We have become what we hated the most

[ReubenMcHawk]

I never got the appeal behind arena.

[EldredChandler]

I never got the appeal behind arena.

I played AoS for the first time in ~6 months the other day. Accidentally chose .75 Arena on Nuketown. Terrible way to start playing again. Not only did I choose the mode I hate, I meant to join .76 servers ;-;

[Willy]

Even though I enjoy my time on servers with flat maps, I agree with pretty much everything said here. Ace of Spades is not and should never aspire to become a (and forgive my clichéd wording here) Call of Duty clone.

I've spoken to Stack about the stagnation I've seen as of late, and while there's certainly things in the works (most notably some fairly large alterations to the server list and Build and Shoot launcher) I'm still a little disheartened that there's no direct and immediate push for progress. While I'm a firm believer that Ace of Spades should remain a community-shaped game, I wish Build and Shoot would make a push for some concrete progress; be it making 0.76 the main, recommended and most popular version, or even investing further time and resources in developing and promoting projects such as Iceball and OpenSpades. I realise that both Iceball and OpenSpades are projects started by individuals largely independent from the Build and Shoot staff, but that still leaves 0.76, doesn't it? If real change is not pushed for soon, we'll see the community slowly begin to die, and many of us who've been here for the longest time will probably leave - myself included. Ace of Spades is the community-run shooter. Infinitely moddable, mappable, scriptable - all of these things make Ace of Spades the great game it is. That said, we must find a way to implement some concrete change in the game and it's community before it's too late, while retaining the player-made game modes that the CoD or Counter-Strike niche of players seems to enjoy - what right is it of ours to shape a game in one direction while neglecting another?

Sure, by moving on from the status quo we've had for over a year we're going to hear quite a few grumbled voices, but I can sure you that this small minority will be utterly and totally silenced by the thunderous applause from the other 95% of the community.



P.S - Is anyone willing to host a 0.76 server constantly running classicgen on CTF or ToW 24/7?

[Fleischgeruch]

You either die a hero,
Or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
;_;

[VladVP]

Does Jagex have any comments on the future of, what they believe, is rightfully their own game? I mean, they could at least stop being so butthurt about their failing, and do the community a favor by selling it back to someone who is conscientious from the old community who is still alive.

[Lostmotel]

This is what I found today. Yesterday there were 5 of these servers on the top...

Well what we can do is have a way to set priority on the serverlist on load. A way for us to highlight a gamemode or map and it would be listed above everything else.

I've been thinking about something like this earlier. I believe the best way to realise something like that is to combine the playercount with an individual server rating. Every server would be rated on a scale from lets say 1 to 5. Servers with good moderation, a diversified map rotation, anti-aimbot scripts etc. would get a higher rating (4 or 5). Servers which get rated with 5 will automatically be put ahead of servers with low rating and a comparable playercount. A higher rank would work like an increased playercount, e.g a server with a 1 rating and 4 players would be as far up on the serverlist as a server with a 2 rating and 2 players or a server with a 3 rating and 0 players (and a server with a 4 rating and 0 players would be even further up on the list).
The servers would be evaluated by a small number of veteran players on the forum, maybe 4 or 5 of them. Servers could be re-evaluated every month. Server hosts could also ask for their server to be rated by this 'council'.
Of course, this would make it harder for new servers to become more popular, but it would also make it possible to play certain gamemodes like push or tow again because, once there are enough players the server will usually stay full for a while.
Unfortunately these servers die again once there are overall less players online during the night. But if they would stay close to the top of the server list even when their playercount decreases temporarily, they wouldn't just die again due to their good rating, which will always put them ahead of most of the other servers with a similar player count.
Any thoughts?

[gen]

lol who cares about aos its dead go to tribes its dead too but at least fun

[ReubenMcHawk]

On another note, why is 0.76 considered the superior version? Not trying to be an ass here, I've just had very little experience with it and I haven't been a fan so far.

[VladVP]

On another note, why is 0.76 considered the superior version? Not trying to be an ass here, I've just had very little experience with it and I haven't been a fan so far.

