Decreasing playerbase

[Calypto]

The sign of a balanced game is decreasing amount of changes over time, which doesn't happen.

*citation needed*

[Aberiu]

Then second thing, as of now, there is 124 active players, with 5 players having skill over 7.xx. A year back there was 14 players having skill over 7.xx out of 131 active players (checking Log_S3/13_10_17_at_05-50-01_LDGBWFreon.ini). That message is clear, there isn't problem with noobs, but you are losing skilled players (nearly 3x).

Or maybe people just stopped caring about their skill now that it's hidden.

[iZumo]

The sign of a balanced game is decreasing amount of changes over time, which doesn't happen.

*citation needed*

Just look around on any game where balance is a critical thing. If you need to make frequent changes, the implication you're not balanced it pretty logical.

Then second thing, as of now, there is 124 active players, with 5 players having skill over 7.xx. A year back there was 14 players having skill over 7.xx out of 131 active players (checking Log_S3/13_10_17_at_05-50-01_LDGBWFreon.ini). That message is clear, there isn't problem with noobs, but you are losing skilled players (nearly 3x).

Or maybe people just stopped caring about their skill now that it's hidden.

From those 14, these are inactive:
Love<3iRobot!, Cap^, exIpiNky, QiSi, ~GrrrrrCanis^~, Mike2512, MSF~BrainCraft, ReturnOfTheKing
These are banned:
~>JAM.of.STEEL<~
These are active:
Aza, Ridiska, giZmo, Calypto
These are 6.xx:
HorroRKlowN
These became active:
Flo

7 went inactive, 1 got banned, 5 remained active (one of them is 6.xx) and 1 became active. I also checked the stats right before skill system was hidden: 9 players with skill above 7.xx (not going to check for activity / inactivity there).

(NOTE: I deleted irrelevant Oska's post.)

[Oska]

The fact that most admins were nagging "x.xx shitters" is quite relevant when it comes to the decreasing playerbase IMO.

The fact that you didn't like the post is probably relevant though.

[Aberiu]

Either way this amount of players doesn't look very representative. They could have numerous other reasons to stop playing (not to mention that robot is still here). Maybe if you picked 6.xx players it would be more accurate.

[Azarael]

@Oska: "a.xx shitter" stopped being a meme a long time ago. "Shitter" and "shitter reflex" are still memes, though mostly confined to Calypto.

@Izumo: The argument makes no sense. If we consider the balance of a weapon as being able to be quantized and plot a graph, we can consider individual changes as attempting to push down peaks and raise troughs visible in the resulting graph. This process isn't perfect, and will mostly draw the peaks and troughs closer to the ideal "balanced point". Not only can individual changes expose problems in other weapons (metagame) but gameplay changes made to solve a problem with an archetype (f.ex melee displacement) can screw the existing balance as well. Thus, frequency of changes does not concern me. I gauge my balance by the distribution of weapons visible in game, which is a better representation of how viable the players think each weapon is, not by frequency of my own changes.

[iZumo]

The fact that most admins were nagging "x.xx shitters" is quite relevant when it comes to the decreasing playerbase IMO.

The fact that you didn't like the post is probably relevant though.

Except, that the upper post is about 8.xx and 7.xx players, if you failed to notice. Therefore not relevant at all.

Either way this amount of players doesn't look very representative. They could have numerous other reasons to stop playing (not to mention that robot is still here). Maybe if you picked 6.xx players it would be more accurate.

That's just a speculation, not data. Sure it's possible, but I would say it's enough to see the trend, that skilled players left and new unskilled players came.

@Izumo: The argument makes no sense. If we consider the balance of a weapon as being able to be quantized and plot a graph, we can consider individual changes as attempting to push down peaks and raise troughs visible in the resulting graph. This process isn't perfect, and will mostly draw the peaks and troughs closer to the ideal "balanced point". Not only can individual changes expose problems in other weapons (metagame) but gameplay changes made to solve a problem with an archetype (f.ex melee displacement) can screw the existing balance as well. Thus, frequency of changes does not concern me. I gauge my balance by the distribution of weapons visible in game, which is a better representation of how viable the players think each weapon is, not by frequency of my own changes.

That's correct, although generally the frequency of changes is tied to balance of the quantiziation. If it's good, you'd make small changes with small frequently as you'd need time to see how things actually settled. If it's not so good, you'd make bigger changes and more frequently as it's easy to spot that some things are off. Now for the inital "overcontent" argument, if you keep adding content, you will have more items on the graph, thus making it more difficult to balance it, especially if you try to find a place for each weapon.

[Azarael]

Limited agreement on the overcontent hypothesis. The question is whether the interest of new content is worth disruption to the balance, and also whether that disruption to the balance is major.

[ehihehih]

well, I believe that all changes to try to find a balance between the weapons must be done more accurately. It can not and should not be possible the sudden reduction of 40% power on a weapon and even worse in a group of weapons. You can not make changes suddenly making "shit" weapons, and you can not suddenly make weapons too powerful. I understand that you have to do the verification test, but only enough to make smaller changes. All these continual, often unnecessary, often meaningless, modifications, make me angry.
Then, beautiful maps, changed because someone camper in some areas? ... All those maps were fun for just that! If the map does not like anyone, is not voted! Want to create an alternative? changed name and leave the original!
Then, the admins in the game, what are they? to make small professors if someone says a bad word? to cry if they suck in the game and run a new report changes in rules-maps-weapons?
Why, however, they do not do so to look less crap, and more on more important things? example: balance manually when the team balancer fails ... Never seen it done, but indeed, I often see results 6-0 or 6-1 and the team that wins has the strongest players and maybe even +1 player.
All this does not mean that the server will increase the number of players, but these are some things that "mi stanno sul cazzo". (Azarael note: this seems to mean "fuck me right off", loosely translated)

Continuous changes, no fun news = loss of players, through boredom or through frustration.

[Calypto]

Want to create an alternative? changed name and leave the original!

I like this idea. Why can't we have both versions of UHZ, Aztek, etc. if the LDG vote mutator supports graying out both maps when one version is played?