Roy

I didn't check for grammar mistakes, but everybody should get the main points of the update.

 

Thanks.

I've disabled Throwing Knives for the time being. It was likely added back because I heavily modified the Throwing Knives plugin to make it work with our Spawn Protection plugin. I added a few checks to the plugin that would possibly patch the server crashes. However, that likely didn't work.

 

That said, the server crashes only occur in CS:GO. Even though CS:S Surf RPG DM has literally the same plugins (RTD & Throwing Knives) and no server crashes. Basically, the problem here is likely just CS:GO...

 

Anyway, I will continue to investigate the server crashes in CS:GO. If you experience any more server crashes, please let the Server Managers or I know.

 

Thanks.

Just a heads up, there may be another exploit affecting community servers (causing them to "crash"). I will give more details in the future.

 

Thanks.

I highly doubt official weapon drops would be disabled intentionally. Perhaps it has something to do with how the round ends?

 

I'll talk to @Thomasdavid097 about this.

 

Thanks.

Update:

 

Alright, I have applied a modified version of the plugin to CS:GO Surf RPG DM (US). Basically, before, the plugin would check if the user had any admin flags (this includes players with Member, Supporter, VIP, etc). Therefore, anybody in a group (besides default) could type "!rtd <rollID>" and receive a specific roll.

 

I have restricted the use of the Roll ID argument to players with root (includes Server Managers, Division Leaders, etc).

 

If you have any problems after the update, please let me know! The plugin works fine on my home CS:GO server.

 

Thanks.

Looking into this now. I will post back with the results once done testing.

 

Edit:

From a quick look at the plugin's source code, it looks like the developer doesn't know how to properly check if the user is an admin.

 

Thanks.

Quote

– Fixed a server crash (Thanks, Gamemann, for the report)

And this is finally patched (source here). They should of made the note a little more descriptive but whatever I guess.

 

Thanks.

I've unlocked the thread.

 

Feel free to discuss the updates here.

 

Thanks.

So, let's start off, I have been playing on our CS:GO servers recently and I do believe the division is in "okay" shape itself. Okay as in the servers themselves are looking okay, but the population isn't that great.

 

I do believe there are servers that need work.

 

Servers

All Servers

I would like to give global suggestions for all of our servers.

 

Firstly, I believe we should update GFL's plugin pack to the latest version to support Socket for the Server Hop plugin. This will allow us to rely on real-time server information instead of relying on the database which has been outdated for months now. We should be testing this update on a few servers at a time to ensure they are stable with the new update.

 

Secondly, I believe we should be checking all of our server's configuration files and ensuring we have updated tags and region values. For example, our United States servers should have something like this in the server.cfg (or whatever):

sv_region 0 //0 = East Coast + Common for US servers, 3 = Europe.
sv_tags "gflclan, gfl, games, for, life, <gamemode>, <features>" //Tags that people can type in the server browser. Ensure all of our server have "gflclan, gfl, games, for, life", etc.

 

European servers use 3 for the sv_region value. You would be surprised how much bad sv_tags and sv_region values impact population.

 

After that is done, I believe we should be keeping all of our plugins up-to-date along with content such as maps. Also make sure our servers are clean and have similar global plugins. For example, one server shouldn't have Frag Radio while the other has HIVE Radio (I believe HIVE Radio is the better choice).

 

Thirdly, I feel we need active Server Admins and Server Manager(s) for every server. If a server doesn't have active Server Manager(s), either a higher-up should be stepping in and managing the server depending on its popularity or the server should be temporarily shut down. Servers I feel currently don't have an active manager include:

• Decoy DodgeBall
• Casual Competitive
• Climb Timer
• TTT MineCraft

 

Servers that didn't have an active manager before but recently received attention (e.g. new active manager, etc) include:

• MiniGames
• JailBreak
• DeathRun

 

That said, if Server Admins aren't trying to revive servers they are Server Admin for (e.g. playing on the server and inviting friends while the server is dead), they shouldn't be Server Admin for that specific server. If Server Admins took time to populate the server they are admin for, there is a high chance it would slowly gain population and succeed in the future.

 

Surf Timer

To start, our Surf Timer servers have been slowly dying for a while now. However, a majority of the population loss isn't our fault (cheating servers).

 

That said, I do believe there are a few things we can do to help the server. Although, I would need to discuss this further with the Server Managers and Division Leaders.

