ThatOneTomahawk
Peacekeeper
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2012
- Messages
- 357
- Reaction score
- 1,085
So, today I was going about my business, playing some MCSG, when I player said, "I ALWAYS GET KICKED BY A DONOR!!!" After telling him to turn his rage mode off, I said to him that there was nothing that I could do, and that donors are the things that keep these servers alive. Now, I did some thinking for a while, then it dawned on me. What if, instead of removing donor privileges, we balance the distribution of them on the servers? Now, before you say, "I payed for my donor, I want to have the ability to join a full server!" let me go into some detail.
First, I've noticed that the way servers are laid out, you will find 80% of the donors within the first 10-15 servers. The last 20% are distributed throughout the last servers. My idea is to make it so donors are equally spread out throughout all of the MCSG servers. To do this, I suggest making it so that donors can only kick up to 50% of the lobby, or 12 players per server. (This percentage can be increased or decreased depending on what is needed.) So, instead of having five servers where there is 100% donors and 120 non-donors that got kicked, there would be 10 servers filled with half donors and half non donors. 120 non-donors will still be kicked, but the 50% of non-donors that joined quick enough to not be able to be kicked by donors would be able to stay in lobby.
Now, I admit this method will not be 100% effective, as technically, the same amount of non-donors kicked will be the same as before. This does give new incentive for non-donors to be able to join quickly, as there would be an almost guarantee that they will not be kicked from the server, (Unless multiple staff join the server after half the lobby is filled with donors of course.)
Some people may be saying right now "But this is nerfing the power donors get!!!" Well, yes and no. While in fact, it does make it so donors cannot always join a full server, it does not restrict them from being able to join a full lobby. For example, just now I looked see how many games were in lobby, I found three US servers to be in lobby. Now, in technicality this would allow for up to 72 donors to join, but with my suggestion it would cut it in half to 36 possible donor slots. While this may seem like a detrimental loss, it really isn't. This is because of the number of servers we have. With 30 servers to choose from, it ensures that at least one server is always in lobby. (In theory of course) The way my suggestion balances out the donor to non-donor ratio on the servers wold make it so the massive amount of time it takes a non-donor to join a server would be reduced because they have a chance of not being able to be kicked, while a donor's time spent finding a server would take slightly longer. Lets just say it takes a donor 30 seconds to find a server to join. With this suggestion implemented, it would take a maximum of double the time to be able to find a server because, once again, donors can only kick half the lobby. Since it only takes them one minute to find a server they can join, the amount of time lost looking for a server is insignificant, while the time that is reduced for a non-donor to join a game is detrimental. I hope this makes sense.
Anyways, I've brought this up in the feature suggestions thread to see what the community's opinion is on my idea. Do you love it? Do you hate it? Do you just not care? Please let me know, as I thought this was a pretty good idea.
First, I've noticed that the way servers are laid out, you will find 80% of the donors within the first 10-15 servers. The last 20% are distributed throughout the last servers. My idea is to make it so donors are equally spread out throughout all of the MCSG servers. To do this, I suggest making it so that donors can only kick up to 50% of the lobby, or 12 players per server. (This percentage can be increased or decreased depending on what is needed.) So, instead of having five servers where there is 100% donors and 120 non-donors that got kicked, there would be 10 servers filled with half donors and half non donors. 120 non-donors will still be kicked, but the 50% of non-donors that joined quick enough to not be able to be kicked by donors would be able to stay in lobby.
Now, I admit this method will not be 100% effective, as technically, the same amount of non-donors kicked will be the same as before. This does give new incentive for non-donors to be able to join quickly, as there would be an almost guarantee that they will not be kicked from the server, (Unless multiple staff join the server after half the lobby is filled with donors of course.)
Some people may be saying right now "But this is nerfing the power donors get!!!" Well, yes and no. While in fact, it does make it so donors cannot always join a full server, it does not restrict them from being able to join a full lobby. For example, just now I looked see how many games were in lobby, I found three US servers to be in lobby. Now, in technicality this would allow for up to 72 donors to join, but with my suggestion it would cut it in half to 36 possible donor slots. While this may seem like a detrimental loss, it really isn't. This is because of the number of servers we have. With 30 servers to choose from, it ensures that at least one server is always in lobby. (In theory of course) The way my suggestion balances out the donor to non-donor ratio on the servers wold make it so the massive amount of time it takes a non-donor to join a server would be reduced because they have a chance of not being able to be kicked, while a donor's time spent finding a server would take slightly longer. Lets just say it takes a donor 30 seconds to find a server to join. With this suggestion implemented, it would take a maximum of double the time to be able to find a server because, once again, donors can only kick half the lobby. Since it only takes them one minute to find a server they can join, the amount of time lost looking for a server is insignificant, while the time that is reduced for a non-donor to join a game is detrimental. I hope this makes sense.
Anyways, I've brought this up in the feature suggestions thread to see what the community's opinion is on my idea. Do you love it? Do you hate it? Do you just not care? Please let me know, as I thought this was a pretty good idea.
