The assumption that lots of tiered server operators is going to split the community is wrong, lots of people have been trying to get the higher STCC licenses and they dont have them yet. The system is designed to pick out the best for the 2nd tier - it is not an automatic right of passage. It takes experience to progress / or gives you experience through effort and then rewards it.

Frankly, I do not want to play against the casual player. I rarely play LFS on a pickup besis BECAUSE I have to race on untiered servers, usually. I dont want to race and be crashed every corner, and that is why LFS struggles to manage more than 500 players online.

If LFS kept it's players active, it would have a lot more than 500 active players.

It wont ever do that until it solves the problem of mixing experienced racers with casual drivers who both seek different things from the game.

Quote from Quint999 :

...
Is it ok that although I’ve paid my £24 the same as everyone else, yet now your I’m obliged to spend countless hours battling for points in cars I don’t want to drive at the mercy of your rules, admins, personal grudges just so I can get back to i.e. GTRS.
...

If you take SamH's above example of daisychaining Birder's servers, then you would be able to drive GTRs on the [CD] servers.

An interesting note. Some games that track stats in the community actually have very strict restrictions on how you can host a server and still be tracked for stats globally.

In that sense, it's not unheard of for devs to restrict server modding, if that's what they feel needs to be done. It's very simple to block from the global server as well.

The point that I think Quint999 was trying to make is this, and I assume only because I'm rather casual at racing also. When we get on to race in LFS and we go look at the server browser to see who's doing what, if you filter out empty servers you are left with litterally a handfull of servers with people actively racing. Sure, you can join an empty server and HOPE someone wants to race with you, or you can jump into the already populated servers, as is what I normally do. Now, if this system was more popular and not just on STCC servers, you'd find the more populated servers to be the ones running licenses. Therefore you have a lot more people starting to get their licenses and populating those servers. The servers without licensing and already active racers will stay inactive.

How many people here race without knowing anyone else in the game? A lot of us also follow our friends or teams around, so word of mouth would also draw more people to these license servers, all in the eventual hope that they will be racing with more experienced players later on, in later tiers. Afterall, no one likes being stuck with new racers. Sure, you might win a lot, but the fun is in the competition, which you find with experienced racers, the ones you know have put in a lot of time.

And in that sense, yes it does worry me to a degree. I already have a hard time finding a server racing the cars I want to drive, and in fact that's why I wound up going through the first 2 licenses and working on Silver now, just so I can race on a well populated server with better cars. A lot of people will have this mentality and it does have the possibility of making non licensed servers undesirable to race on.

While I like the idea of licenses to force people into racing more, and having a better understanding of racing in general, I think the potential for harm is there as well and whatever is decided should be done so very carefully (which is exactly what's happening in this thread). Regardless, I think a lot more talking and brainstorming needs to be done though.

Sorry if that was a bit long-winded just my :twocents:

What Gunn said.

What Becky said.

Plus: I think the problem Quint999 pointed out - and which has been pointed out before - is actually a large part of what and why we're discussing the whole system here. We're trying to find out what would be the best way to run such system without locking anybody out from the LFS experience. And this is done despite the fact that any server owner could actually do whatever he or she pleases without asking anybody. I think this shows already that the danger of a division of the LFS community because of a bunch of tiered servers is not as present as it might look at first glance.

Edit: Slopi said it already, but with a slightly different weighting

And while I'm still at it: If the tiered servers should turn out to be the most populated while others remain incactive, then that's a community decision! Like "voting with your feet", in a way. It might not be the "majority" of players, but instead a large portion of the most active ones. That however is a quite natural effect. It's the same in democratic elections: People who don't vote are not represented.

Quote :

however i do not believe it is fair that any chance of me racing on any server is at the mercy of one admins personal grudges and interpretation of said rules.

We all know where this is going. So let's try to redress this fear shall we?

As you will see reading back I believe it is wrong for one server admin to have too much power, or indeed any power, over servers which are not their own. That's one of the reasons I wanted to setup an independent MSA type body - that idea was sadly shot down, so I am planning to go about this in another way.

