Too many events; negative effect on zone growth

[SeVeR]

Without events our population would half. I know for sure i would give up if events stopped being hosted because pub isn't enough. The events don't get boring, i've played rumble for years. I personally think we should make pub alot more like rumble. If pub had 4 player teams where you can make your own freqs, NO SOCCER, 4 turf flags and ships that were variations of the jav each with a particular special that can be greened then it would rock.

[Samapico]

rumble is boring

[The Maurauder]

For all of you who have simply said "all events, no pub", or "all pub, no events" i have one word: Ignorance. If you are going to make comments, make helpful ones. Don't simply whine about problems and do nothing about them.

 

The Problem:

The success of a zone depends on properly keeping the balance between playing in the public arena and having events. In my opinion, certain events are hostedc WAY too much. The most notable of these is rumble, and it is my opinion that the bot should be removed. The sole purpose of this would be that the same event would not occur many times in a row, depleting the population. On the other hand, I also think that some events should be hosted more often. These include events such as MS2, Bankrob, and others that rarely are hosted.

The main problem, however is the hosting enforcement. It is trye that there are some unspoken rules that help you decide wether or not to host (Rifleman listed them above). Many times though, staff members feel like they must host or face being fired. It is a known fact that if a staff member "is not active enough in hosting events" they will be demoted or fired. Here is where the problem lies. Staff members will attempt to host, even when they know there are too few players in the public arena. The biggest step that can be taken to reduce the over-hosting of events would to remove this rule. I think that if players want an event hosted, they will ?host it. If not, they are satisfied in pub.

Staff education is also somewhat lacking, new members are greatly encouraged to host, but many times can not distinguish the line between enough and too much.

 

The Solution:

Remove all bots that automatically host events from their respective arenas. If a bot is truly needed (needed: events such as Gauntlet. Not needed: events such as Rumble) it should be available, but not hosting non-stop 24 hours a day. This would not only cause less events to be hosted overall, but staff would most likely host more interesting events instead of simply advertising for a boring onet hat is hosted often. Don't get me wrong. Bots are a good thing, and i have deep respect for the bot development team, but the truth is, we rely on them too much.

Upper staff, especially our current leader, pernille, should modify the rules of hosting. Instead of ER>s and Mods having to host a certain amount of events a week, they should simply be responsible for answering ?host requests.

New staff should be told to answer ?hosts, and nothing more. If an ER>/Mod wishes to host an event without a ?host, they are en-*BAD WORD*-led to do so, however these occurances should be seldom.

 

If you wish to take action and help make the zone a better place, contact us in the game. Use !Staff in pub to recieve a list of staff members and their specific responsibilities, then find an online staff member that is !@#$%^&*ociated with the area you are having trouble with. Remember, we can't do anything about probems if we do not know what you guys think.

[BeWaRe]

...And to reference with bot #'s, more bots are better, so if one breaks down, the whole thing doesn't get shot.

 

Tex

-The Empire

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...? What are you talking about? There are certain people that run the bots on their computers, or computers didicated to that task. If that computer goes down, so do all the bots that were being run on that computer. Thats why when you see rumble bot down, duel bot is gona too. Another person has to load a replacement for it until the other hoster fixes the prob. The bots in pub have their purposes...just because you dont see them work doesn't mean they arent.

 

im with pac on this one... the pub sets SUCK...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ask any of the players in pub what should be changed on the current ships and they'll pick the ship they like the most, make it better, and make all the other ships weak to that one. If the settings change, more people will leave. You can't please everyone.

 

Many times though, staff members feel like they must host or face being fired. It is a known fact that if a staff member "is not active enough in hosting events" they will be demoted or fired. Here is where the problem lies. Staff members will attempt to host, even when they know there are too few players in the public arena.

 

Upper staff, especially our current leader, pernille, should modify the rules of hosting. Instead of ER>s and Mods having to host a certain amount of events a week, they should simply be responsible for answering ?host requests.

New staff should be told to answer ?hosts, and nothing more. If an ER>/Mod wishes to host an event without a ?host, they are en-*BAD WORD*-led to do so, however these occurances should be seldom.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm here 26/7, and I see who hosts and who doesn't. If someone tries to host and help out when they can, they are in no risk of being fired. However, if there are 40 people in pub, and someone ?hosts, only to have the 4 or so ER's on that are chatting away in staff chat get quiet, that stuff is noted.

 

Also, part of what kills pub is the people that leave when they see an advert go to the arena and sit in spec. You'll have 10 people playing javwar, and 23 people sitting in spec arguing over which one of them or their squads is better.

