn as part of it... but inside industry "rectangle". "The tiles are asked periodically whether they accept the cargo. This controls the station acceptance". It's a OpenTTD known issue but for what it seems not with an easy solution.
Hope this helps

82

General Chat / Re: My favorite n-ice admin is...

« on: December 09, 2012, 04:28:49 am »

don't want to say anything about it... and I guess not needed ^^

83

Suggestions / Re: Two rounds server tournaments

« on: December 09, 2012, 04:20:36 am »

yep...

I guess that's a good ideia, since possible to set winners and 2nds. Per server? Or a global tournament?
If per server... hell of a work. If global... in wich server will be the final round? I mean: server settings, map size and goal!
The concept ideia not bad at all... but you can see admins presence by calls you've made not aknowledged - that means the time to set a propper thing like you say... requires time and some coding I guess.
Before someone says "stop it, you're not admin here", I'll suggest to person that used this words to use his knowledges on setting a server where's only allowed to enter the 1st and 2nd's per server... in another server. It's impossible to set a new server for a meeting for 1sts and 2nds in each server. But maybe close the specific server one day/hour for the meeting of the weekly winners and 2nds.
The original suggestion is valid, I've only added some more possibilities: 1st, 2nds in the week, available to enter a weekly tournament in a common game! Seems better to me and easier than set a weekly/monthly meeting for 1sts and 2nds globaly that per server

only suggestions ^^

84

Suggestions / Re: Arctic LONG GOAL

« on: November 29, 2012, 05:00:17 am »

hi:)
All OpenTTD players will agree with this: Long run servers are a 2-3 run max at the end; Medium servers have 4-5 players running to the win (at best of chances). And short goal servers have much more players. Reason is simple: It's OpenTTD, and who don't understand that... well, no words!

Now, to the point: Long servers don't combine with hard servers, not blaming the game itself (, only saying that normally a player give up when see a huge company there when he joins, and actually happens with all long servers. I could present simple examples here, https://dl.dropbox.com/u/48606680/Selection607578.png, https://dl.dropbox.com/u/48606680/Selection22050600.png and https://dl.dropbox.com/u/48606680/Selection1547155.png and after a while http://dl.dropbox.com/u/48606680/Selection3809513.png. But that would only show why n-ice OpenTTD servers languish, what makes me particularly sad.

Despite my opinions about hard servers and yours too... before asking ST2's opinion, please learn what is balance a server first. In other words, I've got tired of being accused of trying to making servers harder... when my words were "balance" servers.

Shortly: and quoting "players don't like hard servers", so why set one more? Oh... forget this one: there's someone that don't understand the difference between balance a server and after that, knowing that is possible to make it easy or hard... Settings my friend... settings! So, taking the words that stifled my opinions, already answered! When my opinions have some value ... ask again!

85

General / Re: A queston/suggestion -- Please read

« on: November 18, 2012, 10:15:49 pm »

That's truly a valid point. More important that set some new punishments is to harmonize and leveling the actions actions/reactions on admin side. And this is the correct way to take preventing an exaggerated scale of actions I checked recently. Of course, it's impossible to remove human factor from the equation, wich means that errors will continue to occur! What is sad is when that happens because "admin powers" make people so full of themselves. Here I'm being a bit unfair for generalize things, although the source of the problems already known. As someone said almost a month ago "we're the beginner magnet anyway" so I think it's fair admins understand that too... and not only think on the pusishments and taking erroneous decisions/actions/behaviours. Players also notice that and I guess this has been reflected in player number on different communities. About this, I think it's enough for now!

Theoretically, the easiest way of set some guidelines to admin actions is making a correlation with the rules en force. But in practice is not as literal - there's the player's human side: why he broke a certain rule, is he available to listen the admin and fix, already been warned and is reoccur in the same, and so on... But of course there's always the hard situations that require immediate actions to prevent further negatively affect other players gameplay. But perhaps it would be premature proceed further without a new definition of rule #4 (still the most problematic, enforced but not respected - and players see that and get confused there). Some guidelines already exist and somehow I don't want to believe that are being ignored. Probably a bit more detailed (if possible) would help but will continue impossible to remove human factor on both sides accumulating also the impossibility of cover all the situations. As I said previously, even inside a low severity rule break, there will be several options, always depending of player-admin interaction and any try of "mechanize" punishments will lead to less talks between admins and players, I think, and to admins forgetting what they are really needed!

