still stacking

[Brillow_Head]

my first post!! 

 

if its 9-4 and I switch sides...is that bad to the 4 team?...I was on the winning 9 side?

 

someone said that teams were stacked now in favor for the team losing  (4's side) maybe someone else went 4 also..... but ? if there is only one win left for other side? is it wrong to change sides? stretch the map out a little?

 

hummmm

 

in this instance is it wrong to switch thats all I want to know?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

WELCOME TO THE FORUMS!!!

[Ice_Berge_00]

auto join will only take away the ability to pick your team. It won't autobalance the sides, it won't select your team based upon your skill, it won't open you soda for you. All it will do is take away the option to pick your team. Once the teams are unbalanced, you can try to change teams but it will automatically pick your team for you. This may, or may not switch you.

 

Taking away the choice isn't the solution. Unfortunately there isn't a perfect solution. I've seen various methods, PTB and others that tried to automatically keep teams even. These usually result with players being forcefully changed almost every round. So if the T's win, you'll see someone jump to CT. Then if CT's win, you'll see someone jump back.

 

In the end it really comes down to players stepping up and taking notice.

[{.s.D.s.} R!c0]

it takes that option away (choosing teams)... which is the point. the accusation is that people are PURPOSELY stacking the teams. if it's something generated by random chance, then the accusations are bogus.

 

they are probably bogus anyway.

[mookie]

I agree with Rico here. I really don't think many people are purposely stacking the teams, and importantly I think the players who can make a big difference in team balance generally are not. We all know that not everyone uses auto assign. I rarely use it myself at this point, I usually just join the side that I think is harder (and yes I do maintain that cs_italy favors CT on GC #2; it also seems to very slightly on cs_office and de_dust2). We've all occasionally seen GoCI members call for their team to go to one side (although this more rarely actually happens) and certainly many of the regulars seem to go one way or the other more often than not (I know some Eh? seem to prefer CT, although I attribute this to a natural aversion to short-sleeved shirts). The point is that I think there are not that many people that actively try to get on the winning team, and most of those people aren't really good enough to effect the game. Almost all the time there will be a handful (2-5 players) who are going to dominate the game by way of skill, and, when by some chance too many end up on the same team, a handful of us mortals will have a hard time getting a bunch of pubbers to work together and overcome instead of hiding in a corner somewhere waiting to die. I'm a firm believer that players of a similar level to myself (~2000 + on VSP, there are lots of us and a large handful playing most of the time) can go toe-to-toe with the best #2 regulars on a good day, but there's no denying that once a pubber sees someone on the other team handily putting together a 15-3 score they think all is lost, start to go their own way, camp in irrational spots, and don't pay any attention to the voice or team-chat.

[Norguard]

Totally agree with the last half of the paragraph, Mookie... ...I'm still contemplating the short-sleeves. You know what ZZ Top said: "Every girl's crazy 'bout a sharp-dressed man."

 

I also know that if I stay a goodguy long enough, I get to kill almost all of my EH? buddies, who are decidedly terrorist. Mmmm, fun.

 

But Mookie, we learned firsthand, around 3:00 this morning, that it's not who you have but what you do with what you have.

 

You and I and a few other regs were on CT in Dust 2, and there were a few CSLS on the other end, along with a few other regs, but we got smoked round after round after round. As soon as it started looking bleak, there were flying accusations of mad team haxxx. The reasoning was that they had a decent team - nothing extrordinary. And they communicated. Nobody said a word on our team, except for the fact that occasionally, I'd say "How's middle?", and die, because that's where the headshot came from.

 

...or Cobble, just a little before. I might not have been camping right, Mook, but you saw it, my teammates just wouldn't let me. No matter what the suggestion was, there were still 8 people in B, crowding the entrance, while the other 3 got picked off in the courtyard, or outside of the left hall. When you switched at 6 - 1, the biggest benefit you gave us was that you weren't mowing down 75% of my team anymore - two people calling strategies had the exact same effect as the one before.

