Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Jul 16 2006, 02:34 AM) ...commanders with a good rep will always get the stack no matter how even the teams start out. This will mean that the coms with less than good skills (as percieved by the player base) will never get a good team.
However for coms percieved as equal this'd work great.
This is the biggest problem with this issue IMO. If you see Supercomm@SQD versus Voobman everyone will still wait in NOAT for Supercomm's team to open up. And then even the anti-stackers won't know which team to anti-stack (they'll just have to assume Voobman).
I am not a big supporter of this idea. It also prevents you from flying with Squaddies, deducing a role (e.g. Oh there is team of whores, so I'll go whore on the other team...) Plus, once you join in-game: hit F6, check the teams, then logout/login-hider and swap to the team you want...
What if randomize also switched up commanders at random? /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />
Seriously though, the problem with the hidden team thing is that stackers will find a way to stack regardless. I am actually for this idea in combination with the displayed ELO that was originally mentioned.
I'd actually propose something further. The game can't launch until the stack is within 15% ELO.
Now the problem at that point would be people holding out on NOAT until after the game started then jumping on the stacked team which is what happens a large percentage of the time now. The solution to that would be to keep track of the teams ELO during the game and autodeny join requests if their ELO score will throw the imbalance past the set imbalance tolerance. On the other side of the scale, you could limit how many numbered new players are allowed to join using the same criteria so that one side doesn't collect the newb stack.
So for example if Team A starts the game right at the +15% ELO advantage, Stackerman2320 who would throw that into a 25% or 30% or anything about that 15% point would be denied. This way stackers would have to sit in noat until the balance evens up or they decide to join the less experienced side themselves.
Now, there will be bitching and whining of "But I only stack because I have to. I mean, only an idiot would play for that commander." Ok, I think this is a cop out for the certain people that just look for any excuse to stack the odds, however I think there could be an answer for this as well:
What if there was a seperate ELO statistic that rated commanders by total number of games commanded and percentage of wins (both stats that are compiled by ELO). We find some way to make a scale that rates a players command ability from 1 to 10 based on this. Perhaps we could find a way to filter certain people who want to command into skill match servers (like the old Novice only, Intermediate only, Adv only, unrestricted filters on the AZ for players).
That idea is complicated and convoluted I know, but perhaps there is a way to gauge the command skill of any given player and either display it in game for people to make decisions or take away excuses. I know there is a dislike among our administrators for filtering newer people from the advanced servers and segregating in general, but I think this could go a long way towards making some fun games again. If I knew the newb stack wasn't a factor anymore I might be willing to command more then the occasional game.
I don't know. Just a few ideas. But, to come full circle here, I think if there was a visible ranking system that showed that there were in fact two good commanders playing then there shouldn't be a reason why the randomize player function thats being implemented in the next faz release wouldn't work.
Bones heal. Chicks dig scars. Pain is Temporary. Allegiance is forever.
I dunno Pico. I rather remain unconvinced, and you still havent addressed the problem of some people not wanting to fly for some commanders.
Also, randomizing the commanders just makes the problem worse unless you can implement some sort of commander ranking to avoid situations where you get a commander without a lot of experiance going up against Aarmstrong, or having someone who;d rather fly get command dumped on them
Da_Muck wrote:QUOTE (Da_Muck @ Jul 24 2006, 07:30 PM) I dunno Pico. I rather remain unconvinced, and you still havent addressed the problem of some people not wanting to fly for some commanders.
Also, randomizing the commanders just makes the problem worse unless you can implement some sort of commander ranking to avoid situations where you get a commander without a lot of experiance going up against Aarmstrong, or having someone who;d rather fly get command dumped on them
But what I did cover was whether or not even commanders is a valid excuse to stack. I don't think it is.
My main proprosal was to have a game setting that showed you both Teams ELO and prevented people from joining teams that are close to or past the stack threshold. Say 15% ELO.
Now I just finished reading a post from Tiger which said this is almost precisely what they are planning to do. I don't think it will show you both teams ELO in game, but it will prevent people from a joining when their ELO score would put them past the official Stack threshold.
I'm all for this. Can't wait.
Bones heal. Chicks dig scars. Pain is Temporary. Allegiance is forever.
