Battletech: The Frontier Lands :: Forums :: The Frontier Forums :: Suggestions
 
<< Previous thread | Next thread >>
thoughts on perma-teams?
Moderators: Devlin Stone, Power Shaper, GeeOhDee, Paddock, Captain QB
Author Post
Peter
Fri Mar 06 2009, 01:33PM

Registered Member #3264
Joined: Sat Jun 28 2008, 10:19PM
Posts: 105
maybe we should have permanent teams? Or partially permanent? Always put certain vets and active on opposing teams? Instead of factioning them randomly? Discuss.
Back to top
WhiteKnight
Fri Mar 06 2009, 11:37PM

Registered Member #462
Joined: Wed Jan 24 2007, 11:01PM
Posts: 219
This was the idea behind the Outfit system, which I believe is still in effect in the game. If players want to form their own permanent teams, that is already possible.

Partially Permanent? Is that like a Definite Maybe?

I don't see how you would determine which vets would be on which teams, or who would be classed as a permanent active player (chain him/her to the computer?). We have many players right now who get factioned into a team and spend countless hours or even days idling in the respawn room while their teammates scream for assistance, but still count against that faction receiving a new player. I don't see how making permanent teams would be possible unless there is a way to ensure that those players selected as vets or active maintained their level of play (or played at all) in every scenerio.

Just my two cents.

[ Edited Fri Mar 06 2009, 11:40PM ]
Back to top
Mushimaru
Sat Mar 07 2009, 01:29PM
Registered Member #821
Joined: Sat Mar 31 2007, 01:07PM
Posts: 23
Well wasn't the idea of outfits not being together the fact that outfits are 'cluestacked'? It should probably be permanent teams distributed something along the lines of what was discussed on 3027 Peter, with groups of Vet/Experienced/Noob and they could be swapped back and forth to balance things out slightly...
Back to top
Mike Matusov
Sat Mar 07 2009, 05:43PM
Registered Member #1992
Joined: Sun Jan 21 2007, 12:27PM
Posts: 89
Scenes used to a lot longer. Months. That kinda made you do your best with the material you had. Not the "OMGHAX other side is in 20% lead, we not spawning and prolonging the scene no more". Kinda helped out noobies too. Familiar faces that teach you stuff and know what you have already learned and what you need to learn more about.

After outfits got 'scrapped' (was supposed to be a test and it never ended) things have kinda been boring. It's hard to find a worthy wingman and since the scenes are so short, you really don't have time to train one.

heres an idea:
Vote 2 for facheads, anyone can vote for anyone. These 2 facheads handpick players (1 for me, 2 for you, 1 for me, 1 for you,...) This is done before scene starts. Use same teams for 3 scenes or 1-2 prolonged scenes and see how it works out? New players get tossed to teams evenly, not according to whos winning.

[ image disabled ]
Back to top
Cyn Davies
Mon Mar 09 2009, 03:18PM
Registered Member #1108
Joined: Fri May 04 2007, 11:55PM
Posts: 44
To carry the notion a bit farther, perhaps into the extreme if you so believe, why not eliminate the Victory system altogether? Let scenarios run for a specific length of time, say two or 3 months, and quit tracking what faction is "leading" or "trailing". Let's play for the sake of playing, fight for the sake of fighting. And if a map gets stale or boring before its allotted time, maybe it can be rotated by player consensus.
If you think that's too extreme, then perhaps just HIDE the victory stats. No daily results, no victory meter. Just a generic meter, maybe, that says how close to finished the scenario is?
Does anybody REALLY care about win points anyway? I've always seen the value of this site as being the perfect crossroads between the time and mental commitment of a pure RS site (a la 3030) and the brainless slug fest of sim sites like 3065.

[EDIT]
Forgot to make sure I tossed in my thoughts on the actual topic Peter asked us to discuss. I think permanent or semi-permanent teams would be a mistake. First, I think the notion of permanent teams is misleading. Any attempt to make fixed teams is going to spiral into imbalance rather quickly, which will require staff to manually shuffle players. Continue that at a regular pace ad nauseum, and it's not so different from our own refac system. Second, I think the refactioning system is hugely important to maintaining a friendly spirit to the MUX. If the "enemy" is always the "enemy", then I guarantee you animosities will develop and fester. In the refaction system, you get to play WITH the same guys who frustrated you and ganked you repeatedly last scene, so you're forced to accept that maybe they're not dickheads, they're just playing the game like you are. I really believe that losing that perspective would harm the atmosphere of Frontiers.