Let's not beat about the bush - you are talking specifically about the situation over the last few days with one particular group of people who, for reasons best known to them, requested to be banned from the license system. Before I accepted this request I specifically warned those involved that this was going to happen but they requested banning (yep, they really did) from any server running the software, I was suprised, but duly complied with their wishes anyway - so that is the problem of those individuals and to my knowledge you are not one of those individuals who requested banning by the software, so you have nothing to worry about there.

It's the strangest request I have ever had, but I was asked for it so I did it. If you're suggesting that I shouldn't release the software because people asked me explicitly to be banned, and a full explanation was given to each of those who have done so, then that strikes me as further wood on a bonfire that should never have been lit in the first place and it's not my issue and I dont really care any more about it.

As for whether the situation could happen again, if somebody asks me to explicitly ban them from the software i'll do it - I wont understand it, but I certainly wouldn't take it upon myself to issue such a ban.

Boy, this tread got hijacked big-time

Although I am not nearly as fast as the top drivers (bronze, u see), I do enjoy the clean racing provided on the STCC servers. I can't wait to move onto the next tier.

Expanding this system can only be good for the community. It has only recently been released, and it can only get better. It won't hurt for a couple more servers configured with this licensing system. If a admin would ever abuse his/her rights (which won't happen), then the community would put a end to that, pronto.

I agree that it should not become the "standard model" across all the LFS servers, and I'm sure Becky doesn't want that either.

There will always be free-for-all servers, not to mention all the different servers running local leagues.

So, don't stress, and for all those involved with this licensing system, really great work thus far! Thank you.

Quote from Quint999 :

lets say Redline, Conedodgers and DRSC apply this to their servers as well ... goodbye a fair proportion of good racing unless your prepared to go through this system.

I don't think so. Server admins want visitors. They want (good) racers to join their servers.

Suppose some admin decides to make his server tiered. And then he finds it's empty all the time, because many experienced racers have fled to non-tiered servers... What do you think this admin will do?

I think that most of us simply want good racing. At Conedodgers we have 3 servers, 2 are empty all the time (Other than on league dates) but [CD] 1 is always full.

Typically there are 23 on the [CD] 1 server

Out of the 20 that could race, 5 or more will be doing a few laps and shift+s for going off. If you say anything to them they just dont understand what they are doing wrong.

And out of those , 2 or more, will be new to LFS. The fact is that the faster racers (Not one lap wonders) want to race against faster racers without the "new drivers" being in the way but the only way we can do that at the moment is to kick them for no reason.

Any licence system would be a help as this would mean the slower drivers earning their way upto the faster servers.

Now, for what i see as could be a problem

95% of ConeDodgers visitors drive GTR's on AS3 all the time and they would not want to go through all the other cars and other tracks to get a licence.

I agree with Becky that a MSA type licence would be great but in the same way that you can get an International A licence for driving a 850 mini rally car or a F3000 you should not need to be able to drive every car on every track.

I had a MSA International A licence which i gained for doing offroad racing at the lowest level yet it covered me for rallies, circuits Etc.

The licence should not be about speed but race craft, obeying the rules of the track, not getting annoyed or being rude, not swearing Etc Etc Etc.

The poins system maybe the only way this can be done without loads of manual work but you should be able to earn points using the same car on the same track.

If this is possible ConeDodgers would join the system but if [CD] users have to use S1 type cars on a track they hate to get a licence then i cant see it working because they just will not bother.

We now have over 5000 names that have recorded a time faster than 1:46 on [CD] 1 using LFSLapper so i must take that into account.

I see a few options in going forward. I could offer a tool that can do all of the following things, fully optional in all cases and configurable where necessary

auto-restart the race / welcome message
auto-rotate track
auto-rotate car selection
check stcc license >bronze for connection
check server license >bronze for connection
check stcc license level for joining with a car
check server license for joining with a car
update server license at the end of a race
ban specific driver aids on a per server/car basis
ban specific driver aids on a per server/license basis
relay to LFSWorld for Spectator/Race Watcher compatability

This would allow servers to use their own license system, or to use stcc license level.

