anti stack system suggestion

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[ick312]

Gentlemen,

as you all know stacks are a problem for several reason!

1. shocking new player
2. takes ages to get a game
3. fucks up (the great) warmap

so heres a suggestion thread how to solve that

There are 3 possibilities which i want to discuss.

1. automatch
Force the player to get a game with random teammates.
this is very problematic, cause maybe u want to play with ur buddy, but you cant because of automatch.

2. give sanctions to players who play unbalanced teams.
This could be done by giving resources disadvantages, for example 100 munition less for the company that stacks.

3. give reward points for playing on the weaker side
selfexplaining
=>Ok the good player plays one with the weaker players. then he continues his stack games.
So how to solve that?
2 ways: introduce a reroll chance depending on the "victory/loss" balance like. highest win ratio - win lowest ratio +(20%) = % reroll  chance
OR
(what i prefer)
increase the cost for each rewardunit. currently 1 reward point for 2 LW sniper, change it to 2 reward points for 1 sniper oder 5 for a panzer ace. So the players are forced to have several games for the "cool stuff"

my opinion is the following:
the best way to balance a game is to give incentives to good players to play with bad ones.
So i prefer the reward point idea.

[PonySlaystation]

u kidding right?

[PrinceOfScotland]

i cant see an auto mathcher working, youll just have uncordinated teams being stomped still, just stompers arent all friends

[PrinceOfScotland]

and lol at you post this thread when your stacking against some new guys, just lol timing

[ick312]

scott my sweetheart,

i am playing with everyone, but you know sometimes  even i would like to play with my buddies - oh you dont  understand? well then get some friends.

srsly i have played thousand of games with new guys and bad players vs stacks. SO i dont have to give a f*** against any of your retarded tries to erode my creditbility.


and by the way: YOU WOULD BE ONE OF THOSE WHO WOULD NEED AN ANTI-STACK-SYSTEM

[aeroblade56]

i agree with scottish a 4v4 against derps all day. i did play against you guys with dafq and vipereirr on my team as well.

[EIRRMod]

i cant see an auto mathcher working, youll just have uncordinated teams being stomped still, just stompers arent all friends

Ive posted how an automatcher that I design would avoid uncoordinated teams facing a stack (well, unless they WANTED to)

[AmPM]

SO....basically like they already have the option to?

I mean it comes down to "Oh look, a team, I don't want to play them, *joins different game*".

If there was an automatcher how would it determine a set team? If I have a team of 2 and we automatch for 3v3 knowing who is in the launcher to be our teammate does that make it set team?

If we are on vent to communicate is that a set team?

Who determines these things?

Hell, I could go solo automatch and get Lionel, it would then be a set team, since we do that anyway.

I think the best method would be implementing player rankings, and then basing team values on those. Then give bonuses for playing above your rank.

[Spartan_Marine88]

I mean it comes down to "Oh look, a team, I don't want to play them, *joins different game*".

But once you join a launcher game a magical seal locks you in!

[UndeathWrath]

SO....basically like they already have the option to?

I mean it comes down to "Oh look, a team, I don't want to play them, *joins different game*".

If there was an automatcher how would it determine a set team? If I have a team of 2 and we automatch for 3v3 knowing who is in the launcher to be our teammate does that make it set team?

If we are on vent to communicate is that a set team?

Who determines these things?

Hell, I could go solo automatch and get Lionel, it would then be a set team, since we do that anyway.

I think the best method would be implementing player rankings, and then basing team values on those. Then give bonuses for playing above your rank.

I like this idea.

I would like an automatch system better but I'm not sure how it would work. Also it would not work during times when there's little amount of people online. Maybe EIRMOD can enlighten us lol.

[Unkn0wn]

I think the best method would be implementing player rankings, and then basing team values on those. Then give bonuses for playing above your rank.

We kind of had this before didn't we? Anyway it's too soft. Not to mention that it could be argued that if the people being stomped receive (significant) benefits, they could start actively looking for these 'stomps' just so they can reap the benefits (this provided the benefits are larger than having to deal a low W/L ratio that no one but you can see anyway)

That being said, I do agree with you that there are other ways besides automatch to address this issue, possibly in a 'softer' and quicker way. (I would imagine a decent automatch feature is not something we could expect before 2013 lol) One (imo sound) solution could be simply to 'disincentivize' stomping by attaching more perks to playing people of equal skill levels and penalties for stomping (for example -15 or more % xp gain rate) You could even make it a smart system that doesn't penalise stomping when no equal level teams/players are in the launcher chat/waiting in games. (Can't be that hard, now can it?)

