Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Games with spoiled balance

14 posts, 569 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort
9 years ago
There are many cases when during the pregame chatter one of the lower elo players exit without any reason, or even fail to load at all.
This leaves the team in an obviosu advantage, thus such game should be exited. Unfortunately, in order exit vote to pass u always need at least 2 players from the advantaged team to agree, which is very rarely to happen.

What can be done about it? Maybe exit games with spoiled balance exit automatically? Or make them not recorded, so some cry-elos won't stick to the spoiled game so hardly?
+0 / -0
9 years ago
Normally people are polite enough to exit such games, if this is not the case, just scorcherrush the douchebags that explicitly didn't want to exit.
+6 / -0


9 years ago
Scorcher justice.
+0 / -0
If !exit fails, just quit the game back to lobby - and if the people remaining want to play on with one team suffering two players missing, one of them with high elo, that is now their problem not yours.
+0 / -0
9 years ago
It is sometimes surprising what kind of obviously "broken" games do not manage to complete !exit votes.
Leaving the game is only partial solution. "Putting pressure" on the remaining players in hope that they will leave too, until game is stopped...it is bit meh.
But it can happen that the match continues and then you have to wait.
It also means your elo will change based on outcome of a game that you did not even play in.

I think it is Multiplayer B371110 19 on Malibu Beach v1 (0 kb) where one player disables eco of one team by partially reclaiming. Later complete self-d. But the match was still continued.
Even in obvious situations like a troll self-d-ing at start !exit does not always happen. The problem is that even if the problem arises right at start then it still can take several minutes to start new game. Some players leave, others join, waiting for them to download, mapvotes get started,...
So sometimes it is just easier to continue with the "problem" so that you can play at all.
(play 8v10 or help that one noob with terraform to escape his stuck startpos or reclaim that one comwreck of troll etc...) If it was troll problem then report. That one match could maybe not be saved but perhaps future ones.
I think there is no other solution.
Just perhaps the elo of players who never get ingame (crash/leave) and also never rejoined the running game should not change.
+0 / -0
quote:
players exit without any reason, or even fail to load at all.
Adressing the actual problem (more stable engine/game/settings etc) is kind of huge, slow, open-ended task. But players never getting ingame is indeed problem for balance.

Maybe on option is to have some system where players have to "validate" that they (their PC) are suitable for online play. Like a pre-flight checklist.
It is not just new players but sometimes old players also fail to get ingame because of new computer or game updates or re-installs,...
You are only allowed to spectate until you have validated. A validation is valid for some time, like 48 hours or so.

Ways to become and stay validated:
1) Join running match and spectate for 1 minute.
or
2) Complete a tiny test- mission. (The goal is to walk Commander 5 meters and plop factory. That is all.)
If you/your PC can not do that, then it is sadly also not possible to play online.
also:
3) Completing a match refreshes your validation.

I do not like it that much, it is maybe too strict etc. But there is enough downtime between matches to start the test-misson which only takes 1-2 minutes. Also think of the time that you save by not having to restart so often because of players who did not get ingame.

From technical side, I do not know how excactly it would work:
There is already level-system, there is already way to track what battles/missions player has played, there is already hosts with minimum requirements, it seems possible.
Before there was the problem that some players used non-zeroK-lobby clients which could not play missions with hacktricks, but now that problem is gone.
+0 / -0

9 years ago
I land on both sides of the fence here depending on my mood.

Particularly in large games, I just want to play and don't see one player leaving as that big of a deal. I get impatient with the number of times votes are passed before a game begins, and when I finally manage to get in one and then someone leaves? I just want to play. This is more likely to happen when I'm experimenting, as then I don't care so much about winning/losing.

In smaller games, or when for whatever other reason an imbalanced game is unacceptable, I'd prefer to quit. I even get frustrated when other people don't. A little silly I know considering that I would swing the other way given a different mood.

Perhaps if elo were disabled for games where people quit early? I know that would slow down ladder mobility, but if a game isn't fair it probably shouldn't be recorded as a win/loss. Perhaps even check for balanced teams, or somehow rebalance them once the join timer has expired so that larger games run smoothly and consistently.

+3 / -0
9 years ago
Allow a spectator or AI to take over the exited player's stuff.
+0 / -0
9 years ago
quote:
Allow a spectator or AI to take over the exited player's stuff.


That is actually quite a fancy and 100% doable idea (see !cheats -> /team [blabla] commands).
+0 / -0
You don't even need that PLrankFailer.

Spring.AssignPlayerToTeam(playerID,teamID)


Which gives me an idea for a new troll map :P
+1 / -0
9 years ago
I mean, if !cheats can do it, there is a way to make it automated.


Actually, connected with Svatopluk's research on AIs, we could replace all dropped/afk/resigned and missing (see uneven teams) players with AiS instead of the highest elo knob that hapened to be in the team.

And that would be just 1st step that will lead to the Terminator-like storyline.
+0 / -0


9 years ago
Yes there is, but you need to force potential standby players on their team's LOS. From there you just need an unsynced-to-synced relay saying that playerX wants in on the team they're viewing.


It is doable I think.
+0 / -0
9 years ago
Nah, forget it, becasue this would lead to situatiosn when 2k elo guy jumps in place of dropped 1.1k elo one.

AIs for life
+0 / -0

9 years ago
Specs cannot be forced to limited LoS. Even if they could, you'd need people to opt in as subs right from the start which nobody would do.

You also cannot guarantee the presence of a spec of the appropriate Elo or even any spec at all.
+1 / -0