 

We could have had all of the GCs in the world hopping back and forth between teams on either map, and it still would have boiled down to two or three people versus the other team, because more than 50% of the team either didn't take direction, or didn't take it seriously.

Edited November 28, 2005 by Norguard

[Brillow_Head]

I honestly dont see too many regulars constantly picking an "easy" side on many maps anymore. I see random dispersal or hard side stacking...and that is probably the reason why Mookie see's italy as CT sided, its cause alot of regs go CT due to the difficulty.

 

I whole-heartedly agree that if you keep communications going and fire up your team with called strats an accountability (hey you, follow me, over here bomb, etc) you are going to have a greater chance to hold up, even against high skill regs.

 

I dont know how many maps I've seen durring prime time where the score is only separated by 2 wins. I've seen a ton of them more recently.

 

The stacking problem isnt as bad as everyone makes it out to be nowadays.

[Ice_Berge_00]

I have to agree with your brillow. A lot of the games I've played in neither team gets a big lead.

[Whitney]

wow all this team stacking complaints are dumb. people join the teams either they always play on on a map on they auto-assign, they cannot help it if they happen to be on the team with all the good players or with all the n00bs. People who yell out stacking while playing are usually the ones who can't handle it because they are N00BS. It's more practice. Stop complaining. Stacking is the dumbest thing i've ever heard of. i was playing tonight it was me on ct and two terrorists on Aztec. All by myself, yet i managed to win the map...and it was against two good players too. So obviously this is just a question about your talent and ability to handle situations. So Boo Yah...im done.

[{.s.D.s.} R!c0]

bottom line:

 

you win some

you lose some

 

last night, my first map of the night.... i was like 29-11.

subsequent maps, i couldn't get anything done. And it had nothing

to do with the team. it was ME that sucked.

[Ice_Berge_00]

Good point Rico, unfortunately the world isn't perfect and teams can get uneven. Good organization can often turn the tides and make up for skill differences.

 

It's a team game for a reseason.

[urk?!?]

Although I definitely agree that stacking can be a problem, it's one we have to actively work at fixing--that means everyone in the community. These posts are fine to help that along, but I do take issue with one thing in your post:

 

My team went the first three rounds without a single kill. At one point it was 5 on 3, and I had 2 kills while the worst on their team had the same and no one else on my team had a kill.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The case you're making about the first 3 rounds without a kill is unusual, but CAN and DOES happen in any given CS match/map. The first round in any CS match is a pistol round. Whoever wins that round has, at a minimum, the cash to buy armor and an mp5 or shotgun in the next round--and sometimes a rifle, especially if you're on T. This typically conveys a very large advantage, particularly if the winning team has any level of skill. The third round, if lost by the CT's, is almost always another save round for them, as the colt is 600$ more than the AK. For T's they can buy Ak's/rifle's this round if they've gotten a bomb plant or two down.

 

Typically, if you win the first round, you're going to win the next 2. You have armor, better weapons, and grenades. If you've lost, the basic strategy is to get a kill, forcing that enemy to buy a new weapon the next round, and thus costing him cash and reducing his ability to buy in rounds 4 and 5. CS at a strategic level is all about the money game. SK defined this and dominated the pro-gaming scene for 2 years because they understood this better then any other team in the world.

 

The fourth round of any map is the first true "gun" round, assuming that folks on the losing team have been saving up for it. Both sides have guns-rifles, awps--full armor, grenades and have also gotten a chance to see where the opposing side is playing. This is where the tide can turn.

 

It's a personal pet peeve of mine to see people whining about stackage (unless the skill levels are blatantly off) during the first 3 rounds--They're not stacked. The winning team has a money advantage. They have guns. They have armor. You have a pistol, or at best a rifle with no armor (unless you went on a kill streak). Your teammates are no better off. You're at a disadvantage. This is PART OF THE GAME.