[Tex]

What can a normal player do when they witness abuse from a staff member, i have tried sending forum messages to the higher ups, and i generally dont even get a reply...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you witness or are abused by a 17th Parallel staff member, log it and send it to modabuse@17thparallel.com. Then there will be something done with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maverick, sorry to tell you, but that doesn't work. Staff right now is way to messed up and untill higher staff stays on and see's what goes on, nothing can be done.

 

Tex

-The Empire

[Tex]

...And to reference with bot #'s, more bots are better, so if one breaks down, the whole thing doesn't get shot.

 

Tex

-The Empire

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...? What are you talking about? There are certain people that run the bots on their computers, or computers didicated to that task. If that computer goes down, so do all the bots that were being run on that computer. Thats why when you see rumble bot down, duel bot is gona too. Another person has to load a replacement for it until the other hoster fixes the prob. The bots in pub have their purposes...just because you dont see them work doesn't mean they arent.

 

Hypotheticall lets say that 3 bots run all of 17th. 1 for pub, 1 for events, and a general bot. If one breaks down that will cause major problems, having 1 bot for each event or having 1 bot for a few events would be good so if one breaks down you still have other bots to run the game. Plus, if you could make a bot run the event without needing an ER> like rumble, that would be cool.

[Tex]

The current rules are these :

 

1) Keep pub active at all costs.

2) Do not advertise in pub if pub have few active players.

3) Host less popular events if the event hosted becomes a pub-killer.

4) Do not host more than 1 event at the same time.

 

Those rules will be repeated and replace a few old rules.

 

-Rifle

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Rifle not to sound rude or anything, but staff breaks rules.

 

Isn't rumble "hosted" all the time when staff adverts for it?

 

Then when people actually host something, isn't rumble still up and people still playing in it?

 

Rule Break #4

 

Tex

-The Empire

[Rifleman]

By hosting, I do NOT mean Rumble.

Rumble is not hosted by ERs, but by a bot.

 

For the record, advertising for Rumble doesen`t count as hosting a event.

 

-Rifle

[SeVeR]

Maybe tex, lots of people (excluding you) like rumble and want it hosted all the time.

[Samapico]

People who play rumble aren't generally the people who would play in pub ... so it doesn't change anything if they stay all day in rumble.

[GhettoSmurf]

If one breaks down that will cause major problems, having 1 bot for each event or having 1 bot for a few events would be good so if one breaks down you still have other bots to run the game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

did you even read beware's post when you quoted it and posted?

 

There are certain people that run the bots on their computers, or computers didicated to that task. If that computer goes down, so do all the bots that were being run on that computer. Thats why when you see rumble bot down, duel bot is gona too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[BeWaRe]

Hypotheticall lets say that 3 bots run all of 17th. 1 for pub, 1 for events, and a general bot. If one breaks down that will cause major problems, having 1 bot for each event or having 1 bot for a few events would be good so if one breaks down you still have other bots to run the game. Plus, if you could make a bot run the event without needing an ER> like rumble, that would be cool.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hypothetically? Exactly. It doesn't work like that in the first place. Scorebot goes down, theres MavBot. Rumble, Bumble. The other bots can copy themselves and be re!@#$%^&*igned to do the jobs of other bots. There's a bot that sits alone in its little hut waiting for someone to come in and tell it to create other bots. Pull the tail off a lizard, it grows a new one. No new bots are being made until The Mike says so. !spawn

[DaKillaRoach]

I'm glad that was your opinion Maurauder and nothing else you !@#$%^&*ing idiot -.-'

 

As much as I hate the Jav and I argue over changes for public and a development of multiship leagues, 17th does unfortunantly need the jav. Remove Rumble as constant hosting and you will instantly remove ALOT of players. Also it means players wouldn't have anywhere to train as such for Javwar and such.

 

Oh wait you can play Jav in pub? And get where? Vulched - Javs are there in pub to be vulched by the whole unbalance of crappy ship sets.

 

I'm stumped on what you could do to make the ship sets better because nothing seems to be noticed. ?go beta or ?go beta2 or whatever it was had Viles test sets. They weren't too bad.

 

Simple stuff; Javs must stay, popular events must be hosted, only host small events and trial events when pub is big to try and gain interest in them. If people don't gain interest, don't host it.

[»Maverick]

Staff right now is way to messed up and untill higher staff stays on and see's what goes on, nothing can be done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How do you know that staff is "messed up" while it isn't ?

If I say to email your complaints there and something will be done with it, im not lying. I personally garantuee it.

"Blame staff" doesn't get you anywhere, because staff actually does alot. Most players don't see that though.

[La Muerta Rosa]

Staff right now is way to messed up and untill higher staff stays on and see's what goes on, nothing can be done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How do you know that staff is "messed up" while it isn't ?

If I say to email your complaints there and something will be done with it, im not lying. I personally garantuee it.

"Blame staff" doesn't get you anywhere, because staff actually does alot. Most players don't see that though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

who watches the watcher?

