Sess1on

http://youtu.be/EL8e2ujXe8g

I think we need to differentiate between new players who are willing to try and learn and new players who make no effort to communicate or work as a team. I'm all for new people - more the merrier - but when we have a packed server and Johnny McSolo continuously screws over their team by not doing anything beneficial and ignores everyone I think the democracy of a votekick is justified. Especially is the case when all it takes is one person to ruin a chapter as well as a lot of regulars waiting for a spot it only seems logical.

Well, I also suggested the votescramble be based off level/rank and think it would be really beneficial. Don't dismiss it's usefulness. Yes, level/rank does not equal skill, but the chances of someone of a higher level/rank being more adept than one who is completely new to the server is likely. So if the scramble balances out new players with regulars evenly over the two teams it would definitely easy out the frustration of teamstacking/ragging.

One part to it is that everyone has to wait until the "team unlock" comes up to switch and by then the game is well underway leaving a possible imbalance throughout the campaign.

Yeah, I do agree with Lethal about dead survivors. A lot of unnecessarily long rounds should have ended much earlier if points were lost along with their respective survivors. I for one am a big fan of the sendpoints system - I think it's fantastic and further adds to the teamwork and intensity. However, working out a fair balance to the system is crucial to its success and ultimately what needs to be discussed. Scrapping the whole thing is a bold move that would upset a lot of people and probably alienate a lot of regulars/members from playing. For those who don't enjoy the sendpoints, what aspect about it do you not like? There is a level of compromise I think would be fairly easy to achieve that can greatly benefit everyone. Even though I'm all for the system there are aspects to it I feel are unfair. Such as the one Lethal mentioned and the respawn-on-corpse vs defib issue. Overall, though, sendpoints has been a really popular addition that I feel should stay.

Hey there, Lethal Ambition.

Nice jackie

I definitely agree about the team stacking problem. However, as crasx mentions, regulars seem to always want to play with other regulars thus the team switching (and sometime stacking). Normally this is fine as the scramble usually places regulars evenly across the teams so both have at least a few experienced players who communicate and know what they're doing. It's when the scramble puts the majority of the regulars on one team and leaves only a few to deal with the rest of the pubbers that the overall campaign is "ruined." And I say ruined in a sense that most of the time those on the losing team alongside the subsequent regulars will stack up on the winning team simply because of the people on it. I myself am guilty of this numerous times but I try as much as I can to balance out teams if all possible. But I've had many times where I've joined the losing team to balance it out only to have new regulars join up on the other team. Because of this, I purpose the suggestion of using the new level system as a way to scramble the teams. I know level/rank/playtime does not equivocate to skill but is a good place to start nonetheless. If scramble places regulars based on level the chances of evenly balanced teams is much more likely and would greatly decrease the issue of stacking. Playing and having a good time with people you know is awesome but two strong, equally balanced teams that work together makes the play experience infinitely better. I think the concept should be at least tried in some form or another to better the initial campaign scramble.

I just made an account and thought I would stop in and say hi! Love the server, regulars, admins, and the gc community in general that I recently contributed too. It's rekindled my joy for the game. Catch you in the server!