Server Full Problem- Disrespectfull

[Olympus]

I want to be reported in what became today in the Private Server 2.
Exactly at the 18.15 we where 49 members in the TeamSpeak channel while other times we wait for in order to we begin up to the 18.40 and with our big surprise we realised that the mission that had been selected (truth who him selected and with who criteria) had only 40 places with consequence 9 members of Community they remain out of Game Night.The disrespect that was demonstrated to these members of Community (from that in other post in the forum we ask they help) was big after instead to be decided is played certain other mission with more slots us it was declared we do not worry (that we left other things in order to we are present) because the waiting it will keep to us only one hour.
I really feel sorry for that desicion and the disrespect that was demonstrated in 9 members of Community.
I can understand this decision if we had late but was 18.15 and most of Game Nights we start at 18.35-18.45.
Really Disapointing.

P.S
If you want to play a Mission with only 40 Slots ,you must announce it in Forum 2-3 days before so all members know that if they late maybe loose the Game Night.

[Rory]

I don't feel like there was any disrespect towards anyone. If you turn up late and there is no slots then that's too bad. If we pandered to people joining in late then the 40 people who turned up will suffer by waiting each time we re-slot a mission because someone joined.

Sometimes you have to bite the bullet and wait and not be selfish.

[Karle]

Missions are chose based on the amount of people at the start. If 40 people are there at 18:00 and theres a new mission thats 40 man, thats what'll be chosen. Same happens on server 1. Yes, I agree it can be annoying, but it teaches you to arrive on time. Like Rory said, isn't it also disrespectful expecting the 40 guys who turned up on time, to have to sit and redo everything again?

[Snowman]

No admin would or should choose a mission that excludes people who are on the server and in the lobby waiting to play. This is just not done.

If there were 49 people ON the server at the start of the game night then a mission would and should have been chosen that caters for those 49 people.

If there were 40 people on the server and 9 others not on the server at the time of mission selection then the admin can only really account for the intent of those whom he sees wishing to play. i.e. those actually present on the server and an appropriate mission would then be selected.

If this occasion is different to what has just been stated, I would very much like to know.

StealthySnowman.

[Kyoptic]

No admin would or should choose a mission that excludes people who are on the server and in the lobby waiting to play. This is just not done.

If there were 49 people ON the server at the start of the game night then a mission would and should have been chosen that caters for those 49 people.

If there were 40 people on the server and 9 others not on the server at the time of mission selection then the admin can only really account for the intent of those whom he sees wishing to play. i.e. those actually present on the server and an appropriate mission would then be selected.

If this occasion is different to what has just been stated, I would very much like to know.

StealthySnowman.

Situation: less than 40 on server when mission selected (~35). When we reach briefing screen and people have finished reading briefing (but not yet started to make plan), we have more than 40.

S2 game night starts at 18:00, S1 at 18:30. This was an S2 gamenight, thus I have to support the logged in admin's decision. At the time of choosing and during the slot up selection we had the appropriate number of players.

I'm sure no offense was intended, but it's the case that the people that had spent their time waiting to slot up and read the briefing would have had their time (and willingness/ability to show up on time) wasted just for a handful of people that arrived late.

[Terox]

At the start of any gaming night the initial mission selected should cater for
1) The number of players already there
2) The number of players who are likely to turn up within the next 30 minutes or so (It can take in excess of 30 minutes just to start the first mission)

So if there are 40 players at the start time of the gaming night and typically the server is full within half an hour, common sense dictates select a 64 player mission

If typically there are likely to be around 50 players 30 minutes into the game and only 30 are there at the start then again common sense dictates to select at least a 50 player mission

Why on earth would you want to alienate folks just because their free time doesn't start at exactly "Kick Off Time"

[Olympus]

I did not want to attack in no one simply he is ugly you can change easily a mission in order to play all of your mates and you select not do.
I check what exactly time Log in TS and was 18.17, usually this is not late the most of our Number 2 Game Nights starting enough later.

[[Ben]]

Grabbed these from the RPT logs:

Admin logs in at 18:07
Mission is loaded up at 18:08
Mission loads to the briefing at 18:14

At 18:15 there were more players than capacity of the mission.

There was more energy spent from players complaining about the idea of having to pick a new mission, when the briefing has not even begun yet, than having consideration for other players waiting, and quietly let the admin pick a new mission and slot players up for the new mission quickly.

