[Suggestion] Stacking Deterant

[yourbestfriend]

You make a lot of sense. But about the balancing, I don't follow what your opinion is exactly..?

 

But what I do see is for example, if you'd only sort teams on playtime on our server (so player with the longest playtime -> team 1, second longest playtime -> team 2, third longest playtime -> 1) you would already have a huge improvement in scramble quality. And since teams get scrambled at the start of every game it is a big deal.

[Sky]

Yes. The more variables you bring into the equation, the more accurate a scramble would be.

I don't think play time would be as accurate, though; As jackie mentioned, players often go idle in spectator for extended periods of time.

The categories it takes into consideration can be modified; it's really straight forward how to do it after reading through the code, but I feel

the categories already provided do a great job (and I guarantee you'd see the difference.)

 

Currently it records and considers:

 

Commons Killed

Commons Round Avg

SI Kills

Times Incapped

Survivors Incapped

Survivors You've Killed

Headshots

Damage Dealt As Survivor

Damage Dealt As Infected

Survivors Rescued

 

 

But, yes, with scrambles happening so often, it's important to do something to prevent it from being completely random.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Sky

[samurai nightling]

Large amounts of points for distance and small amounts for actually getting in the saferoom sounds like a great idea. Gives more emphasis on going the distance and not how many people actually made it in the room. There are plenty of times where a team will make it most of the map, then die 100 feet from the door. Then the score looks like they might as well have died at the very beginning of the map because the other team made all 10 into the saferoom. Change this and maybe I wouldnt hate playing so much.

[yourbestfriend]

@Sky, you are right, about the playtime, if that is counted as being online rather than being on infected or survivor. It could still be used, but then it would be more like a filter. So people with more than 3 hours of online time (or members) will be devided on both teams so you don't have a pile of newbs on one team and a pile of members on the other. But that plugin sounds promising, I hope you can arrange something with Jackie to plug in the plugin.

 

And @Sky & @Samurai, I agree about the saferoom reaching points. But it has to be kept in mind that giving too little points for survivors who made it will probably yield a lot of rushers/ runners.

[swatfishy]

Large amounts of points for distance and small amounts for actually getting in the saferoom sounds like a great idea. Gives more emphasis on going the distance and not how many people actually made it in the room. There are plenty of times where a team will make it most of the map, then die 100 feet from the door. Then the score looks like they might as well have died at the very beginning of the map because the other team made all 10 into the saferoom. Change this and maybe I wouldnt hate playing so much.

 

What about defib balance then?

[Sky]

In our server, we allowed respawns, but we ended up restricting respawns to 3 per player per map, and didn't

charge a defib penalty because players earned 1 survivor bonus per player that made it to the end of the map

safe room. That meant there was no overwhelming score increase if they made it, and a respawn limit gave

the Infected players a chance to take down players - even if the teams weren't balanced, because they could

simply focus down the team leaders, and then pick off the remainders.

 

If you did defib balance, you'd probably want to do something like...

 

"If a surviving player earns 1 point for making it to the safe room, each defib takes 3 points off the total score

with a maximum of 3 times the total amount of points a team could receive if all players made it to the

safe room."

Here, if it's 1 per player, that's 10 total points for surviving, and 30 total that could be deducted

if that many defibs went off."

 

This means, that while surviving is nice, it doesn't make the team scores drastically different, however, it can

mean the difference between a tie and a win (or loss).

This also means that defibbing teammates won't result in a complete loss of the round or the game, because

there's a limit of how many points a team can lose through defibbing.

Remember, that even a 30 point margin can cost a team the game, if that occurs repeatedly on different maps.

The difference would simply be that the team scores would be much closer together, and no one would feel

like their team got face rolled.

 

It's just a suggestion, I'll drop the little piece of paper in the idea box.

[Garychios]

How about loosing more than 500 pts, when playing survivors, get free moly and ak47?

[TheDude]

How about loosing more than 500 pts, when playing survivors, get free moly and ak47?

 

That's actually a really good idea!