[ Edited Mon Mar 09 2009, 03:43PM ]
Back to top
Teofilus
Wed Mar 11 2009, 06:03PM
Registered Member #3869
Joined: Sun Jan 21 2007, 11:59AM
Posts: 43
Another issue is time-scale ... I can be very active for a week bcz i got low workload then go idle for a few days then go sporadic then superactive, etc... on a 2 weeks scen this short term activity fluctuation that affects all players can be the unbalancing factor. So balance is not a mere question of distributing people, imho.
Back to top
WhiteKnight
Wed Mar 11 2009, 07:26PM

Registered Member #462
Joined: Wed Jan 24 2007, 11:01PM
Posts: 219
A good example of why permateams is a bad idea is the current CC team. We have at least two members who have been idle over a day (!), one for 5 (?!?). The last two days I have logged on, I found myself up against 4-6 LC, and no one on my faction lifted a finger to help, or even left base.

I'm looking forward to the next scenerio, as it will mean possibly getting a team that wants to play. Permateams would mean, in the same situation, I might as well forget playing, as there would be no hope of ever changing it.

Final analysis: Until the staff implement manditory logout or account wipe for anyone idle for more than 2 hours, perma-teams are not something I can support.

[ Edited Wed Mar 11 2009, 07:28PM ]
Back to top
Mike Matusov
Thu Mar 12 2009, 07:04AM
Registered Member #1992
Joined: Sun Jan 21 2007, 12:27PM
Posts: 89
You cannot expect that any given time you happen to log in, you'll to be in the dominant faction. One faction 'always' has more players than others, but it all might change in the next 10mins. Players are from different time zones, from different countries, some even have IRL duties to perform. If someone is connected and idle, I can't see how it hurts you. When they don't spawn even when you do and try to yell at them, they are not doing it to upset you, they are just busy doing something else. You cannot force players to be active, not easily anyways, no. But you might be able to lure them out of hibernation, if you spawn first and wait a while. Lots of people don't go out alone, they log in, see that faction is idle and logout, but they will join, if there is something going on already. .02

Edit. To stay on the topic: I'm pro semi permanent teams, if it means having slightly or moderately longer scenes and if it will balance things out some. Wouldn't hurt to try it out, would it? Actually it might *points to -> 'we will test a few scenes where outfits don't go in same factions'.

[ Edited Thu Mar 12 2009, 07:12AM ]

[ image disabled ]
Back to top
Aleria Everonn
Fri Mar 13 2009, 08:18AM
Registered Member #1489
Joined: Sat Jan 10 2009, 06:40PM
Location: Ankara, Turkey
Posts: 14
I totally agree with Cyn about the perm teams/perm hostilities idea.

All the guyz here are freak geeks, and i am sure if they don't team for a while, other guyz may begin to seem like archnemesis to death.

---------------------
EVA out.
Back to top
Website
Jasin M. Lochnivar
Sat Mar 14 2009, 06:06PM
Registered Member #1889
Joined: Sun Feb 22 2009, 12:15PM
Posts: 3
I like the Victory system. A big problem with 3030 was the map got old and stale when it ran for 6 months to a year. Everybody knew the dance and it got boring. This system is nice. If one team can run the map and hold it, then they win and we move on to something else. I think it's probably one of the best ideas out there.

I got into a discussion with somebody. I forget who, but the idea of a random refaction. To extend that, anybody in the bottom half (Or whatever) of activity would be randomly be reassigned factions. Perhaps that would keep the blood fresh, move the clue around and encourage people to get active if they want to keep the same team.

