On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 12:44:41PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
> This assumes that when the choices are limited to less preferred
> choices, then players will fall back to the remaining types
> available.
>  This might be true for some, but not for all those sitting on or
> looking for non-bronco servers, so instead of catching those you
> lose them altogether.

Yes, I agree.

>  The numbers for either case ... are to be researched, but I'd
> consider it a pity to lose those jumping off altogether and turning
> to WoW, Quake and the like.

Yes, that's what we have ... a moderate stream of new players who try
three servers, and very few of them stay.  Perhaps they've been
emotionally harmed by WoW or Quake.  ;-)

But we do get a stream of new players ... and the key is to have them
stay.  They improve over time.  They might not improve as fast as we
would like, but we have no other real choice.

> Just for curiosity ... if the numbers would show that non-Bronco is
> actually preferred over Bronco, would you gather around non-Bronco
> and shutdown Bronco for the sake of best survival chances for the
> bigger group? Would you quit Bronco and turn to whatever non-Bronco
> would be the #1?

I would, yes.  Others might not, but we can do without them.  Besides,
it isn't Bronco any longer, there has been massive change since Bronco
shutdown.  Yes, what we have on pickled and continuum is conservative
compared to warped, and even more conservative compared to paradise, but
until we have 95% of play happening on warped or paradise I don't feel
like learning the new rules there.

If it's the only Netrek in town, I'll play it.

> > 2.  add a way to accept new servers,
> Depends on the way.

So you're saying that whether you agree with the idea depends on the
process for adding a new server to the metaserver?  Okay.  What process
would you prefer?  Is it really that important to your acceptance of the
idea?  It isn't important to my acceptance of the idea.

> > 3. keep the server to metaserver UDP solicitation channel open for
> > existing servers.
> Not without fixing metas code.

No, it isn't that difficult.  The policy code has it built in, just not
enabled.  It's a policy issue, not a coding issue.  Even if it was a
coding issue, that doesn't relate to the primary idea I've asked for
comment on.

James Cameron    mailto:quozl at us.netrek.org     http://quozl.netrek.org/