The tool would require acceptance of an agreement that where 2 or more servers are operated then at least one server allows drivers without a license to race. Also servers requiring a license should be clearly marked in the server name.

All licenses would use a universal naming system for ease, including existing STCC licenses, so would be renamed: Clubman (copper), National B (bronze), National A (silver), International B (gold), International A (platinum), Superlicense (titanium).

New features, and I have several planned for the future, would be passed on to other servers by a manually applied update, no auto-updater will be in place so that I do not gain any control over remote servers.

In Cone Dodgers case this would allow having your own license system and server 1 would be your existing tier 1 server. Server 2 could be a server where your licensed drivers end up, you could manually import your 5000 usernames into server 2 directly via SQL - but that would be up to you to do (sorry!).

An alternative for smaller server operators would be to check STCC license level rather than running their own SQL database. This would be the first step toward a more universal licensing system - although I am keen not to establish this yet because of the power issue mentioned earlier. It would not allow those other servers to update STCC licenses yet, that's something i'd have to take a view on later as the system developes.

Quote from birder :

If this is possible ConeDodgers would join the system but if [CD] users have to use S1 type cars on a track they hate to get a licence then i cant see it working because they just will not bother.

But what, if there was a different license path for GTR-type cars. So you would start out either with the UFR or the XFR and as soon as you go silver (or even bronze) you could move up to the big GTRs. Would that be feasible? I mean, it shouldn't require too much time for the good drivers to get their bronze/silver license - and UFR/XFR races can be a lot of fun btw .

They where banned from my servers, not from the license system, the only people to ever be banned from my own license system are people who implicitly asked for it.

I dont particularly count you as a friend, but I have never banned you Kev...

Before this goes further, stop.

Drop the subject. DO NOT GO HERE.

I'm sick to the back teeth of it.

The point of the conversation in this thread, which was incidentally hijacked some time ago by the conversation at hand, was to discuss migrating ALL aspects that currently exist under the control of one individual, AWAY from that individual.

If that's still lost on anyone, then FFS read the damn thread you're participating in.

If the system does become more universal, it should not be open-source as anyone can abuse it on their server and dish out excessive points. Also, it should become a set of qualifications - not just a points system.

"STCC Gold Graduate."
"LXCC LX4 Silver Graduate."
"ConeDodgers Single Seater Master."
"UKTC GTR Professional."
"FragMasters Master of Ovals."
"[some league] Season 1 Champion."
"[some server] FWD GTR Beginner."
etc.

This would require two databases for each server - one on their own server to manage the points required for each "qualification" and one to hold the qualifications obtained by each racer. (The second one is global.)

I hope that makes sense - this is what I've been trying to say all along. Servers can't abuse the system, drivers get qualifications based on the servers they go to. Other server can daisy-chain with whatever other servers they want - I could decide that I want STCC silver drivers only on the LXCC server. At the same for instance, SamH could decide he only wants FWD GTR Beginners and upwards for the UKTC GTR servers but the FWD GTR server could also require an STCC qualification... etc.

Bans should be handled by a "governing body", not just one person or a bunch of people that can make decisions on their own. The implications of a ban of this magnitude should be considered - bans should be reserved ONLY FOR OBVIOUS WRECKERS. No-one should be banned because his team-mate was misbehaving. No-one who goes emo and requests a ban should be granted the ban without reason so that they can't blame the system.

EDIT: If someone got farther than they should be on the system, THEN ITS THE SYSTEM'S FAULT. The system should be adjusted so that people go as far as they deserve. They should not be banned for this.

I actually think that the license system shouldn't cover 'bans' per se, only points deductions and then, only on the individual license system of the servers which are effected.

Bans should always be a server owners perogative. We do have the barricade and even that, it is down to server admins to review the replay and apply a ban if they want too.

Licensed racing is a different kind of thing, it's about tier 2 + 3 really - where pro standard racing is expected, it's not the same as wrecking, and it is possible to penalise a driver or indeed set them right back to 0 points if the admin feels that the driver does not deserve to be on tier 2.