 

Firstly, I believe resetting times and switching to a more "unique" timer would help the server. Why? Well, from what other players have told me, there are currently many bugged/glitched records. I also feel a majority of the Surf Timer servers now use "ckSurf". Originally, when we switched to ckSurf, there weren't many servers running the timer which gave us an advantage. Now that our timer isn't very unique, I feel players will prefer other servers, especially ones offering free weapon skins, etc (AKA "Cheating").

 

A timer I would suggest would be ZipCore's timer. This was the first time we used and the reason we switched off of it was because we thought ckSurf was better-made. That said, ZipCore's timer did use more CPU, however the timer may have been optimized since we got rid of it. ZipCore's timer offers styles which, in my opinion, is a very nice feature. The only thing ZipCore's timer doesn't support is replay bots. Maybe we can get a coder to implement that feature?

 

If a new timer won't help us, then I would still highly suggest resetting the times because I feel that the glitched records have bothered many players for a while now.

 

The next thing I want to talk about is the fact that we have six servers we have to manage. Now, if our servers were popular, I would be more than happy with hosting six+ servers. However, all of our servers don't even reach  >= 25% capacity on a daily basis. It becomes harder to manage because our servers aren't running off of one installation. For example, if we wanted to update a map for all servers, we would have to upload the map six times because we have six servers. This, in my opinion, isn't worth the extra work.

 

Now, yes, I get it, even the servers that rarely have population does have a player base. I understand that. However, I feel it will make managing these servers so much easier if we cut down on a couple of them. That said, I also feel focusing on a smaller amount of servers is better than focusing on a large amount of depopulated servers. Our main servers may be able to get more attention from admins resulting in more server population.

 

Servers I would cut on? Well, I'll list them. I am leaving the choice up to the Division Leaders whether or not we want to cut on servers. I still think it will make managing these servers easier and may benefit our main servers.

Surf Timer 1-4 (US)

 

The server only reaches an average of (9 - 2 = 7) players each day (9 players total, two being bots). It honestly seems dead and if there is a player base, it is not big at all. If anything, probably the same 3 - 4 players playing everyday.

 

Surf Timer 1-4 (EU)

 

Just like the US version of this server, it only reaches ~9 - 10 players each day.

 

Even the Beginner servers are doing bad. But I feel cutting these servers would be enough.

 

Other than that, just ensuring we have good admins that are keeping players on the server, actively recruiting, staying active, etc and making sure the maps are staying updated. I also believe we should reduce the slot counts on our Surf Timer servers.

 

Bunny Hop

Well, it's time to face facts. The Bunny Hop servers are also dying, likely due to other servers cheating and gaining a majority of the players.

 

Although, I would highly suggest ensuring nothing was changed recently that would trigger population loss. The population loss spike was sudden in my opinion (just one random day we started seeing < 31 peaks instead of > 40).

 

Here's the monthly graph:

 

The European Bunny Hop is doing okay. Although, I do still feel we can be doing better.

 

After playing the server for a bit, I just had a few suggestions  (US Server).

• Remove the chat notification for when you receive a credit in the Store (triggers every minute).
• Possibly switch to ZipCore's timer to support "styles" (styles are pretty common in Bunny Hop)?
• Ensure we have enough admins and admins are doing their job (I like thinking there should be at least one admin on at all times).
• Keep the maps updated and ensure we don't have any useless plugins that could be degrading server performance, etc.

 

MiniGames

After playing this server yesterday, it brought back many memories (I used to play CS:S MG very often years ago). @Ariistuujj is currently working on the server and he appears to be doing a great job and giving the server the attention it needs.

 

The only thing I would recommend is keeping the maps updated and fixing the current bugs. That said, ensure you have a solid admin team. A team that will always been helping the server by staying active, recruiting members, and playing on the server even when it's not doing well (e.g. empty).

 

Overall

I'm hoping the Division can make a comeback. I will continue to contact Valve about getting these toxic cheating servers removed. If that does happen, well, we have a big chance to regain the population we once had.

 

Thanks.

Two of our NFO machines were paid recently.

 

July 22nd - $179.99 USD

July 23rd - $129.99 USD

 

Thanks.

That said, it appears a majority of the people who have posted in here agrees with the rank changes themselves. Although, some of you have issues with things like "Division leaders approving Admin Applications that need to be accepted earlier than a week and a half", etc. I plan on clearing that up in the future.

 

However, for now, I would say we are set to apply these ranks very soon.

 

Thanks.

On 7/20/2016 at 9:50 PM, Major_Push said:

Also, for servers that are dying or are near dead, can we implement a quota system for the admins? 