[Sky]

I'm not sure that would fix it - players will try to leave that team and stack on the other team when the scores get

to the point where their team has no chance in winning - or they'll just leave. A lot of players would rather leave

a game than get face rolled, because when teams are that unbalanced, it's generally not fun to be on the losing

end of it, and it even gets boring for the winning team.

That being said, you may end up seeing a lot of molotov spam, and with all of the other action going on in the

server, server stability may go to zilch; If you've ever seen 10 players throw molotovs into a tight space,

together, like, say, at the start of the map.

[Baloosh]

Start nerfing individual players.

 

Guys like Herbs, Meng, Jackie, *sk, Lookback, etc.

 

Based on their steam IDs, they can't use an AK, can't get laser sights, etc. And they generate points at a much slower rate than the "average" player on the server.

 

That way no matter what team they end up on, it won't be as "stacked."

 

Plus, that way I might actually be able to kill one of them one time.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Baloosh

[MattKemp]

Start nerfing individual players.

 

Guys like Herbs, Meng, Jackie, *sk, Lookback, etc.

 

Based on their steam IDs, they can't use an AK, can't get laser sights, etc. And they generate points at a much slower rate than the "average" player on the server.

 

That way no matter what team they end up on, it won't be as "stacked."

 

Plus, that way I might actually be able to kill one of them one time.

 

Yay, I get to keep my lasered ak!!!!

[Garychios]

I was told last night I was stacking. I got really tinkled, since that was not the case. I havnt played with dryfire in a while, and wanted to play with him. It's different when someone says it as a joke, and then when someone says it to make up stuff. To all who heard me curse last night, sorry. I dont like being called a stacker, expecially when I am 95% always on the loosing team.

 

On that note, the server is much much better. I actually love how the teams get managed now.

 

What I think is stupid is when people call a vote scramble 1 round into the game. That is annoying.

 

Can we have an automatic vote to skip the last campaign on a server with a 1600 pt swing?

[JackieChan]

Start nerfing individual players.

 

Guys like Herbs, Meng, Jackie, *sk, Lookback, etc.

 

Based on their steam IDs, they can't use an AK, can't get laser sights, etc. And they generate points at a much slower rate than the "average" player on the server.

 

That way no matter what team they end up on, it won't be as "stacked."

 

Plus, that way I might actually be able to kill one of them one time.

That's fine. I don't use the AK47 anyway.

 

Can we have an automatic vote to skip the last campaign on a server with a 1600 pt swing?

 

Maybe.

[Baloosh]

Start nerfing individual players.

 

Guys like Herbs, Meng, Jackie, *sk, Lookback, etc.

 

Based on their steam IDs, they can't use an AK, can't get laser sights, etc. And they generate points at a much slower rate than the "average" player on the server.

 

That way no matter what team they end up on, it won't be as "stacked."

 

Plus, that way I might actually be able to kill one of them one time.

That's fine. I don't use the AK47 anyway.

 

 

 

Those were examples only. You wouldn't be allowed any snipers or anything above a single pistol (not Magnum).

[JackieChan]

I should make it so if your steam id matches baloosh's, you get -5 points for everything you do. That should balance things out nicely.

[Lookback]

I should make it so if your steam id matches baloosh's, you get -5 points for everything you do. That should balance things out nicely.

 

Approved.

[Baloosh]

I should make it so if your steam id matches baloosh's, you get -5 points for everything you do. That should balance things out nicely.

 

Sadly enough, that would probably mean I'd end up with more points than I average now.

 

 

Approved.

 

Edited June 21, 2012 by Baloosh

[direkt]

Start nerfing individual players.

 

Guys like Herbs, Meng, Jackie, *sk, Lookback, etc.

 

Based on their steam IDs, they can't use an AK, can't get laser sights, etc. And they generate points at a much slower rate than the "average" player on the server.

 

That way no matter what team they end up on, it won't be as "stacked."

 

Plus, that way I might actually be able to kill one of them one time.

 

Yay, I get to keep my lasered ak!!!!

 

And I get to keep my lasered AWP AND the AK. SCHWEET.

[Lookback]

You and Matt both fall under the 'etc.' I believe...

Edited June 21, 2012 by Lookback