 

I haven't been playing much lately, but it's ALWAYS been my experience that the bulk of the time, the teams are fairly even in GC. 5v3 is definitely not good. The numbers inbalance alone makes this tough, nm the skill level. But 8v10? 9v11? The server will autobalance the next round anyways, so I'm not worried about.

 

And you CAN win the second round. The third is tougher because the winning team usually has rifles by then. But good organization and leadership--which means following as much as leading (Read: If someone called a play, go with it, don't confuse the issue by arguing about it)--can win out over superior weapons.

 

Sorry for the rant, but this complaint is becoming more and more common, and it's one that is, by and large, invalid. The first round is decisive. The first 3 rounds are a gimme to the winner. The 4th round is the most decisive one as it determines a blowout or a matchup. There's a reason the skunk rule is set to 7-0. Think about it.

[Fatty]

Word.....up.....

 

Seriously. My answer for just about all of these threads: suck up

 

If you can't/won't make a difference for the slaughtered side without becoming a whiner or a victim, exit immdediatelly.

 

PS. I didn't read anything above. I don't read threads about stacking anymore. It's the same old thing. I'm glad Urk took the time to post that, because many new players might be reading...and it's worth some thought before you cry stackie.

[mookie]

Only 2 things I somewhat disagree with Urk:

1) On GC #2 I feel that I can identify stacked teams before the pistol round is even over, just by looking at the rosters, and can be correct way more than half the time. It is true that a team winning the pistol round gets a cash advantage, but a lot of times in my mind this just gives people an excuse to do nothing for 3 or 4 rounds about teams that really are stacked.

2)

I know the skunk rule is there, but it would be a lot better if it could be enforced automatically somehow. I understand that a lot of you guys spend most of your game time in #1 probably, but the fact is that on #2 there are long periods of time when only a handful of regs are playing, including no admin, and this is when a lot of 10-0 or 10-1 games take place.

 

That said, here's a picture from last night to hopefully warm everyone's hearts:

[urk?!?]

Mookie, good points, I should caveat it with "obvious skill level differences"--but frankly, it depends on the maps alot of times. On cobble, dust2, I know I can make a decisive difference on either side--on the other hand, on office or italy, it really doesn't matter what side I play bcs I suck at both. The only thing I'm doing to contribute to the team effort is buying flashbangs and dying with them before I have the chance to teamflash by accident ;/

 

Aztec is a tossup since CT is just so one sided on that map. One good sniper on the CT side basically shuts down the entire T offense. But that delves too far into the issue.

 

The bottom line is: I've been hearing this complaint way too often on #1, without any reason to back it up. I've been on the losing and smaller side of the 11v8 situation more than once. the server will auto correct, and for that round where it's imbalanced... it's a target rich environment!!!!!

 

I can't speak to #2, bcs I've only played on that server once.

[Fatty]

Yea, nice pic mook. Hmm...maybe we should actually have some people do a study and tally the average difference in score...I mean, get me some raw data.....like for an entire day...

 

map

time started

t score

ct score

gc members playing

 

anyone want to get me samples?

 

I'll compile it if anyone wants to collect.....but I don't want your collections from the 2 maps in a row that you got blasted...that's a whine.

 

I'm talking a minimum of 4 hours, unbiased reporting.

 

Actually, all of that besides the number of gc present could be taken from the log files....so maybe I'll see if the LA want to grab some sample and hash out some data. Would be interesting.

 

btw, my point?

 

I don't think 10-5 is a blowout. Wonder how many times the round difference is 5 or less at the end of a map.

[Fatty]

wow i just read some of above...thanks for the props, norguard, you are too kind.

[duma]

Fatty, I will do it when I play... but considering Sunday starts my final exam study week.... it will not be until next week that I get your data (on my end).

[mookie]

I'll take a few minutes to look at VSP and find a long block that I was playing for. One nice thing about VSP is that all the games are on there, including final scores and players in the game I think.

 

EDIT:

Never mind about finding a block of games I played, I'll just look at the last 20 or so games on #2 with a reasonable number of players on.

Edited November 30, 2005 by mookie

[stutters]

please spend a second giving feedback on PTBx which is being tested on #3.