 

I know that some admins will hate it, but if they're not willing to help populate their server then what's the point of them being admin? Like, an admin shouldn't be saying to themselves "Oh no, I have to play on the server I'm admin on!". But if the admin team (most servers have 6+ admins) all coordinate their efforts of playing at the same time then they can easily get the server populated consistently. After about 2 to 3 weeks of consistent players, it'll start to develop some regulars and after a couple of weeks the server should be fine. 

 

P.S., a quota would be something like "Play at least 1 hour a day". And preferably the manager would help organize the time in which the admins should get on so it's not spread out and futile.

I definitely agree with this. If you're an admin on only one of GFL's servers but aren't active on the server itself because of it "being dead", you shouldn't be admin. In my opinion, if all admins were active on server(s) they are admin for, chances are the population on that specific server would rise and dead servers would gain more life and have a high chance at becoming popular again.

 

On 7/20/2016 at 10:40 PM, HackingPotato said:

 

God I hate to be the nazi here...

 

But Roy, council and division leaders you need to step up and make a guideline and quota system for promoting new managers. These "managers" that are going inactive and are mismanaging their servers because they have no direction, discipline, or commitment. They give up and take the rank because of the rep and authority in the community. I know it sounds easy, and i know its not that easy. But sometimes the shit that needs to be done, needs to be done for a reason. We need to stop being so lenient with our staff promotions. 

 

Suggestion;

 

Remember when stefan went around in the divisions (media, GFX, leaders, council, etc) and asked what they have done this week? Division leaders should start doing that with managers. Weed out the baddies, u know? 

I agree that there needs to be stricter guidelines, etc in promoting new managers. We used to have a Server Manager Requirements thread (or was it guidelines? I don't remember). However, we stopped using that. One "requirement" I would of removed from it would be "18 years or older" because I've seen some great staff members in GFL who are younger than 18. Although, I would agree we should aim for Managers who are 18 years or older. 

 

I think another issue is that there really aren't many "great" Server Managers to pick from. It is indeed tough picking Server Managers because there always seems to be a group that doesn't support him/her. I believe we need to work together and pick better Server Managers. If a server doesn't have any good Server Manager candidates, I believe it would be better if somebody who is already trusted took over the server temporarily than picking a bad Server Manager that:

1. Would slowly kill the population with poor choices.
2. Hard to demote since they are already a Server Manager, etc.

Of course, if the server is dead already, it would probably be best to shut it down temporarily until a good Server Manager candidate comes up.

 

I would also agree with this. However, I don't believe I would have the time to do so. First, we need to get the Team divisions sorted. I still haven't had the time to decide what we're doing with all of that.

 

After that is all done, I hope the Council (or soon-to-be "Board of Directors") can go around and ask each Division (game/team divisions) to give them some kind of status report? Actually, in my opinion, that would be a cool job for the Community Advisers.

 

Edit: Oh yeah, and I do agree with Division Leaders doing that with Server Managers. That should start immediately. I just wanted to address the communication thing overall.

 

Thanks.

And as usual, when I say "Oh, I don't want to make this post like three pages long", it does becomes three pages. Shaking my head...

 

Might as well consider this another weekly update.

 

Thanks.

On 7/19/2016 at 1:10 PM, HackingPotato said:

Is there an ETA on when this is going to be implemented?

Hopefully soon.

 

Now, I could reply to each one of the replies in this thread, but that would literally take pages to write in my opinion. I would like to make it more simple. Therefore, yea, just read below

 

Anyway, I am going to go over some things that I would like to make clear.

 

"Wouldn't the Board of Directors be exactly like the old Council rank? If so, that destroys the whole purpose of the rank considering the old Council rank burnt out all of its members within a couple months besides a couple members?"

This wouldn't be like the old Council rank at all? In fact, the rank would be more similar to the current Council rank. What really burnt members out in the old Council rank was the mindset that they had to manage our divisions and game servers (basically like being a Division Leader, Server Manager, and Council member).

 

I think a big mistake I made was not introducing a "description" for each rank from the beginning. Players are still confused about what a Council member does.

 

That said, I would like to make something else clear. The Council or soon-to-be "Board of Directors" are higher than Division Leaders. I've seen people in this thread say DLs have more power than Council members which isn't necessarily true. If there's something wrong with a division (e.g. Division Leaders aren't doing their job, etc), the Council (or BoD) will step in and make changes as they should be. Now, if a Council/BoD isn't doing their job, I will have to step up and handle that.