That however, is a server admins job and should only be something that they do with their own licenses.

I'll allow other servers to use the STCC license rather than use their own, which may work for small operators, but they will not be allowed to progress or penalise drivers in the first instance.

I think over complicating the system by inter-relating different server licenses would be a bad thing, it would create confusion. The license system should be simple.

As an example:
Cone Dodgers would be allowed to run their own license system and set it up across their 3 servers. It would be self contained and they could administer it as they wish. To get good racing on server 2 they might penalise a drivers license, but it will effect only their server licenses.

TeamB might then also setup a server, but they dont want to administer licenses so they can use the STCC bronze license as a basic check of competency. They wont be able to progress or penalise the STCC license.

How does this sound?

Quote from axus :

I hope that makes sense - this is what I've been trying to say all along. Servers can't abuse the system, drivers get qualifications based on the servers they go to. Other server can daisy-chain with whatever other servers they want - I could decide that I want STCC silver drivers only on the LXCC server. At the same for instance, SamH could decide he only wants FWD GTR Beginners and upwards for the UKTC GTR servers but the FWD GTR server could also require an STCC qualification... etc.

The downside would be that it might be quite frustrating finding the right license server for your status, but otherwise I like this idea and would be willing to accept mild irritations this might involve. And wouldn't that be possible with what Becky wants to make available?

Quote from axus :

Bans should be handled by a "governing body", not just one person or a bunch of people that can make decisions on their own. The implications of a ban of this magnitude should be considered - bans should be reserved ONLY FOR OBVIOUS WRECKERS. No-one should be banned because his team-mate was misbehaving. No-one who goes emo and requests a ban should be granted the ban without reason so that they can't blame the system.

This doesn't sound too bad, but I'm not sure who would want to be the "governing body" and if server admins would really want to hand the right to decide on who to ban over to that governing body. And wouldn't it still be possible to ban server based AND system based. So a ban from a participating server would mean that you can still race on other participating servers?

From some of the posts you can see that any form of licence starts all the arguments. He said that, you did this seems to go with running servers but in the same way that typing /ban xxx 0 magically makes problem go away i think anything that gets us servers full of good drivers is a good thing.

Becky:

I would only get involved at all if this is controlled by one place and i think your MSA "National A" idea is great.

I can understand that people would have to earn their licence but i would see [CD] 1 being set to GTR's and AS3 from the start with drivers earning points towards their "National" or above. [CD] 2 would become our higher licence server only allowing National and above, but would also be set to GTR and AS3.

However i do feel that there must be some fast-track system for some racers. On [CD] 1 we use 10 laps with a pit, and have quite a few racers doing well below 17:20 for a full race and in my eyes if you can do that you dont need to prove anything.

I dont see how i can ask D1 champion, Csimpok, D1 runner up, Lucky Luke and several others to take a driving test to get their Licence.

I also see in your top 50, one name at least that has been banned on my servers.

Also does your system allow the use of lapper?

bans are a seperate thing, the license system doesnt circumnavigate it. If as a server operator you want to ban somebody you can.

On the STCC servers the license system does a good job of awarding licenses to drivers at the sharp end of a race. Some people have done many races and still dont have any/many points. That doesn't mean they are not welcome, they just aren't ready for a second or third tier server. The points allocation has been designed this way. A good racer charges through the licenses.

In the case of cone dodgers if you want to award a driver to go straight onto your second tier server you can - by running your own license system. Obviously if you where to use the STCC licenses on your server then you cannot sidetrack, but that option isn't being provided for servers of your calibre, it's meant for smaller operators.

Quote from Linsen :

The downside would be that it might be quite frustrating finding the right license server for your status, but otherwise I like this idea and would be willing to accept mild irritations this might involve. And wouldn't that be possible with what Becky wants to make available?