Either that, or make it an absolute number. Top 5-10 most active stay, there rest get randomly refactioned.
Back to top
Viper
Sat Mar 14 2009, 08:02PM
Registered Member #168
Joined: Wed Aug 20 2008, 07:03PM
Location: Oshawa, Ontario
Posts: 76
I don't like that idea jason, for the mere fact that people that have contributed to helping there faction get switch onto the losing side? not really fair at all. Maybe winpoints should need activity to win them...say RS for 30 mins+ in a scene...
Back to top
Peter
Mon Mar 16 2009, 12:16PM

Registered Member #3264
Joined: Sat Jun 28 2008, 10:19PM
Posts: 105
consider that this scen was neck-and-neck for quite a while. The idea behind semi perma-teams is that we could re-use these teams for another scenario, or tweak them slightly, instead of a whole new refactioning.
Back to top
Mike Matusov
Sun Mar 22 2009, 10:19PM
Registered Member #1992
Joined: Sun Jan 21 2007, 12:27PM
Posts: 89
Staring at victory meter doesn't mean teams are balanced.

Let's assume one team has 12 active players while other team has 3. The stronger team idleclaims map without opposition, minus few lemmings. Action is stale for the next 6hrs. Then most of the players go to sleep, work whatever. One or two guys from other team idleclaim map during 'off-hours'. No opposition and no action. They log out and nothing happens the next 6hrs. Then for the next 6hrs both teams have 0-8 players active that fight it out *cough*whine/bitch at pub*cough* both sides lose few objectives and win few objectives. Actions is good from time to time, depending on which side you are on. Just looking at the victory meter one could say something like: "consider that this scen was neck-and-neck for quite a while.", yet there is no real balance between teams, very few good fights and so on... I am aware of that 'real' balance is very hard to achieve and I do appreciate any work that is done to correct this, but victory meter alone isn't a very good source of information for judging if teams are even or not.

[ image disabled ]
Back to top
Stac
Tue Apr 21 2009, 03:09PM
Registered Member #4085
Joined: Fri Apr 03 2009, 12:32PM
Posts: 18
The opposite of semi-perma teams would be not to assign someone to a faction until they log in after the scenario is started. That way idler's aren't factioned, or at least spread evenly.
Back to top
keith
Wed Sep 01 2010, 10:13AM
Registered Member #4594
Joined: Sun Aug 01 2010, 09:10AM
Posts: 8
ASSUMPTIONS:
-data is logged
-login/logout times
-idle start/end times
-server time is considered "universal" (baseline for references, using GMT for the purposes of this post)
-higher "rank" == more experience in RS (irregardless of "clueness")

Regarding the notion of "balanced teams", I have a few ideas to throw into the pot for consideration.

What about utilizing the account logs (SEE ASSUMPTIONS) to determine "peak times" for each player?
This should not be too difficult to determine, with a simple algorithm given the data points available.
To extend this further, there could be "shifts" (either visible or not to the players) that players get placed in at each scenario reset (details below).
The shifts I have suggested below overlap intentionally to allow for "hand-off" if an engagement is happening.
If someone falls in the overlap range between shifts for their average login range, they could be placed in the shift with less population.
Further still, you could use a player's rank value to give extra "weight" during the distribution phase to (hopefully) spread the experience evenly.

The draft scheme would look like this (alternating between factions based on current member counts):

# Scenario A - Active players (plays almost daily)
-player 1 logs in typically at 16:00 GMT
-data indicates average login range is Shift 2
-player 1 gets placed in Shift 2

# Scenario B - Semi-active players (plays only a few days a week(s))
-player 2 logs in sporadically (02:00, 04:00, 06:00, 09:00 GMT)
-data indicates average login range is Shift 1
-player 2 gets placed in Shift 1

# Scenario C - Inactive players (plays infrequently / idles frequently outside of RS)
-player 3 logs in/enters RS infrequently (variable times)
-player 3 gets placed in least populated Shift (after other two scenarios have been sorted)
-for the purposes of this example, player 3 gets placed in Shift 3 (least populated shift currently)

# Shifts
-Shift 1
-03:00 - 11:30 GMT
-Shift 2
-11:00 - 19:30 GMT
-Shift 3
-19:00 - 03:30 GMT

To return to Peter's initial question:
I am against permanent teams, and believe flexibility is the better path to maximum enjoyment.
This would keep things dynamic across scenarios (no permanent teams, means no permanent enemies), and allows for better training through exposure to different play styles.
Also, you get better quality action in RS (as players with similar Shifts clash for objectives).

"Just because I have a burnt face, doesn't mean I can't fight crime!"
-Burnt Face Man
Back to top
 

Jump:     Back to top

Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System