In this circumstance you had players whom were here before the start of gamenight, not able to get into the server which is especially unfair.

The thing that i can't understand the most is why people would be so horribly appose to spending an extra 5 minutes, on top of however long they have been briefing to play a bigger mission with more players? We spent so long complaining about how we wanted to play bigger missions and do more involved things, yet when you have the players you deny that very ability?

[Tom]

Non admin perspective from being there:

It wasn't announced that anyone had been waiting for the mission and then got forced out because the mission was too small.

From what I gathered at that moment, it was only announced that the server was full when we were in the briefing and co had already started planning.

Our M.O. Has always been: mission full, next time come in sooner. But if you have been waiting and the server fills up and then NINE of you can't explain that we need a bigger mission... you should have made more noise, because I only heard 2 admins bicker over yes or no and it turned out to be no.

I'm positive if you made your statement in Ts instead of writing it out on the forums you would have played sooner last night.

sucks that you had to wait

[Rodi]

If you are too late, too bad, just like in reality. If you have an appointment but show up late-too bad, learn to show up on time. If you can´t deal with simple social standards then the problem might be on your end. And calling the decision to not cater to your personal needs disrespectful is extremely hypocritical. You turn up late to your (not forced, seeing as you can decide to not show up) appointment and then expect literally EVERYONE but YOURSELF to scrap everything they already did, have planned or were planning and bend over to your needs.This is so incredibly selfish and calling them disrespectful after you DEMAND something that they do not need to provide you with is plain out insulting and "disrespectful".

[[Ben]]

I love how the people whom are not present at the start due to real life commitments, like work or families and request, not demand to be included in something that has not properly begun are seen as the selfish ones, as appose to the 40 people whom are refusing to spend a little extra time to include other people, and kicking up a fuss like it's the end of the world. But clearly the people just asking to be included are the selfish ones here and should spend a long hard time thinking about how self centered they are that they should have the audacity to even consider trying to be included into something they are supposed to be welcomed into. Shame on them.

[lucius]

I was the admin in charge at the time. I stand by my decision.

In this circumstance you had players whom were here before the start of gamenight, not able to get into the server which is especially unfair.

I would have to disagree with that, game night starts at 18:00 and by your own reckoning there were people not present at the start. I also have to query how this is "especially unfair". EG. An event occurs every week at the same times (no sudden alteration to the schedule) it has establish protocols which include playing new missions first when appropriate, first come first served, and cracking on to avoid time wasting. You are aware of the event, its timing and protocols but circumstance does not put in the right place at the right time. So is the onus on those who were present and correct to pander to latecomers regardless of the cost to them or should a common sense decision allow the group to get on? Are we now establishing that game night starts not at 18:00 but when stragglers can make it in, what time is that?


less than 35 ppl were present at the start of game night. We play new missions first. The only new mission was a CO 40 with an hour time limit on the mission, 38 ppl are slotted and briefed and 40 are present for the kick off. There were 2 people who voiced concern upon arriving late after briefing and slotting up had occurred. There were also others in the channel who were afk. The question was put out and briefly discussed but frankly we had already spent a min of 25mins x 35+people totaling 14 hours of combined time between all players.
So what happens if we redo for latecomers arriving up to 30mins late? lets add another 20% to that and redo the whole thing- So now its after 7 (an hour late for game night start) and on top of the initial 14 hours we have say (generously) 25min X 50 ppl so thats another 20hours of players time added on top plus the initial 14hours then wasted by having to restart for latecomers..

So in conclusion my decision was based on the established "new missions first", arrive for game night start concepts as well as the time already given by those who were present for 18:00.

Im sorry if anyone felt miffed by this but I cannot organised based on projected arrival, on a weds numbers are not guaranteed to hit 50 and I do not have a magic schedule for player's arrival and commitments. I would also suggest that everyone steps away from throwing harsh words at each other this is hardly a common occurrence and it might just benefit people to absorb the perspective of others. I would certainly have been disappointed to have arrived late and find no space (as im sure we have all been at various times) however my schedule in the evenings tends to give me the freedom to wait for the next map which i would do quite contentedly.

I welcome a debate about the procedure but i again urge people to approach the topic with more respect and less antagonism.