LDG-Gaming

ye then people start ragequitting, so you ban people for that ...

in the end someone opens a thread "nonexistent playerbase"

Nah, not banning, just forcing them into specs. And we are not talking about ragequitting, its about switching and ruining the tryharding for everyone. Not many people do that and a single warning will probably be enough for them to stop anyway. I dont think its such a big problem tbh. Just discussing small solutions for small problems here.

Earl_Vencar.:LLS:. wrote:Maybe removing the balancer at the start of the game will help matters; after all, players seem to move between teams at ease to 'balance', irrespective of how the game balances them at the start ... you can't get a well-earned 3-0 lead anymore without some numpty (ehihehih) crying 'teams', and some bright spark switching, leading to a 6-3 defeat ten minutes later. No crying then eh ehihehih?

In all seriousness, maybe adding back the skill details could be beneficial. Too many games are being manipulated at the moment in the name of 'balance', without heed to the fact that teams are balanced in the first place.

Challenge mode being more severe would give better scorelines if that is what you want. When a team goes 3-0 up, they could spawn with 75 instead of 175 or whatever.

Perhaps prevent switching at all, and let the balancer do its job. The few remaining active admins can manually switch people at their own discretion anyway.

Otherwise, yes, it might be an idea to reactive the visible skill ratings. We briefly had it where you could hide your own, which was a fair compromise (although it became obvious that "X.XX" meant you were probably reasonable!). Personally, I don't like VSR, but if you think it will gain more players than it loses, then do it. Other servers that do have ratings are always full.

Earl_Vencar.:LLS:. wrote:Maybe removing the balancer at the start of the game will help matters; after all, players seem to move between teams at ease to 'balance', irrespective of how the game balances them at the start ... you can't get a well-earned 3-0 lead anymore without some numpty (ehihehih) crying 'teams', and some bright spark switching, leading to a 6-3 defeat ten minutes later. No crying then eh ehihehih?

Mmm, according to you guys, which team was Earl on?
Osiris2, blue team +1 player.
After 4 minutes (on Osiris... ) blue were winning 3-0.
All of the red players had negative nets. All of those quick rounds ended with almost none of the blues having been frozen.

Is it fun, to continue playing in such conditions?

Sometimes a bit of good sense is required too, in addition to the automatic balancer and all the repressive shit Greedisgood said.

I always request that the teams be balanced, even when I find myself on the winning team! ("1 change pls") Something which no admin ever does!

Nobody cares about winning or losing, they care that the teams are balanced because like that it's more fun for everyone!

Earl, rather than crying as you always do - you know the players and their skill, plus you're admin, if you see that during a game there is imbalance, balance them yourself with good sense! Otherwise it is right that some upstanding player changes team voluntarily, seeing the great disparity.

So why didn't you change to our team when your team won 5 games in 5 minutes? Oh wait, hypocrite. Wasn't very balanced then was it, yet I didn't read a single comment from you when you're winning. Your team lost those 3 games because 2 of your team were camping on the roof and offering little support to the men on the ground - it was nothing to do with an imbalance in teams.

I am an admin, not a referee. Players have brains, surely they can see when teams are balanced or not; too many are looking at the score purely and then changing without considering that a high skilled player can have 3 bad games then 6 excellent ones.

I switched teams once to please you Earl, but you left the game

I see a lot of very good players matched against very poor players (like me) given that its supposed to be fun for all, i don't get how much 'fun' it can be to be humiliated for however long the game goes on for, equally I fail to see how much 'fun' it can be for a team to win like 9999 - 2 I'd have thought that would get boring too, I still see really really obviously mismatched games play, then we wonder why half the team goes to spec or just leaves halfway through.

Perhaps some sort of 'handicap' is the answer, so when you get players where winning is 'all' and their score is massively greater than the average, they should spawn with reduced health, even down to like 10 health for the uber elite assholes who glorify in killing as many as possible for as long as possible so they look 'great'

And for god's sake don't re-introduce stats, that'll just encourage said assholes to try even harder, making it that much less fun for everyone else, and even more people being driven from the server.

If these people are so shit hot, let's make them work for it by giving them a handicap. They shouldn't cry - they're awesome remember.

blablablaaah, what's the point of these 58 pages?

It was already established on page 24 that not enough Oska is causing the player loss. Anything more is conjecture.