RE: Quitting on defense

[iRobot]

http://www.ldg-gaming.eu/viewtopic.php? ... 394#p11394

I just wanted to raise a few points from a non-admin PoV.



People play for their own enjoyment, not as a service to others. If someone doesn't enjoy defending, then surely they are entitled to not do it. Anyone is free to leave the game whenever they please. If you start mandating that people are forced to play, then it's a very slippery precedent you are setting.

I share your frustrations that it can kill a good game, though - don't get me wrong!

With regards to balance, could we have a trial period where titan team fix is disabled for assault? If it becomes say, 7v10, I'm pretty sure most of the time someone would just switch if asked, rather than have the random choice made for them by the TB. This way the correct player can switch team rather than the guy with -40 net.

RE: Bans in general, you should all get your heads together and pen down what deserves what. Especially cross server. I see different admins giving vastly varying sentences, and it's only going to cause frustration when someone gets a 7 day for X, then someone else only gets a session ban for X.

Ending on a positive note, I'm sure I speak for 99% of the players when I say we're all thankful for the effort you guys put in.

[Socio]

Disabled Titan and replaced with asking for willing teambalance would work on a server where everyone knows eachother, like it was on old Eggs server, it wont work here on LDG, not on a public server with a sh!tload of randomers. Of course there is a couple of people that play on our server that will change when asked for it, but there is too much n00bs here that cant stand being on losing team and would switch to the winning team if they wouldnt be blocked by balancer. After a short while in game the stronger looking team would be stacked with those sheep. You can say that some stronger players could change back to even it, but what happens if the tides turn and the firstly losing team starts winning? Some of the sheep would probably change back making the game a mess of teamswitching.

I agree about unifying the rules, so they would function better.

Its true that Phobos/Martyr/AnewNickEveryWeek is annoying with his "Attacking? Defending? " but a week ban is pretty long for that. I also dont see anymore problems with him then this issue (and voting LegoWars ofc). But since it a repeated issue I dont know. Maybe just a voting ban would do the job?

[iRobot]

Disabled Titan and replaced with asking for willing teambalance would work on a server where everyone knows eachother, like it was on old Eggs server, it wont work here on LDG, not on a public server with a sh!tload of randomers.

It wouldn't hurt to try it out. If it doesn't work, then it can pretty much be disabled the next map due to the activity of the admins.

[iZumo]

Disabled Titan and replaced with asking for willing teambalance would work on a server where everyone knows eachother, like it was on old Eggs server, it wont work here on LDG, not on a public server with a sh!tload of randomers.

It wouldn't hurt to try it out. If it doesn't work, then it can pretty much be disabled the next map due to the activity of the admins.

I agree with Socio here. The situation would become only worse and admins aren't online on every AS map.

Its true that Phobos/Martyr/AnewNickEveryWeek is annoying with his "Attacking? Defending? " but a week ban is pretty long for that. I also dont see anymore problems with him then this issue (and voting LegoWars ofc). But since it a repeated issue I dont know. Maybe just a voting ban would do the job?

I don't think that this is a reason to be banned at all, given what iRobot said, and when having technical point of view, same or worse carelessness for balance is left unpunished.

[iRobot]

Let VIP's freely teamswitch then if you cannot trust these "randomers" who keep the server active.

[blOb]

I can't stand when players (server regulars) do this and most of the time it DOES kill the game or upset the balance.

The best games on the server happen when teams are initially fairly well balanced (rare :p) and they stay consistent throughout the entire game; doing the above disrupts this and nothing causes more rage than playing through a 40+ minute unbalanced game.

Fair enough if you need to go away for whatever reason but just doing it to spec/watch is not cool.

Also wtf is wrong with defending, I sometimes find defending more fun than attacking.

[blOb]

Let VIP's freely teamswitch then if you cannot trust these "randomers" who keep the server active.

I think this is a good idea.

[iRobot]

Shame we dont have some kind of ranking/stats system that will give players a seed and balance each team that way. Would be imba :p

[Azarael]

I'd be very careful about setting a precedent for players being allowed to quit after attacking. One disrupts the balance and potentially allows a player to be switched. More will definitely force teamswitches and piss people off. I'd rather stop this crap before it becomes a popular way to disrupt AS games and increase the level of disdain towards AS on the server. Again, there's a difference between ACTIVELY fucking up the game (by doing this) and passively doing so (by not switching to balance if you're able to).

Ban lengths:

Ban times scale depending on past offenses. 3, 7, 14, 30, permanent.

Racism offenses jump straight to 7.

A ban is more likely to be given instead of a session ban if the offender is gloating about what they're doing.

Bullshit. I can imagine how fast the kick would be when you would complain to the stackers about teambalance and were replied: I'm just leaving the teambalancing to the balancer.

Way to go Aza. I don't oppose when it comes that quitting on one round is annoying, but technically speaking, it still goes under "no care for balance" (or well you can disprove me about that), and unless there was some other team sabotaging, then I find this ban heavily misplaced.

Never taken action against anyone who said that, and I'm quite sure it's happened. I don't expect skilled players to repeatedly switch teams, thus ruining their own games by having to play two of the same type of round, consistently, especially as what usually happens is that one or two of the skilled players consistently switch and the rest don't bother.

If you would like to see the effect of allowing players to quit or spec after they've played the attack round, we'll lift the ban and make it clear that it's permitted. I admit that my initial ban was made because I found the action pathetic and was irritated that the player gave some backchat to G-Town after he called him out on it, but there are actual reasons to stop such behaviour.

[iZumo]

I'd be very careful about setting a precedent for players being allowed to quit after attacking. One disrupts the balance and potentially allows a player to be switched. More will definitely force teamswitches and piss people off. I'd rather stop this crap before it becomes a popular way to disrupt AS games and increase the level of disdain towards AS on the server. Again, there's a difference between ACTIVELY fucking up the game (by doing this) and passively doing so (by not switching to balance if you're able to).

Ban lengths:

Ban times scale depending on past offenses. 3, 7, 14, 30, permanent.

Racism offenses jump straight to 7.

A ban is more likely to be given instead of a session ban if the offender is gloating about what they're doing.

Bullshit. I can imagine how fast the kick would be when you would complain to the stackers about teambalance and were replied: I'm just leaving the teambalancing to the balancer.

Way to go Aza. I don't oppose when it comes that quitting on one round is annoying, but technically speaking, it still goes under "no care for balance" (or well you can disprove me about that), and unless there was some other team sabotaging, then I find this ban heavily misplaced.

Never taken action against anyone who said that, and I'm quite sure it's happened. I don't expect skilled players to repeatedly switch teams, thus ruining their own games by having to play two of the same type of round, consistently, especially as what usually happens is that one or two of the skilled players consistently switch and the rest don't bother.

If you would like to see the effect of allowing players to quit or spec after they've played the attack round, we'll lift the ban and make it clear that it's permitted. I admit that my initial ban was made because I found the action pathetic and was irritated that the player gave some backchat to G-Town after he called him out on it, but there are actual reasons to stop such behaviour.

At what cost? Forcing the players to play (the other round)? That's pathetic too.

And no I don't have on mind when you have to double Attack/Defend to balance it (that runins your own game, agreed) when speaking, but there are many cases when you can forsee the teams are stacked at the beginning of the match - that's the cases I'm talking about. Also I'd imagine "actively fucking the game" when your actions would be aimed to create disbalance, not when you don't like defending or attacking, spec / quit because of that, which may fuck up balance or cause sbdy to be switched.