 

Quoting @Joshy 

Quote

 believe the current Council and Division Leader set up isn't too bad, but the problem you're having is that too many things are coming to you where it should be going to the Division Leaders or Council.  We need to do two things: 1) Don't accept all problems and handle them yourself.  Delegate it.  Be diligent with the chain of command.  "Bla bla bla I have an issue with CS:S" and you respond "Let me invite <Server Manager> into this conversation" or "You can talk to <Server Manager>", then let <Server Manager> talk to a Division Leader ie. Thomas, and then they can talk to you if they cannot handle or need additional help.

Yes, it sounds easy enough, right? Basically, just invite the correct Server Manager in the chat or tell them about it then done! No, it's not. When I constantly get Steam messaged every day about things that Server Managers, Division Leaders, other Developers, and Council members should be dealing with, it piles up. That said, I miss a lot of Steam messages due to me not being online, Steam being bugged, etc. At the end, I even feel guilty about it but the truth is, I just don't have the time to be "redirecting" people. Especially in my current state where I am burnt out.

 

With this new ranking system, I will be visually seen as a Board of Director along with the other Council members. But behind the scenes, I will still have more power than the current team just in case something happens (I sure hope nothing happens again).

 

Yes, I know, regardless of my rank, people will still come to me. But I am hoping this at least helps and more people go to the other Board of Directors. That said, I highly encourage our Server Admins, Server Managers, etc to forward all requests to the other Board of Directors in the future. Once we get a ticket system, things will becomes thirty times easier.. For all of us.

 

Quote

however, it was clear that we did not want Council members to have higher authority than Division Leaders, and they were merely guidance/advisers with diverse ideas and to act as a gap filler where Division Leaders may be absent, one division has a conflict with another, or the issue is related to multiple divisions.

What authority are you talking about here? If a Division isn't in a good state, the Council has every right to step in and take actions to fix it. Actions include demoting Division Leaders, replacing Division Leaders with new ones, etc. The Council does have more power than the Division Leaders, they always have and I don't ever remember outright saying "Division Leaders have more power than Council members with their Division". However, I may be wrong, I don't really know what I say anymore...

 

Now, when it comes to server rules, etc that's where I can see the Council not having as much authority as Division Leaders. For example, the Purge incident a few months ago, etc. In a perfect world, the Council and Division Leaders would work together and come to an agreement, but sadly, it doesn't seem like GFL is anywhere near perfect.

 

I will put more thought into this, but keep in mind, my initial thought for the new Council rank was to offload our divisions and game servers from the new Council rank. Therefore, making the rank "less" stressful and time consuming. But I never said the the Council doesn't have more power than the Division Leaders.

 

I will put more thought into this and I hope to come up with a conclusion in the future. As of right now, all I can say is the Council does have the power to promote and demote Division Leaders.

 

"Why are the Division Leaders getting the final say for Server Admin promotions?"

I believe our definitions for "final say" are different. When I think of "final say" I think of Division Leaders being required to approve all Server Admin applications, which isn't what I said at all. Now, yes, before the one and a half week mark, the Division Leaders must approve the Admin application. However, after that, the Server Manager has the ability to promote them. The reason for this is to make the Admin Application a discussion instead of a bunch of useless "+1's" from Server Admins that are their "friends" and only care about them getting Server Admin because they are their "friend".

 

If you need an admin promoted ASAP, you can get the Division Leader's approval and promote them before the one and a half week mark. Oh yeah, for those of you complaining about this worries me, a lot. It's really honestly not a big deal to get approval from the Division Leaders before the one and a half week mark. That said, if you start abusing this and go to the Division Leaders every time, even though it isn't an emergency, don't be surprised if you get called out or demoted...

 

In the end, if you think about it, the Division Leaders will always have the "final say" over admin applications. If they see an admin application from a completely toxic player, they have the power to deny them. Obviously, the Division Leaders shouldn't be automatically denying Admin Applications based on personal opinions/situations and if they do, this should be looked into by the Council (or Board of Directors).

 

"Why aren't we trusting our own Server Managers to manage our Admin staff?"

Oh trust me, I agree, "all" Server Managers should be trusted and at the moment, I believe they are by our Division Leaders. But from what I've seen, there are many Server Managers that aren't doing their job correctly. For example, promoting admins only because they are "friends" with them, etc. I see so many Server Admins that aren't active on the forums, etc and I always wonder why they are being promoted by our "trusted" Server Managers.