Because
33.3̅% of the difference in accuracy.
66.6̅% of that it's newer, and Ben, if he still was here, would have wanted us all to use that one instead of 0.75.

[danhezee]

I've been thinking about something like this earlier. I believe the best way to realise something like that is to combine the playercount with an individual server rating. Every server would be rated on a scale from lets say 1 to 5. Servers with good moderation, a diversified map rotation, anti-aimbot scripts etc. would get a higher rating (4 or 5). Servers which get rated with 5 will automatically be put ahead of servers with low rating and a comparable playercount. A higher rank would work like an increased playercount, e.g a server with a 1 rating and 4 players would be as far up on the serverlist as a server with a 2 rating and 2 players or a server with a 3 rating and 0 players (and a server with a 4 rating and 0 players would be even further up on the list).
The servers would be evaluated by a small number of veteran players on the forum, maybe 4 or 5 of them. Servers could be re-evaluated every month. Server hosts could also ask for their server to be rated by this 'council'.
Of course, this would make it harder for new servers to become more popular, but it would also make it possible to play certain gamemodes like push or tow again because, once there are enough players the server will usually stay full for a while.
Unfortunately these servers die again once there are overall less players online during the night. But if they would stay close to the top of the server list even when their playercount decreases temporarily, they wouldn't just die again due to their good rating, which will always put them ahead of most of the other servers with a similar player count.
Any thoughts?

I was thinking something a little bit easier to do than that. Basically similar to ArticSledder's comment gamemode of the week. Any server hoster running that gamemode would be listed above the rest. It would be extended to Maps as well. Would it be for a whole week or would be just run it for a day, who knows. The system to make that happen hasnt been worked on yet. Sadly it isnt not a goal to be completed by November.

A rating system is something we could possible do. I dont think we would have a council though. We have tried councils in the past and it ends up one person doing everything. One person doing the research and everyone else just agreeing with that one person's conclusion.

But also remember, we will have servers that requiring auth'ing and that we plan to have that completed before November. Fingers Crossed. Anyway, auth'd servers will be a much better experience for the players, the criteria for determining a well managed server will changed once authing is live.

Also, in lieu of waiting for us to provide our solutions to the problem, I encourage everyone that thinks this is problem to host events and promote the other game modes. It doenst have to a well organized private server event it could be today at this time we raid the babel server take event.

[TB_]

Yeah, the lack of new things has made me bored as well. I was kind of hoping iceball would save us all, but it doesn't seem to get the attention it deserves. The launcher and all will be great, but .75, or .76 for that matter. Really isn't good enough itself to be able to have a good future without any updates. It's not exactly Counter Strike 1.6.

But oh well, I hope something drastic happens soon. Otherwise ace of spades will just be a memory in a few years from now.

[TheVetNoob]

I was kind of hoping iceball would save us all, but it doesn't seem to get the attention it deserves.

I've stayed away from Iceball because I have very little computer experience and the simple process of starting the game seems beyond my abilities. Plus my laptop is awful and I'm not sure how well the game would run.

[Lostmotel]

I was thinking something a little bit easier to do than that. Basically similar to ArticSledder's comment gamemode of the week. Any server hoster running that gamemode would be listed above the rest. It would be extended to Maps as well. Would it be for a whole week or would be just run it for a day, who knows. The system to make that happen hasnt been worked on yet. Sadly it isnt not a goal to be completed by November.

That sounds great. Hopefully you guys will make something like that possible soon.
Also, dont forget to put every hallway server down on the bottom of the list!

[Articsledder]

P.S - Is anyone willing to host a 0.76 server constantly running classicgen on CTF or ToW 24/7?

I'm totally willing, but I don't really have the money too.

[Battlefire]

I don't know if anyone said this...

It sucks now because of the stupid arena and babel game modes. What happen to the good old CTF. Now I see the CTF servers not as popular as the stupid babel. I'm sick and tired of that. And many people I know are too.

Also we need to stop hosting the hallway map. It was fun in the beginning but it getting very boring.