I am trying to add some of the custom maps published in the Steam Workshop to a dedicated server.

Not much luck sofar.

- I added the Workshop ID as a single line to workshop.txt
- I restart the server.

This gives me the error: "Download item 539421606 failed with EResult code 37"

- try to download manually using "steamcmd.sh +login anonymous +workshop_download_item 282440 539421606 +quit"

this gives me error: "ERROR! Download item 539421606 failed (I/O Operation Failed)"


When I scroll down in the server browser, I do not see anyone playing on workshop maps.
Has anyone gotten this to work?

I just discovered that Hell's Gate...isn't the Hell's Gate I remember

Since there are quite a few maps to look through, maybe we can pool or efforts and list the map changes spotted after the steam-only update. So far I noticed:

FFA Demon Keep:
The jump 'angel' to the RA platform are different.
You need to aim low on the Jump Pad on the back wall to make it.
If you aim too high, you get neither BFG nor RA

FFA Hell's Gate:
There is a battlesuit powerup on the bridge!
Most item placements have changed.
- RA is in the former RL room
- RL is where RG used to be
- RG is where HMG used to be
- shotgun is...gone
- YA is gone
- second PG where MG was
- ammo is probably in different

Share what you notice

Does anyone here work for Id software or Zenimax? Or does anyone have 2nd | 3rd hand information about what is currently happening behind closed doors at Id?

We would love to hear for you.

How did the build up to the QL Steam release, the initial euphoria of being in the top 100, the user revolt, and the painful decline play out inside the company?

On Sep 21st Quake Live had a record 6K simultaneous players join from Steam, that was the peak.
Last Sunday the number crested at 2.4K
Looking at the excellent graphs provided by Steam, we can note a gentle, but consistent, downward trend. Quake-live on Steam is experiencing a net-loss of a few players every day.

Personally I welcome the trend as I have lost all faith in the current custodians of QuakeLive. There is no indication that SyncError/ZeniMax has the courage to admit to any missteps.
The last two updates were simply bizarre. They needlessly discontinued a product that had an established customer base (classic) and replaced it with a new product (QL with Loadouts) for a hypothetical future customer base. Well we can’t say they didn’t commit to the idea.

This move did not strike me as a New-Coke fiasco, but more of a last ditch panic initiative to magically boost revenue.

Now the money is spent, the new product is on the shelf, and I’ll bet it’s not generating anything close to their forecast. In retrospect it would probably have been cheaper to burn the money.

So what happens next?
ZeniMax does not appear content maintaining QL as a hobby, but also can’t make it profitable (or at least cost-neutral).
Hopefully they’ll sell QL. Maybe a new owner and a new development team can keep this game alive for a few more years.

Well it's official, Id software does not give a rats ass about it's paying customers.

I have a Pro subscription and have been playing Quake since the first edition back in the 90s.
Like many other veteran players, I am extremely disappointed in the recent updates, as they made the game basically un-playable.

Since I can no longer play the game, I started spending more time on the Forum. Where (ever since I emailed support asking for a refund) I was continuously awarded "infractions" for stating opinions which run counter to the direction Id has chosen.

Today I apparently was Banned from the official QL forum (indefinitely no less) without even an accompanying email.

I guess that means that my money is good enough for them, but I'm supposed to keep my criticism and suggestions to myself.


Draw your own conclusions

If you do not care about FFA ELO, this discussion is probably not for you.
I have spent a little time learning about ELO. Then I experimented a little.
Now am prepared to do more than just complain about FFA ELO; I am going to propose a possible solution to the existing FFA ELO problems.
This “solution” doesn’t quite fit in one forum post.
So I have written a small webpage which simulates the scores of a FFA game, and then shows how the proposed new algorithm would adjust each player’s ELO based on the simulated game scores.
This webpage is neither pretty nor permanent, (I am not a web designer)
But it is an effective way to demonstrate how the algorithm behaves.
There may be problems with the algorithm as I have written it, I am happy do discuss any possible improvements.

For those of you interested in the nitty gritty, here are some links which explain how it all works as best I can.

Main FFA ELO demo
1.) How is 2-Player ELO calculated?
2.) What is wrong with the current FFA ELO implementation on QLRANKS.COM?
3.) How does the newly proposed FFA ELO algorithm work?
4.) How does the score simulator work, how do I read the tables?
5.) What are the benefits of the new algorithm?
6.) What are some of the problems with the new algorithm?

If this is the wrong place to complain about QLRANKS, please direct me to the correct place.

First, I got interested in QLRANKS after finding the in-game ELO announcer script.

It's great that we have QLRANKS, as the QuakeLive website only ranks people by 1-4 tiers.

But... If you're going to do it, why not do it right?

I only play FFA, so these complaints only pertain to the FAA ELO implementation

1.) Recent games
When I look at my profile on QuakeLive.com I immediately recognize my game history as being 100% correct, the webpage instills confidence as a stoic record keeper.

When I look at my profile on QLRANKS, I do not recognize my history as being complete. I see a few games that I probably played, but not all of them . And there is no drill down functionality that allows me to see who else played and how we finished to distinguish different games played on the same map.

So I am left suspecting that QLRANKS is not counting all games.

2.) Lack of explanation of anything (Ladder,Rank etc)
Wikipedia explains ELO when applied to Chess.
Nothing on QLRANKS explains how ELO is calculated in QL FAA.

Why Not? How hard would it be to answer the one question everyone who is actually interested in the website will ask day 1?

This further undermines trust in the rankings displayed.

So far I can not even deduce the scoring system.
There are games which I have been able to identify in my QLRANKS profile: (only game on that map, that day)

- I have seen a + ELO for FFA games I have lost, badly
- I have seen a - ELO for FFA games I won.
- I have seem a - ELO for FFA games I won, where some opponents had a higher ELO than me.

So if you know who to direct my irritation at, please let me know.
I would like to see a working/transparent implementation of ranking QL FAA players.