 

There will always be bad Server Managers and bad Server Admins, but the problem here is I don't see anything being done about them. Nothing has been done about them for months, etc. Servers are actively dying due to mismanagement and I am absolutely sick of it. One year ago, GFL had the top servers in the world, but now, I only see one server in the top 50. We used to have at least 5 servers in the top 50 (probably more).

 

Now, not all of this is our Server Managers fault. In fact, a lot of it is Valve's fault especially in the CS:GO division. However, I am still seeing many servers mismanaged.

 

Off-Topic:

"Roy, all you care about is server population and not about the server's quality..."

 Yes, I do care about the server population. In fact, I feel that is the most important thing. But you're missing something, in order to have great server population, you must have a high quality server. Well, unless your server is a cheating CS:GO server, which ours aren't. But yes, you should get the point.

 

I want to make one thing clear and after talking to @Dano the other day, I highly agree with the approach. Our ex-top servers were popular for a very long time. What "content" did we have on our servers that attracted many players? Well, let's list them:

• Appealed to a majority of the player base in the selected game mode.
• Had less-strict rules but offered options such as self-mute, etc (should add self-gag support in the future) so that users can self-manage players they dislike.
• Great admins that were active on the server and in the community, friendly to everybody and accepted anybody in their "TeamSpeak 3" channel, and finally, actively recruited members to our forums and TeamSpeak 3 server.
• High-performance.

 

Yes, those four things held a majority of our server population for a long time. Although "custom" content helps, it isn't required to manage a successful server, well at least on non-GMod servers. In my opinion, when I make game servers in CS:GO, TF2, etc I like making them simple. I absolutely hate loading servers up with useless plugins that doesn't offer much on the server and only possibly slows it down. Only add the plugins you need that will make great changes to the server's environment.

 

I just thought I would say that. I don't like seeing our games servers loaded up with useless plugins potentially affect performance, custom downloadable files making download times longer, etc.

 

Overall

That's it... Feel free to reply, I already know some of you will disagree with what I had to say. I just wanted to clear things up the best I could. The truth is, not everybody will agree with these new ranks and I surely hope nobody "resigns" these new rank changes. If so, then that highly disappointing me.

 

P.S. I apologize if this looks rushed. I am currently tired and tonight wasn't the best night to post a big post.

 

#RoyOut

 

Thanks.

3 hours ago, Major_Push said:

So, you'll have 2 credits from the CSGO devs now?

Correct  There were also a few things I didn't get credit for (e.g. maximum players fix, etc). But honestly, I don't really mind if I don't get credited. As long as the issues actually get fix.

 

Now if they could only listen to suggestions I listed here

 

It's still nice I received a response, even with the "rude" e-mail.

 

Thanks.

Well, I read a majority of the posts in here. As of right now, I currently feel highly burnt out from GFL. There's many reasons for it (some of which, aren't GFL's fault).

 

I will make a post explaining the reasons I came up with this structure later. I currently don't have the energy or motivation to make one right now. 

 

Sorry for keeping everybody waiting even longer :\

 

Thanks.

Okay, well, it has been a few days and I haven't heard from any others. I will be moving this down to the Server Admin section as an "early warning" for rank changes. Some of these ranks may change in the future along with their purpose.

 

Thanks.

@Kim As for Community Adviser -> Council, I still feel Community Adviser (advisors) are better.

 

Why?

• Many people never really liked the Council rank. Community Advisors would show a fresh start.
• Confusion would likely arise because people are used to the old Council rank.

 

Just my opinion. Everything else you said in the post looks good

 

Thanks.

I would also like to say, Admin Managers (e.g. Head Admins) will still be a thing. But they still rely on the current guidelines where the admin application must be opened for at least a week and a half.

 

Also, Server Admins should be giving reasons why somebody should be an admin instead of +1s, etc on the admin applications. We need to make that more clear in my opinion.

 

Thanks. 

3 minutes ago, Dano said:

I don't think Thomas was suggesting to add a new rank, but explaining the rank's use.

The DLs should easily be able to review an application within a few days, and I think putting them on hold should be available to them, as well. Managers can do so already, regardless.

Ah alright.

 

As for the application, sometimes the DLs can't make it and I also believe having the application up for a week and a half or so will give time to actually discuss the application. Admins will be able to give their input instead of just saying "+1 my greatest friend in the world!". Why wouldn't the players be able to wait for their admin app? If anything, it shows patience. Also, if it's an emergency, like I said, if the managers get the DLs approval, they can add an admin instantly. Although, they shouldn't happen often.

 

Thanks.