Plan B
General => Suggestions => Added => Topic started by: MegaPilot on July 26, 2018, 09:24:44 pm
-
https://ibb.co/bPFo18
This is literally unplayable. 15 against 8 whereas most regulars were in the 15 team. You literally can't kill the president unless he's a total dumbass.
VIPs are imbalancing the game, it's not an opinion, it's just a fact.
Suggestion: do something about it. There's nothing fun about an overpowered team.
-
Are civilians being counted as attackers? I'm not discounting VIPs tilting the scales, but that looks like it might be the issue.
-
Are civilians being counted as attackers? I'm not discounting VIPs tilting the scales, but that looks like it might be the issue.
Ofcourse.
In any average game, Regular Civilians manipulate the whole gamemode if they are in excess.
and its very common too.
It's frustrating for both Terrorist and Security since the Civils add a legally possibly unbalanced gamemode.
6(Sec+Pol) +(5 Civ) vs 5 Terro
I wouldn't say this has reduced much since the new system has been implemented, but ye it still wayy better than 11 Sec+Pol vs 5 Terros in a sense due to lack of firepower.
But since Civilians can kill anyone, Security getting killed by them is still a recurring thing. They don't even let Security enter and protect their president, and president given their consent doesn't do anything.
Another frustating thing is how suddenly the gamemode changes based on the president, suddenly 10% Secs will become Terros and Civils would turn against the newb president, Making a previously 3vs9 to 9vs3.
-
Suggestion: do something about it. There's nothing fun about an overpowered team.
+1, I had been shouting this for the whole last year and its really needed.
-
+1 for this
-
Calm down, poor JHON was trying to "balance" this gamemode with his braindead 70/30 system. He was developing it for ONE FUCKING YEAR! So, GIVE HIM SOME RESPEK AND ENJOY YOUR STAYING.
-
Wonder how this works out.
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/HvkYIpsoIfKxEd5VYSmbQw--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD0yNDA7dz0zMjA-/https://i.imgur.com/DKJhx9l.gif.cf.gif)
-
+1
-
This cannot be fixed lol
-
+1.
-
+1
-
This cannot be fixed lol
I played for a few hours today, and most of the time it was about 1/2 protectors, 1/4 civilians, and 1/4 terrorists (if the civilian/terrorist ratio changed, it was usually in favor of the civilians). Since many civilians don't actually bother playing the gamemode, it meant that the game was usually pretty close to 1/2 protectors, 1/4 attackers.
To a large degree it can be fixed; the balancing system just has to stop counting civilians as terrorists.
-
Im Giving +1 For this idea megapilot But what can we do about it ?
-
Suggestion: do something about it. There's nothing fun about an overpowered team.
+1, I had been shouting this for the whole last year and its really needed.
Chetan thats why you use players to protect your ass? SHAME. Btw +1
-
https://ibb.co/mfCiSe
I know nothing will happen, because any reasonable suggestion I make gets shot down. Just see this as topic as: "look at the bullshit that you guys find normal".
14 against 6(not even counting the president). Surprise surprise, the president survived.
My suggestion: let's keep allowing this bullshit! Everyone loves these imbalanced rounds!
-
My suggestion: let's keep allowing this bullshit! Everyone loves these imbalanced rounds!
Yes. You got my vote on this.
+1
-
My suggestion: let's keep allowing this bullshit! Everyone loves these imbalanced rounds!
Yes. You got my vote on this.
+1
Finally a suggestion of mine that gets support. Let's keep this up!
Next suggestion: Minigun for VIPs! This will surely not imbalance the game, just make it more fun!
-
My suggestion: let's keep allowing this bullshit! Everyone loves these imbalanced rounds!
Yes. You got my vote on this.
+1
Next suggestion: Minigun for VIPs! This will surely not imbalance the game, just make it more fun!
Well now you crossed the line. Miniguns are not fun. That would ruin the already perfect server
-1
-
What exactly are you suggesting? Or do you want? Please be little more clear.