[Ice_Berge_00]

HEY, go back to your own forums john

[mookie]

OK here we go. I compiled this based on stats for #2 for what I considered to be effectively a full playing day: all the games that started from 10:21 AM 11/29 through 2:40 AM 11/30. Looking at the games listed, it seemed like player counts dropped off drastically both before and after. I discounted one game that went only 2 rounds, I assume that an admin changed the map. This is 39 games played; I personally played in 12 of them. 17 of those games were decided by 6 or more rounds; 9 were decided by 8 or more (meaning 10-2 or worse, seemingly a blowout IMO).

 

The chart below has 3 lines on it:

 

The blue line is the number of players listed by VSP. Most games had a lot more than 24 players listed, I'm assuming it listed all the players that spawned at all. Because it listed a player on both sides if they played both, I may have overcounted some, but probably never by more than 2.

 

The green line is the number of GC members listed. If someone isn't listed in VSP with a tag on, I probably missed them, unless they are Lemme Atom.

 

The red line is generally the score of the losing team. Specifically, it's the losing score divided by winning score, times ten (this accounts for some teams winning with less than 10). An outright tie is 10, looks like there were 3 of those.

 

Also, the bottom shows the scenario for each map (i.e. de or cs). VSP doesn't keep the map name, but it does keep count of bombs dropped/picked up/planted/defused, and hostages touched. One of them had neither so I put it down for '?,' but my guess is that it was cs. Anyone interested, in particular anyone familiar with the mapcycles, can probably figure out which map is which by the de/cs pattern.

 

I have an Excel spreadsheet with this stuff on it, including the exact scores and the time of each map start, if anyone wants to see it, but I think a line graph is probably easier to read.

 

[stutters]

+3 mookie. nice man.

[Fatty]

Very nice.

 

At a quick glance, I draw no solid conclusions from that...if you see patterns, let me know.

 

Hard to make any inferences without knowing where the GC are playing. As soon as I think I can make out some sort of deduction, I find something that disproves it, so I'll refrain from any guesses atm.

 

In the end, that, to me is a good thing...if things are up and down with or without GC in there, the absense of change tells me that GC is running neutral and that the server/games maintain their norm even when GC pile in.

 

I'll look at it more later and think about how we can refine.

 

Mookie, thank you for your time.

[Fatty]

Basically that red line is the losing teams % of the winning team's score?

 

i.e. and ending score of 8-4 results in a 5 (or the losing team having 50% of the winning score...9-5 win would give you a 5.5, 10-6 being a 6)

 

It still holds that the higher the red line, the better the game was...more or less meaning the scores were closer together.

 

Now, from your statement up top, 26 of 39 games were decided by 6 or more rounds. A game that is decided by 6 or more rounds would fall on the graph in the range from 0 (a 6-0 blowout) to a 4 (a 10-4 win).

 

Your claim says that 67% of the games should fall in this range. From a general look at the data, it doesn't seem like this is the case. Just doesn't seem like 2/3 of the red line is at 4 or less.

 

So something is either wrong or my thinking is skewed. This is all based on your l/w*10 formula.

[Brillow_Head]

Interesting formula. I dont think we can pull a whole lot from this study with only the 4 variables. I'd think we would also benifit from individual score percentage

 

Player 1(losing) / Player 1(winning) *10

Player 2(losing) / Player 2(winning) *10

etc etc, so we can see the point spread, check the map type (de or cs), the team victory (CT or T), and the map name and try to draw the following conclusions.

 

Did one or two players determine the outcome of the map?

Where these players located on the statisically proven easier side of the map?

Where these players located on the persieved easier side of the map (T side is easier on Italy, but I've helped route them many many times as a CT)?

Where is the team spread of GC members? Does this impact the game outcome?

Is the overal team killing efficiency vastly higher than the losing teams or was it fairly even?

 

Maybe I'll dig into VSP myself a bit and see what I can find...it will take some time to compile the dats tho.