General Zone > The Lounge

Petition to ban/suspend players who spec/join right after balancer

<< < (2/4) > >>

sup:
kick vote doesn't make any difference, unless it's something extremely obvious (and even then you have to ask several times), like that admen guy sabing, people just want to shoot anything that moves, nobody cares if the game is balanced or not, they just want the dopamine of killing someone or winning an easy game

Right:
One way to "solve" this could be a re-balance if a high valued player drops out in the first 10-20 seconds.


The kick button is nice but it will not solve this.

Is there a setting that if the kick button is used more than X times the player itself get kicked?
That will learn those who abuse it.

hellfire:
If my memory serves right, did we not have a time when balancer would kick in the middle of the game to force a new balance?  Here is a new idea for piglet to test: Add a button called "balance please". If majority votes for it, do a rebalance? ;) Easy to code and a good test.

duke:

--- Quote from: Right on September 27, 2024, 07:20 ---One way to "solve" this could be a re-balance if a high valued player drops out in the first 10-20 seconds.
--- End quote ---
This is a great idea. I mean the balancer can be set to recognize if a player specing (or joining) can screw up the game big time.

No game is ever gonna be ideally 50-50, so if someone specs and it's 55-45 or borderline 60-40 then I would say it's fine, however if it suddenly becomes 80-20 then there is really no point in playing when you can pretty much predict the final score of 5-1 or maybe 5-2 for the better team and you won't be wrong most of the time.

F.e. if it's a 10 vs 10 game, there are 8 tier 1 players overall, so balancer sets it at 4-4 and one of them specs right after the game is balanced, then 4 vs 3 is still playable, the problem is if it's f.e. an 8 vs 8 game with 2 good players in both teams and one specs, then it suddenly becomes 2 vs 1 so the odds change significantly.

sup:
To begin with, the ranking is not capable of defining the best players. Among the top 30, I would say that only 10 are really good (but they shouldn't be in those positions). Points/time played is not a good ranking alternative. Duke, Dark and I, for example, often have low scores, because our focus is just to reach the flag with as much HP as possible. A ranking by caps/time played I believe would work better (teams with better attackers win 90% of the games, because generally good attackers know how to defend when necessary)

another option would be to create a manual ranking of the best players, we all know immediately when a team is stronger just by reading the nicknames. It's only necessary to make sure that there is no imbalance in the number of these players on each team. And usually these players do not mind balancing the games, so they can be rearranged automatically for this purpose (like justice does manually by swapping me, dark or other players). If the system balances all players, noobs will complain, but if it balances only good players, they won't complain (at least that's what I think).

A button with "balance plz" would never work, everyone thinks their team is weaker when it starts losing (even if it is not). Everyone would click the button all the time.

it's really difficult to find a solution, the best would be to rely on the players' common sense, but that will never happen.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page