-
My suggestion: let's keep allowing this bullshit! Everyone loves these imbalanced rounds!
Yes. You got my vote on this.
+1
Next suggestion: Minigun for VIPs! This will surely not imbalance the game, just make it more fun!
Well now you crossed the line. Miniguns are not fun. That would ruin the already perfect server
-1
Exactly what i wanted to write.
-
What exactly are you suggesting? Or do you want? Please be little more clear.
Oh please, you know what I want, this topic is pure sarcasm.
I want this game to be fair. I want the game to be as balanced as possible. 14 against 6 is just plain unfair. VIPs unbalancing the game has gone way to far.
-
That proportion is pretty decent if you count attacking civilians into play.
That logic behind the proportion is fine but the problem is Civilians aren't marked, that's why a wanted or value system should be implemented for each civilians performance and slots should be favored based on that.
Most of the time its' 14 vs 5, I even had a 10 vs 1 (me ofc), Add NRG+Assisting Civilians into the picture and RIP Balance, nobody would even be motivated to kill president since risk-reward is unattractive,with latter being constant no matter what the odds, along with the terrible chase system for terros.
-
Previous gamemode was better than this one
+1
-
My suggestion: let's keep allowing this bullshit! Everyone loves these imbalanced rounds!
Yes. You got my vote on this.
+1
Finally a suggestion of mine that gets support. Let's keep this up!
Next suggestion: Minigun for VIPs! This will surely not imbalance the game, just make it more fun!
+1
-
+1
-
That proportion is pretty decent if you count attacking civilians into play.
That logic behind the proportion is fine but the problem is Civilians aren't marked, that's why a wanted or value system should be implemented for each civilians performance and slots should be favored based on that.
That's assuming that the civilians are actually doing anything relevant to the game (choosing a side), and assuming the even less likely event that they are choosing the attacking side but also not attacking any terrorists they see as well.
It's easier just to remove civilians entirely from the balancing system, if not just for the reason that there can be an unlimited number of them, which limits the number of terrorists. Why create a complex wanted system when it would make a lot more sense if people just chose to protect or to be a terrorist and played the damn game?
-
+1
-
+1
-
Why create a complex wanted system when it would make a lot more sense if people just chose to protect or to be a terrorist and played the damn game?
30 people online and 15 civilians, it happens sooooo often.
-
For 2 days, lets remove civilian class and lets see if people follow this gamemode or not.
-
For 2 days, lets remove civilian class and lets see if people follow this gamemode or not.
It will be kinda the same as if turning the server off for 2 days.
-
That proportion is pretty decent if you count attacking civilians into play.
That logic behind the proportion is fine but the problem is Civilians aren't marked, that's why a wanted or value system should be implemented for each civilians performance and slots should be favored based on that.
That's assuming that the civilians are actually doing anything relevant to the game (choosing a side), and assuming the even less likely event that they are choosing the attacking side but also not attacking any terrorists they see as well.
It's easier just to remove civilians entirely from the balancing system, if not just for the reason that there can be an unlimited number of them, which limits the number of terrorists. Why create a complex wanted system when it would make a lot more sense if people just chose to protect or to be a terrorist and played the damn game?
You should probably see what happens around a newbie civilian tbh. If he tries to protect,security kills him because he doesnt know which civilian to trust. When a Security does he gets killed by a Regular Civilian instead. If we introduce a value system based on Class kills, sides could benefit of the info (which would actually make it look cool) on which Civilian to Trust. Obviously if this gets implemented it is beneficial to GM classes too if they know which Terrorist/Cop is the most threatening and to choose their battles.
Because Civilian is a unique class, it just needs to get depowered and made less scoreworthy than main classes,which server was failing on and still will as long as old system is still active and snipers and saws arent depowered or countermeasured .
Besides /duel and upcoming /teamduel will keep most of the raging roid peeps away from the GM, and from ruining it by ignoring the /duty (it still sucks if there are 28 regulars and nobody cares about GM tho but its still better in a way).