[skaffa]

How is the launcher going to see/know whos a pro and whos a newguy, whos stomping whos getting stomped, whos stacking whos getting stacked.

[Unkn0wn]

ELO or a similar rating scheme, same thing you'd need for your matchmaking system anyway

Obviously you'd need to look at the amount of games played, as well as win/loss ratio and possible other factors (insofar that those can be measured and give a reliable picture of someone's individual performance)

[skaffa]

I think it will be pretty hard to get that straight. In 1v1 you can measure skill by win/loss. However in 2v2s like this if you play with noobs you lose more but can still be good player.

If we get automatch I dont think it should go by any rank. Not enough players for that. Just everyone in 1 big pool so everyone gets mixed up and plays with everyone. Like eirmod said, if you want to be a team with a specific buddy (aka stack) you search vs other teams like that first.

[EIRRMod]

SO....basically like they already have the option to?

I mean it comes down to "Oh look, a team, I don't want to play them, *joins different game*".

If there was an automatcher how would it determine a set team? If I have a team of 2 and we automatch for 3v3 knowing who is in the launcher to be our teammate does that make it set team?

If we are on vent to communicate is that a set team?

Who determines these things?

Hell, I could go solo automatch and get Lionel, it would then be a set team, since we do that anyway.

I think the best method would be implementing player rankings, and then basing team values on those. Then give bonuses for playing above your rank.

Well Ive mentioned the workings of it before, and of course it fails if people want a 3v3 and theres 6 ppl in the launcher

You choose the set teams.  You choose to play vs a set team (with your own, if you want) or just as a fillin.  You can choose to be a fillin vs a set game, or not.

[AmPM]

Yea, but in the end, you will end up with set teams waiting, just like they do now, with randoms filling in because they just want a game, just like now.

I dunno, it seems like a good goal, if a bit out of reach. Would prefer focus on gamemodes, warmap features and balance.

[Demon767]

What if there is a stack of 3 players, and there is 4 others that can join, 3 of them are new guys and ones a pro. they get stomped the first time and now they want a game without them. Pro guy hosts, new guys join in. and because there is nobody else in the launcher, pro stack is forced to come in. Right? cant fix that?

[lionel23]

I personally don't think this can or should be implemented.  Remember the 'GC Games' where it hid players name but you can still see who was on in the launcher?  Automatching simply can't work just because we don't have thousands of players.  We have a small, close-knit community like Smokaz, Wind, myself, Mal, 8th Rifle... etc.

Would there be 'automatch premade teams'?  Would everyone be forced to totally randomize?  What about player mode? I personally never play 1v1 and rarely will I do 2v2s, so what if 3 people in the game all pick 3v3?  There's just too many conditions and not enough players to really warrant it.  If anything, maybe when a game is made (depending on player mode like 3v3, 4v4) that people are forced to join the first game up until it fills.  I think that might work better and force those good players who don't want to fight another good team to well.. either play or until someone fills it in so the next hosted game can be joined?

[EIRRMod]

Yea, but in the end, you will end up with set teams waiting, just like they do now, with randoms filling in because they just want a game, just like now.

I dunno, it seems like a good goal, if a bit out of reach. Would prefer focus on gamemodes, warmap features and balance.

Yep, thats how I feel.

We can address stomping and automatch at a later date.

Currently, at peak time, we're hitting 50 players+, so the system would work with that kind of pool.

[EIRRMod]

I personally don't think this can or should be implemented.  Remember the 'GC Games' where it hid players name but you can still see who was on in the launcher?  Automatching simply can't work just because we don't have thousands of players.  We have a small, close-knit community like Smokaz, Wind, myself, Mal, 8th Rifle... etc.

Would there be 'automatch premade teams'?  Would everyone be forced to totally randomize?  What about player mode? I personally never play 1v1 and rarely will I do 2v2s, so what if 3 people in the game all pick 3v3?  There's just too many conditions and not enough players to really warrant it.  If anything, maybe when a game is made (depending on player mode like 3v3, 4v4) that people are forced to join the first game up until it fills.  I think that might work better and force those good players who don't want to fight another good team to well.. either play or until someone fills it in so the next hosted game can be joined?

I have answered how this mechanic would work several times before - Need I drudge it up AGAIN, and then have people say 'Oh, I guess that works'?  No.  If you want, search for it.  I have a solution ;p

Naysayers.... theyre everywhere