But in n-ice case it's more a lack of knowledge of point "14. Handling of rule violations" or, even more worrying, the inability to analyze each rule break situation (if any) and act in concordance. And that leads to the correct timing of asking: Is that the profile wanted for admin tasks?

Note: I've seen too some very good admin work but for the same reasons I won't say names in both cases. Simultaneously I offer my apologies to innocent people caught up in.

Edit: some mistype above

86

Offtopic / Re: Other games I play...

« on: November 16, 2012, 10:54:12 pm »

wow
still in beta... but there's a mod for Dune 2000 <3

Thank you ZeroIncome for the hint

87

General / Re: New set of punishments

« on: November 16, 2012, 10:13:29 pm »

I totally agree that the problem are on both examples I gave but skillfully you've ignored them! Which leads me to speculate that was intentional wrong admin behaviours to force the need of a "New set of punishments" or an attempt of signing a certificate of incompetence/irresponsibility. It's the same that say: Admins can't make a exempted judgment! And I'm not ignoring this fact... because it's a very serious one, as I stated above when presented only 2 situations of abuse (or not caring at all). I was very saddened by the lack of foresight in the situations previously presented (truly hope not more of this, but this ones I saw when I was online). Despite the fact that you'll need a set of punishments to who don't respect the "New set of punishments". Since players are humans, same as admins, there's no way of mechanize behaviours of both. And even in a single rule break there's several factors that can determine the punishment to apply. Unless the "New set of punishments" cover all possible rule breaks and players reactions after warned!
Talking about it and before I enter on 1st post suggestions, accordingly old and new ideias, where you place my 2nd example admin behaviour?

Now, the suggestions: We all know it's hard to quantify a rule break so, it's impossible to make a auto punishment. In each rule break type there's many levels of severity and ofc the recurrence factor. Just like game server rules, lets keep it the most comprehensive as possible leaving the always necessary space for admin judgment.
I agree with the states of Easy, Medium and Hard punishments but are already used by admins judgments NOW, I hope). Has I've stated above, there's no way of mechanize what punishments to apply. We all know the reasons of the expression "admins acting like the Gestapo" appear - examples are on my previous post!

On the other hand, define a "New set of punishments" only makes sense to players understand correctly saying what's the connection with current rules. Define punishments before rules are set makes no sense at all! No one asks to players if agree with punishments without they know what rules they must respect (if not the current ones - but if are... what's the connection). It's obvious! So, my last question: what's the relation with current rules and suggestions presented?

Edit: redundant question removed!

88

General Chat / Re: EPIC FAILS

« on: November 15, 2012, 04:44:33 am »

any admin explained how signals works to that player? if not... guess what!!

and as stated: "<~xOR> we're the beginner magnet anyway"
so please, I'll as to ppl around act accordingly!

89

General / Re: New set of punishments

« on: November 15, 2012, 12:02:59 am »

Despite the fact that some ideas are not bad at all, probably hard to implement without source code changes.

But I truly have to ask: are the problems on the current rules or on how admins act in front of them?

For my question, I have 2 examples:
- a total intentional blocking, admin called (by sign placed), admin screenshoted the coordinates but ignored totally;
- a player try to join his company - HIS COMPANY - and get a permanent ban.

both above situations happened in the latest week, witch leads me to ask: Is that the main problem in current rule set or admin "how to act"? (new, old or whatever)

So, accordingly new suggestions (and actions), trying to join your own company give players a permanent ban (or that was set on old admin behaviour??!)

90

Ban/Unban Requests / Re: Inappropriate admin behavior - Geert

« on: October 09, 2012, 10:01:58 am »

Haven't seen the situations ingame but, as Andreas, saw the whole discussion, and second his opinions: Geert acted well, had lots of patience, pointed what was wrong, explained why, asked to fix and waited... a lot! I guess not much to add here, unless that I think it's a tempban so, nothing that time won't fix