[Samapico]

*watches the watcher*

[Naedhaha]

For all of you who have simply said "all events, no pub", or  "all pub, no events" i have one word: Ignorance. If you are going to make comments, make helpful ones. Don't simply whine about problems and do nothing about them.

 

The Problem:

The success of a zone depends on properly keeping the balance between playing in the public arena and having events. In my opinion, certain events are hostedc WAY too much. The most notable of these is rumble, and it is my opinion that the bot should be removed. The sole purpose of this would be that the same event would not occur many times in a row, depleting the population. On the other hand, I also think that some events should be hosted more often. These include events such as MS2, Bankrob, and others that rarely are hosted.

The main problem, however is the hosting enforcement. It is trye that there are some unspoken rules that help you decide wether or not to host (Rifleman listed them above). Many times though, staff members feel like they must host or face being fired. It is a known fact that if a staff member "is not active enough in hosting events" they will be demoted or fired. Here is where the problem lies. Staff members will attempt to host, even when they know there are too few players in the public arena. The biggest step that can be taken to reduce the over-hosting of events would to remove this rule. I think that if players want an event hosted, they will ?host it. If not, they are satisfied in pub.

Staff education is also somewhat lacking, new members are greatly encouraged to host, but many times can not distinguish the line between enough and too much.

 

The Solution:

Remove all bots that automatically host events from their respective arenas. If a bot is truly needed (needed: events such as Gauntlet. Not needed: events such as Rumble) it should be available, but not hosting non-stop 24 hours a day. This would not only cause less events to be hosted overall, but staff would most likely host more interesting events instead of simply advertising for a boring onet hat is hosted often. Don't get me wrong. Bots are a good thing, and i have deep respect for the bot development team, but the truth is, we rely on them too much.

Upper staff, especially our current leader, pernille, should modify the rules of hosting. Instead of ER>s and Mods having to host a certain amount of events a week, they should simply be responsible for answering ?host requests.

New staff should be told to answer ?hosts, and nothing more. If an ER>/Mod wishes to host an event without a ?host, they are en-*BAD WORD*-led to do so, however these occurances should be seldom.

 

If you wish to take action and help make the zone a better place, contact us in the game. Use !Staff in pub to recieve a list of staff members and their specific responsibilities, then find an online staff member that is !@#$%^&*ociated with the area you are having trouble with. Remember, we can't do anything about probems if we do not know what you guys think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

well...LMFAO.

First off wtf? The problem would be: Pub is boring for most people so they want to play events and there is no point hosting MS2 or w/e if noone wants it. It's like ordering a drink of water and getting orange instead. Also imo an event (such as rumble which you seem to refer to quiet alot) can never be hosted too much.

 

As for your "solution" removing bots would indeed make the events hosted less...but why on earth do you think it's a good thing? I mean they would come...no event they want then leave. They wont just think "oh lets play pub cuz rumble isn't on" they would just leave...

[SeVeR]

I don't get the new rule. I mean if i'm playing in pub and an advert comes up for javwar or rumble then i'm only gonna leave if i want to play the event over pub. I'm not a machine and the advert certainly isn't combined with /*sendrumble sever. Why restrict a good thing if what you're trying to protect most of the time isn't woth protecting. Maybe i and everyone else should just sit and wait in rumble for it to be hosted instead of playing pub so that the population in pub won't drop.

[Rifleman]

I don't get the new rule. I mean if i'm playing in pub and an advert comes up for javwar or rumble then i'm only gonna leave if i want to play the event over pub. I'm not a machine and the advert certainly isn't combined with /*sendrumble sever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I do not know where you got the idea where the new rule forces players to play events or pub.

The rules are staff rules, not player rules.

 

Why restrict a good thing if what you're trying to protect most of the time isn't woth protecting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pub isn`t worth protecting? Losing possible new players means losing possible new event players in the future. Cause and effect.

 

Maybe i and everyone else should just sit and wait in rumble for it to be hosted instead of playing pub so that the population in pub won't drop.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you read my post in the staff forum before posting, you would see that Rumble is an exception to the rule.

 

If you have read it, you haven`t read it closely enough.

If pub is low on players, it means if pub is low on active, playing players, not dead speccers.

 

 

-Rifleman

[SeVeR]

lol rifle you've found a different meaning for everything i posted. I just read your post and said at least twice: "wtf thats not what i was saying".

 

I don't get the new rule. I mean if i'm playing in pub and an advert comes up for javwar or rumble then i'm only gonna leave if i want to play the event over pub. I'm not a machine and the advert certainly isn't combined with /*sendrumble sever.

What this means is that people go to events because they prefer it to pub, so making a rule to not host the event and keep people in pub in pointless cos they are only in pub until an event is hosted. Therefore these people will eventually leave when they realise no event is going to happen and we lose even more people.

