Comment by Kuinox

Comment by Kuinox 2 days ago

29 replies

Did you played in this era ?

- If you were too good on some server, you'd get banned.

- If the admin doesn't know well cheating, he could tolerate something that was obvious cheating.

- Cheaters could just change server often.

It used to be easy to just ban peoples yes, and it was as easy to switch servers.

Plus on most competitive game today, you have custom lobbies, which do exactly what you want, and there is a reason why only a minority of players uses it.

OkayPhysicist 2 days ago

Custom lobbies don't meet the same need. That's for playing with your friends, or at least, people you vet yourself. Community servers are a sub-community in of themselves: people tend to play on the same servers on a regular basis, allowing you to build rapport, community norms, and have substantially more direct moderation than company-run servers.

Yes, sometimes you run into power-tripping moderators. That comes with the territory of having moderators. But the upsides, of being embedded in a usefully-sized community, and having nearly constant human moderation, not to mention the whole "stop killing games" of it all, far outweigh the need to shop around a bit for a good server.

I think the ideal middle ground is something like Squad's server system: The developers offer a contract to server owners, establishing basic standards that must be met to be a recommended server. Rules forbidding the crazy bigotry that milsims tend to attract, minimum server specs to ensure smooth gameplay, an effective appeals process. If a server meets those requirements, and signs the agreement to keep meeting those standards, they get put on a "recommended" server list (which 90%+ of the playerbase exclusively use). Other servers go on the "custom" server list, which can be modded, or spun up for certain events, or whatever.

  • Kuinox 2 days ago

    two or three months ago, I played a game that did exactly what you proposed, V-Rising, it have a server browser, I played a week with friend on a busy server. Then the server was gone for two weeks. When it was back, mosts of the bases were gone due to inactivity.

    That's the kind of things that were common too, maybe you forgot about it.

    • OkayPhysicist 2 days ago

      All the multiplayer games I play today are either community server based, or I exclusively interact with private lobbies.

      My negative experiences with community servers represent a pretty short list. Sometimes servers die, but games die sometimes, too. That's obviously only an issue with persistent-state games, like Minecraft, but it's unfortunate when it happens. Can't say it was so frequent that it impacted my enjoyment of any games as a whole.

hamdingers 2 days ago

All true, but of course you're missing the player agency component that renders those issues moot. If any of the above happens, you can simply find another server.

Private games (now called "custom lobbies") were available back then too, they're not equivalent to a public server browser.

  • Kuinox 2 days ago

    They are functionally equivalent for the player. The problem with player hosted servers is that it was very hard to get a fair and balanced competitive match, where now it's extremely common with matchmaking on servers hosted by the game company.

    • hparadiz 2 days ago

      Back then at least you could do something about it. Now if there's an obvious cheater you just kinda sit there and take your L, and ask people to make reports.

      • Kuinox 2 days ago

        > Back then at least you could do something about it.

        Back then, the most common option taken was leaving the server to find another one.

      • brendoelfrendo 2 days ago

        If you were playing on a server you owned or for which you had ban permissions, you could do something about it. Otherwise, you had to hope that an admin was online to ban the cheater. If no one was around to take action, your option was to... sit there, take your L, and ask people to make reports (to the admins). You had the option to hop around between servers until you found one that didn't have cheaters, but is that all that different from just quitting back to matchmaking and hoping you find a match without cheaters?

        Edit to add: I'm not disputing that kernel-level anticheat is bad; I agree that it is. I don't think it helps to try and hearken back to a golden age of PC gaming that didn't really exist. Maybe it was easier for server admins to manage because player populations were smaller back then, but that's about all that would have made things "better."

    • hamdingers 2 days ago

      They are not functionally equivalent, unless there are games I'm not familiar with where custom lobbies are published in a list for strangers to join. Normally a custom lobby implies invite only.

      Not everyone is interested in a "fair and balanced competitive match" where you're guaranteed to win no more and no less than 50% of the time. I actually find that intolerably boring.

      • Kuinox 2 days ago

        > They are not functionally equivalent, unless there are games I'm not familiar with where custom lobbies are published in a list for strangers to join.

        Lots of the mosts played competitive games have that, or third party websites/discords that have links to custom lobbies.

    • josefx 2 days ago

      > The problem with player hosted servers is that it was very hard to get a fair and balanced competitive match

      Playing against overwhelming odds has its own kind of charm. I once spend days just sabotaging the top players on some gun game servers, only wining myself once or twice. Games against friends with various fun handicaps and flat out abuse of any knowledge you could gain from playing against the same people repeatedly - what good is a hidding spot when everyone knows you will be there 50% of the time.

      "Fair and balanced" games against completely random people are just missing something for me.

      • bee_rider 2 days ago

        This is something matchmaking games totally miss which keeps them from being truly competitive in the way sports or old games were: a competitive community. You need other players with known identities to compare yourself against on a consistent basis.

        Of course, classic competitive institutions had problems as well (“he’s very competitive” is not necessarily a nice description of a person!), but they seemed more enjoyable that this matchmaking stuff.

  • babypuncher 2 days ago

    I hated wasting a whole half hour server hopping until I found one that didn't suck

jdashg 2 days ago

I did indeed play in the era LanceH is talking about, and I agree with them! We had many thriving communities with no serious cheating problems because of community moderation.

Yes, there were poorly moderated servers, but you could simply leave and try a different community until you found one that clicked for you. When you require equal moderation everywhere, you throw the baby out with the bath water.

  • Kuinox 2 days ago

    How much time did you wasted server hopping ?

    • thenthenthen a day ago

      Initially, until you found the right community run ones? I don't see the issue. Today is worse, especially when there is no server browser but just a blackbox that drops you in a random match.