Exploring of Map,Practice and Observation and disorder are the key points which make civilian a worthy class to keep as long it doesn't overpower the GM classes which server is finally trying to do something about.
It prevents the server from being too one dimensional like SWAT vs Terrorist, it was a good server but you can eventually start get bored of taking sides or just want to explore the map or look at the action between 2 teams.
-
I've merged the topic with the earlier topic about balance. There isn't a need to start a seperate topic about it. We were already aware of the problem and seeking for solutions, but spamming topics about it won't help it get resolved faster.
Civs were never explicitely counted as attackers or defenders, but they did have an impact on the balancing. The main reason they have an impact on the balancing, is because we make assumptions on the division of both teams before anyone picks a class. So, each team would be open until over 25% of the total number of players were in it. We did this so everyone could reclass quickly at the beginning of the map, otherwise they'd have to reclass alternatingly (for example, the first player goes to the protecting team, which meant the protecting team now has 100% of the players, which meant someone had to go terro first before someone else could join the protecting side, and so on). Now, if a lot of people went to civ, this 25% of the total player count would be harder to reach, and the team would be open for a longer time, which could lead to imbalances.
Since last week, we've removed this requirement from the balancing. This means reclassing at the start of maps will be slower, but it should lead to more balanced teams. Of course, VIPs will still have an effect on this, and can still cause imbalanced teams to a certain extent as we've put a limit on it now.
-
Nice one, JHON. NICE FUCKING ONE!
Player tells you about BALANCE, and you are talking about "filling". You drop these arguable "facts", mix it with some "unsuitable filling system" to confuse players and to NOT give an answer to simple question: "WHY WE DO NOT HAVE 1-V-1 BALANCE".
-
Nice one, JHON. NICE FUCKING ONE!
Player tells you about BALANCE, and you are talking about "filling". You drop these arguable "facts", mix it with some "unsuitable filling system" to confuse players and to NOT give an answer to simple question: "WHY WE DO NOT HAVE 1-V-1 BALANCE".
Can you elaborate? I cannot fully understand
-
Nice one, JHON. NICE FUCKING ONE!
Player tells you about BALANCE, and you are talking about "filling". You drop these arguable "facts", mix it with some "unsuitable filling system" to confuse players and to NOT give an answer to simple question: "WHY WE DO NOT HAVE 1-V-1 BALANCE".
Can you elaborate? I cannot fully understand
Elaborate what, MY post or JHON's?
-
Nice one, JHON. NICE FUCKING ONE!
Player tells you about BALANCE, and you are talking about "filling". You drop these arguable "facts", mix it with some "unsuitable filling system" to confuse players and to NOT give an answer to simple question: "WHY WE DO NOT HAVE 1-V-1 BALANCE".
Can you elaborate? I cannot fully understand
Elaborate what, MY post or JHON's?
Your post. I did not get the exact meaning behind it in correlation to Jhon's solution. Sorry
-
Nice one, JHON. NICE FUCKING ONE!
Player tells you about BALANCE, and you are talking about "filling". You drop these arguable "facts", mix it with some "unsuitable filling system" to confuse players and to NOT give an answer to simple question: "WHY WE DO NOT HAVE 1-V-1 BALANCE".
Can you elaborate? I cannot fully understand
Elaborate what, MY post or JHON's?
Your post. I did not get the exact meaning behind it in correlation to Jhon's solution. Sorry
MY post tells that there is NO correlation between topicstarter post and JHON's "solution".
-
Nice one, JHON. NICE FUCKING ONE!
Player tells you about BALANCE, and you are talking about "filling". You drop these arguable "facts", mix it with some "unsuitable filling system" to confuse players and to NOT give an answer to simple question: "WHY WE DO NOT HAVE 1-V-1 BALANCE".
Can you elaborate? I cannot fully understand
Elaborate what, MY post or JHON's?
Your post. I did not get the exact meaning behind it in correlation to Jhon's solution. Sorry
MY post tells that there is NO correlation between topicstarter post and JHON's "solution".