 

Pub isn`t worth protecting? Losing possible new players means losing possible new event players in the future. Cause and effect.

Pub is worth protecting but not at the expense of events. Events in 17th are a winning formula, pub is not we need to stick with what we're good at doing and improve pub in a way to make the events players want to play in it. Look at the amount of people that came here for javwar today.

 

If pub is low on players, it means if pub is low on active, playing players, not dead speccers.

yes i'm aware of that.. i don't think i said anything to the contrary (hence the other wtf)

 

And i know rumble is an exception to the rule, lets replace rumble with javwar then. Either way the point is alot of people play pub cos they're waiting for a good event to be hosted. You seem to think that events steal players away from pub and kill it, but they want the events, so let them have it.

[La Muerta Rosa]

The point is that killing pub is not acceptible, even if the players want an event.

 

Take a look at my original post for the reason why.

[Rifleman]

After reading you latest post, I admit I`ve misunderstood what you said.

 

 

However, it all boils down to 2 questions :

 

Question 1: Should pub have priority over events?

 

You say no, because you mean players come online just to play those events.

 

I say yes, because I think a dead pub would hurt 17th more than large events would give new players.

 

My logic is the following :

 

Fact : Events can be hugely popular.

Fact : Events can be hosted for hours at a time

Fact : Events are hosted when many people are online to increase the probability of players showing up to them.

 

Theory :

If all players in 17th went off to play games like JavWar, Rumble and SblBall for hours, then how can we gain more population when all the new players leave the zone once they enter a dead pub?

If pub is dead during peak hours, the problem grows even larger.

 

How much would it hurt the events if hosts had to wait until there was a 4v4-5v5 in pub? I`d say.. Not much

Do hosts generally advertise for manually hosted events when there are few players in pub? No.

Then how could waiting for a few more players affect the event players so much?

 

Conclusion :

The rules.

 

 

Now, my solution requires that my theory is correct, just as your theory says 'players come online to play events'.

This brings us to question 2, which would tell us which theory to pursue.

 

Question 2: Would a active pub and less events cause a larger player growth than what a dead pub and many events being hosted would?

 

Which brings us back to the start.

Neither of us can possibly knows for sure who of us is right.

 

The only way to truly answer this critical question would be by :

 

1) Trying each theory out for a month each and compare the results.

-Hard to set up, takes time, unreliable results

2) Hold a vote with a representative selection of 17th.

-Would be fair, but who would pick the reps? The reps themselves could be biased as well.

3) Try to sink eachothers theory.

-Takes time, Leads back to question 2.

4) Hold a quick vote in upperstaff.

-The old way. Not democratic. Generally a very bad way of deciding most things.

 

 

 

Final note/summary :

 

I agree that events contribute very much to 17th, but making it replace pub is a losing formula as well.

 

 

-Rifleman

[SeVeR]

Yes i have read your original post. I hate when someone !@#$%^&*umes i haven't considered every viewpoint. You are right we can't kill pub and the reason for that is we may lose some new players. Where you are wrong, is by not hosting events we lose more players and they don't go to some other arena, they go to other zones and 17th loses its population. This rule restricts peoples fun. I don't know about you but i come here to have fun. If pub isn't good enough to stop people going to events, then we don't host fewer events we concentrate on hosting more events and giving people what they come here to play. If pub is suffering its because its not fun!

[SeVeR]

Well rifle you argue your side well. Your rule may have a good chance of causing some zone growth but its also risky as veteran players will play here less and it could potentially cause negative growth (or shrinking...err hehe). Anyway i am concerned is all, not angry. Considering that we may be changing pub drastically in the near future it seems like a better idea to not put too much emphasis on current pub.

 

I'm done arguing this. Its not so bad, 4v4 seems to be about the average in pub.

[La Muerta Rosa]

Yes i have read your original post. I hate when someone !@#$%^&*umes i haven't considered every viewpoint. You are right we can't kill pub and the reason for that is we may lose some new players. Where you are wrong, is by not hosting events we lose more players and they don't go to some other arena, they go to other zones and 17th loses its population. This rule restricts peoples fun. I don't know about you but i come here to have fun. If pub isn't good enough to stop people going to events, then we don't host fewer events we concentrate on hosting more events and giving people what they come here to play. If pub is suffering its because its not fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ok show me where i said we should not host events. You hate when people assume you have not considered every viewpoint just as much as i hate when people put words into my mouth.

 

Quite the contrary, i said it before and i will say it again: we need to come up with a workable way to co-exist.

 

As rifleman said, pub needs to have priority over events. That does not mean we cannot have events.

 

With a few restrictions on when they can be hosted, we can still have events, and also protect pub.