Forum - DDraceNetwork

I just had one more thought about it. There are so many tight maps which would never work on servers with 128+ players. Yet there are enough maps where blocking is impossible to avoid. And saying "go team to avoid this" would be no real solution

64 players server are fine, you just need more of them if more players.

imp wrote:I just had one more thought about it. There are so many tight maps which would never work on servers with 128+ players. Yet there are enough maps where blocking is impossible to avoid. And saying "go team to avoid this" would be no real solution

We could ban people (but only as a server admin, because otherwise people will funvote) via their Steam ID. But yeah, it worries me too.
To be honest, I started the discussion about Teeworlds on Steam after somebody have put it on Greenlight (apparently without authors' permission, lol), but now I'm really worried if it's a good idea...

We cant ban anyone via Steam ID. It would mean that teeworlds is only playable through steam, but it isnt. Steam is changing nothing concerning teeworlds, its just a marketplace to advertise teeworlds in this case.

kamillentee wrote:We cant ban anyone via Steam ID. It would mean that teeworlds is only playable through steam, but it isnt. Steam is changing nothing concerning teeworlds, its just a marketplace to advertise teeworlds in this case.

Hmm, you're right.

I did some research and I've found out that the Dev's took the most basic form of my proposal, which you wrote about - using Steam only as another mean of acquiring the game. ^^ Therefore I guess there's nothing dangerous to worry about (besides the influx of new players, which one day would be a problem anyway).
(source: https://www.teeworlds.com/forum/viewtop ... 12#p113912)

Fifi you are writing the same in 2 threads here and on tw forum.

I can't merge them and it's very important, so I responded in all of them. Sorry.

It would be enough if you would post them in the newer thread, even with quotes from here.