I disagree there.
From a civilian sided impact and minor VIP imbalances yes, but it was because it wasn't even demanded in the original post.
and about Good Team = Bad Team ratio it's pretty good right now if you actually came and play. The number of terros = number of 'Good' GM classes happens often in the average 18-20 player range game. It's a good place to start.
But ofc, as I have stated multiple times earlier and mostly ingame that wouldn't solve the problem fully. I am dissatisfied because I know regulars get around and still abuse balance by going civilian and helping their mates, making it a 10 vs 3 on a 5 vs 3 match. Heck I have played a literal 1(me ofc) vs 7+ which obviously is retarded however that was just mostly because the player count was below the average count and the map just started and Jhon highlighted the flaw himself.
But even then, the lack of GM Drive for Cops,and for newbies to not to delve into the clan mess is super low, so a 2 vs 7 is normal.
Cops won't attack and stay at armor telling other newbies to not attack, and Civilians will help the already overpowered side and ofc 6-10 sniper barrage is as good if not stronger than a minigun.
Thing is nobody has come up with a effective solution that is not that intricate to script, and something of a incentive or a proper move to change regular behaviour.
Yes, there are solutions and other methods. Can you suggest one or atleast give some sort of threads to the blueprint.
-
I disagree there.
From a civilian sided impact and minor VIP imbalances yes, but it was because it wasn't even demanded in the original post.
and about Good Team = Bad Team ratio it's pretty good right now if you actually came and play. The number of terros = number of 'Good' GM classes happens often in the average 18-20 player range game. It's a good place to start.
But ofc, as I have stated multiple times earlier and mostly ingame that wouldn't solve the problem fully. I am dissatisfied because I know regulars get around and still abuse balance by going civilian and helping their mates, making it a 10 vs 3 on a 5 vs 3 match. Heck I have played a literal 1(me ofc) vs 7+
which obviously is retarded.
Thing is nobody has come up with a effective solution that is not that intricate to script, and something of a incentive or a proper move to change regular behaviour.
Please, go to topicstarter post, read it, then go to JHON's post and read it. Topic is all about BALANCE. Not bout civs, their snipers, their "minor imbalance". You are saying that 10-v-3 situations happen, and then you say that JHON "solved" it?
3 vs 1 is a balance or bullshit?
-
I disagree there.
From a civilian sided impact and minor VIP imbalances yes, but it was because it wasn't even demanded in the original post.
and about Good Team = Bad Team ratio it's pretty good right now if you actually came and play. The number of terros = number of 'Good' GM classes happens often in the average 18-20 player range game. It's a good place to start.
But ofc, as I have stated multiple times earlier and mostly ingame that wouldn't solve the problem fully. I am dissatisfied because I know regulars get around and still abuse balance by going civilian and helping their mates, making it a 10 vs 3 on a 5 vs 3 match. Heck I have played a literal 1(me ofc) vs 7+
which obviously is retarded.
Thing is nobody has come up with a effective solution that is not that intricate to script, and something of a incentive or a proper move to change regular behaviour.
Please, go to topicstarter post, read it, then go to JHON's post and read it. Topic is all about BALANCE. Not bout civs, their snipers, their "minor imbalance". You are saying that 10-v-3 situations happen, and then you say that JHON "solved" it?
3 vs 1 is a balance or bullshit?
Yes, I already said that in pure Good vs Bad GM Team, it's pretty good and evenized very often in the average condition.
I said 10 vs 3 practically happen "Due to Civilians" + "Minor imbalances", which you are disregarding.
Sorry about the 1 vs 7+ thingy, I didn't mention that was at the start of the map. I modified the post explaining better.
1:3 is bad. 1 vs 3 can't be solved if there are literally 3 players playing the GM classes. Civilians are a pivotal thing in balance, ignoring them is stupid. They are made to imbalance and result massive imbalance due to regular behaviour. Affecting these side stuff is the solution for balance.