Anti-Stacking Changes

batman · Post by **batman** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:09 am

Now you see -- completely random choices can be fun.

Actually, I am thinking that I like allegiance the way it is, but I also think we are not going to be able to sustan it over the long haul if we don't get more players.

It is kind of a freedom vs. quality kind of thing. On the one had, comms have fredom to decide settings, factions, who joins, etc. Players have option to join one team or another or sit in NOAT, depending on comm, settings, etc.

This system can deliver some truly wonderful games when there are evenly matched comms and the stack does not form. however, those gems are getting rarer and farther in between. The wait in between games and the joys of endless pod rides home in stacked games make it particularly difficult to retain new players.

The pros: Maximium freedom of choice, fly with your buds, fly for comms you like, other 'social' beneifts.

The Cons: Alot of time spent waiting for a game to form, Alot of stacked games that are not much fun;

On the other hand, you could reduce the cons listed above by eliminating some of the ability to choose. You can select preferences and if you are lucky, get on the team you would like -- but other than that -- you take the luck of the draw.

It is kind of like RL -- you have rights and responsibiities. I would argue that those who are more strongly in favor of the freedom to choose have not been living up to their end of things when it comes to the responsiblities to a) step up to comm when others don't; and b) stopping the stacking.

Now, what I was actually going to propose was a hybrid system -- one for squad games that pretty much is what we have now, and another for PU games that incorporates the ideas proposed here.

FlingPu · Post by **FlingPu** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:08 am

Hopefully this isn't terribly off topic... What's the proper etiquette for joining teams and avoiding stacked games?

I've read everywhere how ELO doesn't work, autobalance fails, or this is how it should be fixed. But never, this is the commonly accepted way to distribute your rank while joining a team. Maybe I missed it. /huh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":huh:" border="0" alt="huh.gif" />

Here are the guidelines which I've used since I was aware of stacking. If I'm wrong, correct me...If your rank is 15 or above, join the lowest ranking team or wait until your preferred team is at a lower rank.If your rank is under 15, join the highest ranking team or wait until your preferred team is at a higher rank.

apathos · Post by **apathos** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:02 am

That would about sum it up, Fling. Nowadays, you can look at the team rank sum and determine which team you can join that would bring the difference closer to zero. If that team is already up one player, then you wait.

Psychosis · Post by **Psychosis** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:11 am

i present to you 2 time honored principles that seem to get F'd to hell alot here:

1) K.I.S.S.
2) If it aint broke DONT FIX IT, and FFS if you fix and it and breaks WORSE, dont FIX IT AGAIN

juckto · Post by **juckto** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:12 am

QUOTE Example One.

I join a server. I have no way of chatting with people inside the server. Turns out it has noob commanders who have stuck the settings on outrageous big game and are pissing around in capships. I quit, I get a 15min ban.

Example Two.

I join a server. Commanders are horribly stacked. AB puts me on the Expert commander's team. He has bought no game-winning tech and the entire team is mindlessly whoring. I quit out of disgust, I get a 15min ban.

Example Three.

I join a server. Team has lost the game badly, ie Garrison is camped by 5 adv ships on each red door. Enemy team hasn't bought any game winning tech and are mindlessly whoring. I quit because I've got better things to do than get whored. I get a 15min ban.[/quote]

mesial · Post by **mesial** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:01 pm

juckto wrote:QUOTE (juckto @ Mar 13 2007, 05:59 PM) You could always implement a 15 minute 'time out' for these types so that you don't have people bouncing server to server until they get a situation that suits them. Its a game afterall and people with that mindset just ruin it for the people that are just here to play.
No.

$#@! you.

Why your idea won't work:

Example One.

I join a server. I have no way of chatting with people inside the server. Turns out it has noob commanders who have stuck the settings on outrageous big game and are pissing around in capships. I quit, I get a 15min ban.

Example Two.

I join a server. Commanders are horribly stacked. AB puts me on the Expert commander's team. He has bought no game-winning tech and the entire team is mindlessly whoring. I quit out of disgust, I get a 15min ban.

Example Three.

I join a server. Team has lost the game badly, ie Garrison is camped by 5 adv ships on each red door. Enemy team hasn't bought any game winning tech and are mindlessly whoring. I quit because I've got better things to do than get whored. I get a 15min ban.

Now, if I could "bounce from server to server" to try and find a decent game which would be fun to join, that'd be different. I would be fine with that. But that's not what you're proposing. So, no.
And since I'm not the kinda of person to shoot something down without offering a replacement:
Remove 'Randomise Teams' ability to affect people on NOAT.
Better yet, remove 'Randomise Teams' all-together.
Thats what pisses people off about Auto Balance. Getting stuck on a team they don't want to fly with. Whether it be faction or commander, they just prefer the other team. Stop that happening and maybe the GC wouldn't get so much flak for turning it on.

You could've just made that post shorter by saying, " I quit unless we are winning"

EDIT: Before you fly off the handle at me, I say that with humour....

FlingPu · Post by **FlingPu** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:09 am

madpeople wrote:QUOTE (madpeople @ Mar 13 2007, 07:25 PM) i posted what i thought was quite a nice algorithm for auto balance in ether codebugs of faz once

Is that algorithm still online?

Doc_F · Post by **Doc_F** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:07 am

i don't play other online games but i'm interested in how they are dealing with the 'stack' issue.

SpaceJunk · Post by **SpaceJunk** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:21 pm

Tremulous - they don't. Stacked games last 3 minutes, and the next game is autostarted one minute after the previous ends.

Allegiance with autobalance always on and force launch after three minutes, as soon as teams are even... if stacking has to happen, it could be made quick and painless. /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

Edit: cos what I really hate is to wait 10 minutes to start a game and end in a stacked one. We can cut those ten minutes and end the stacked game sooner.

batman · Post by **batman** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:30 pm

SpaceJunk wrote:QUOTE (SpaceJunk @ Mar 21 2007, 08:21 AM) Tremulous - they don't. Stacked games last 3 minutes, and the next game is autostarted one minute after the previous ends.

Allegiance with autobalance always on and force launch after three minutes, as soon as teams are even... if stacking has to happen, it could be made quick and painless. /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

Edit: cos what I really hate is to wait 10 minutes to start a game and end in a stacked one. We can cut those ten minutes and end the stacked game sooner.

Yeah, that sums it up. This is what makes allegiance special -- the ability to change settings and teh importance of commander balance.