I don't think it would be possible to make it more universal if Becky wants to limit what we can do to what she's currently said. As for the finding servers issue - this can be incorporated into the system. Upon obtaining a new qualification, you could get a message saying "Congratulations, you have just obtained your STCC Silver license. You have now also gained access to the following servers:...". And if you wanted a list of servers you can access, you could make an !access command. Its simple enough

Quote :

This doesn't sound too bad, but I'm not sure who would want to be the "governing body" and if server admins would really want to hand the right to decide on who to ban over to that governing body. And wouldn't it still be possible to ban server based AND system based. So a ban from a participating server would mean that you can still race on other participating servers?

Becky answered that in her last post, I guess - not much to worry about there.

Quote from axus :

If the system does become more universal, it should not be open-source as anyone can abuse it on their server and dish out excessive points.

I'm not overly fond of the system becoming universal, but I'm all for it becoming more widespread

Quote from axus :

Bans should be handled by a "governing body", not just one person or a bunch of people that can make decisions on their own. The implications of a ban of this magnitude should be considered - bans should be reserved ONLY FOR OBVIOUS WRECKERS. No-one should be banned because his team-mate was misbehaving. No-one who goes emo and requests a ban should be granted the ban without reason so that they can't blame the system.

Here, I have to disagree. I won't run, on UKCT servers, a system where bans are arbitrarily dished out from other servers. This is why I personally resist the governing body (for our servers anyway).

I don't have any issues with servers that do wish to participate in a more widespread central database, but I wouldn't have the UKCT servers participate in it.

In the UKCT landscape, the system I would consider running would be one where we, in association with another server operator (I'll use ConeDodgers again as my example) agree to share licence information. Because I trust ConeDodgers not to load points on drivers for favouritism, or penalise good drivers unfairly by removing their points, they're a barricaded servergroup like ours is, and so this is an association that would work. I wouldn't daisychain with a servergroup that I didn't know and trust.

Depending on the projected SQL server load, I'd certainly consider offering hosting for a central licencing database, for those servers that did want to participate in the global licencing system, but I wouldn't myself want to be more involved in it than hosting and backing up that central database.

IMO, the only licencing system that would be of benefit to the community is one where all of these possible configurations are possible.

Quote from axus :

Becky answered that in her last post, I guess - not much to worry about there.

yep, I should stop previewing and rereading my posts

Becky, one thing I didn't quite get: Would the option for smaller servers mean that the STCC license would only act as a qualification check to enter that server, and that you would not earn points by racing on that server?

Erm, excuse my usage of "more universal" - I meant widespead.

As for the bans system, I agree with it being up to the admins as Becky described. There's another system to deal with bans if they want to run it and that's the wrecker barricade. That's already completely unintrusive etc.

I think daisy chaining isn't workable, realistically. By the simple process of having remote access possible to your SQL database you are leaving your licenses open to abuse.

I plan to use a form of encrypted communication between the application I release and the STCC Management tool just to allow STCC license lookups for those people that dont want to run their own licensing system but do want licensed racing.

I'm uncomfortable with a proper global license that can be progressed and penalised from multiple server operators. The nearest I am comfortable with, I think, is allowing other servers to lookup a drivers STCC license status - but i'd preffer it for bigger operators if they ran their own license system.

Making a global system brings about deep reservations over control and power as discussed earlier, and i'm not comfortable with that.

But servers would only _add_ qualifications to the global database. No admin is to tamper with that database in any way. Servers also have their own one for their own points prior to awarding whatever qualifications and no-one else can access that in any way.

Servers handle their own database for points, there's no point in giving someone qualifications they don't deserve and even if that does happen, no server will daisy chain with them as an effect. Servers also handle their own bans.

Quote from Becky Rose :

I think daisy chaining isn't workable, realistically. By the simple process of having remote access possible to your SQL database you are leaving your licenses open to abuse.

That's like saying that any ecommerce website is open to abuse. That's just not true. It's down to the programming of the API.

[edit]..

Quote from Becky Rose :

Making a global system brings about deep reservations over control and power as discussed earlier, and i'm not comfortable with that.

Making a system doesn't give you power. Making a system you retain control over gives you control. Using that control delivers power. Abusing that power is a BIG leap from making a system.