| An opinion piece - in regard to the public-server ladder [message #257310] |
Fri, 04 May 2007 13:42  |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
First off let me offer BHS my genuine admiration what looks to be a very promising project.
So, we'll have some people determining the points system sometime soon. All well and good, but there's much more than that needs doing - some fundamental rules need laying down too. Most of them are obvious, but this post is to talk about something which may not be. That is...
Team Changing
in other words, using moderator powers to arbitrarily alter your or a friend's team.
There's one word that describes this act in a public server, in my opinion:
Cheating
A mild form of cheating, perhaps, but cheating nonetheless.
I'd never dream of stepping on somebody's right to do this on their own server. If you pay for it, do as you please when you play there. What I question is the legitimacy of the ladder in relation to it.
When Westwood made the original Renegade public server ladder, they specifically designed it so that games cannot be laddered if team-changing is on. There's no mistake in that decision.
That's what a public server IS - teams are allocated randomly. If every player doesn't have the right to select their team, neither should a moderator. (To repeat, I'm not saying ban moderators from doing it)
If you want to play a laddered game whereby you choose your team, then I can answer you in two words:
Clan match. That is what a clan game IS - a game in which you can specifically choose your teammates. Here's why clan games can legitimately be laddered: your opponents also have the precisely equal right to choose their teammates as you do. Thus, it is fair.
So here's the point. My opinion is that if this ladder is to be considered legitimate, one of the following needs to be true
- a server which permits its moderators to change team at will should be prohibited from its results counting on the ladder
- individual players who change team at will should be prohibited from their stats counting on the ladder, i.e. each time you do it, your stats get reset.
^ the second one is more viable, surely.
Discuss
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: An opinion piece - in regard to the public-server ladder [message #257313 is a reply to message #257310] |
Fri, 04 May 2007 14:04  |
 |
Viking
Messages: 1692
Registered: July 2005
Location: Earth
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
What? You lost me?
QUOTES
"The Renegade community revolves around having something awesome, and not sharing it so you can be on top of the mountain." -Canadacdn
| Crimson wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 05:22 |
| Memphis wrote on Tue, 15 May 2007 03:54 |
...fatally die to death...
|
I don't know if you meant to do that, but triple redundancy for teh win. I LOL'ed.
|
Awesome l337 people= Icedog90, Blazea58, Canadacdn, Crimson, jonwil
|
|
|
|
| Re: An opinion piece - in regard to the public-server ladder [message #257314 is a reply to message #257310] |
Fri, 04 May 2007 14:08 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I can't disagree with this. Implementing either method, however... becomes tricky. :\ I would prefer that if you team change on a particular map, you should be disqualified from earning or losing ladder points for that map. That's how most games work.
But to implement such a feature would involve an FDS change to send a ladder point score of 0 for players who changed teams.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Re: An opinion piece - in regard to the public-server ladder [message #257315 is a reply to message #257310] |
Fri, 04 May 2007 14:12 |
|
Viking
Messages: 1692
Registered: July 2005
Location: Earth
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
What if at the begging you get like 2 minutes to change teams before it dose that?
QUOTES
"The Renegade community revolves around having something awesome, and not sharing it so you can be on top of the mountain." -Canadacdn
| Crimson wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 05:22 |
| Memphis wrote on Tue, 15 May 2007 03:54 |
...fatally die to death...
|
I don't know if you meant to do that, but triple redundancy for teh win. I LOL'ed.
|
Awesome l337 people= Icedog90, Blazea58, Canadacdn, Crimson, jonwil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: An opinion piece - in regard to the public-server ladder [message #257328 is a reply to message #257314] |
Fri, 04 May 2007 15:11 |
i0ncl0ud9
Messages: 74
Registered: April 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Crimson wrote on Fri, 04 May 2007 17:08 |
I can't disagree with this. Implementing either method, however... becomes tricky. :\ I would prefer that if you team change on a particular map, you should be disqualified from earning or losing ladder points for that map. That's how most games work.
But to implement such a feature would involve an FDS change to send a ladder point score of 0 for players who changed teams.
|
That would be good but a problem with that would be if someone on a losing team decided to change over to the winning team at the end of a map... They wouldn't lose any ladder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: An opinion piece - in regard to the public-server ladder [message #257370 is a reply to message #257330] |
Fri, 04 May 2007 23:42 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Renx wrote on Fri, 04 May 2007 17:27 |
And what if you're playing with another person in the same room? If you end up on different teams, you can hear everything going on on the other team, or you and your buddy can just tell each other what's going on.
|
...if you choose to. Note the key word, "choose"
You cannot realistically argue that it's OK to circumvent the very basic nature of the public server ladder just because you choose to play in the same room as your buddy.
Once again, there's an option specifically designed for games where you choose your teammates. Public servers are specifically designed so that if you choose your team, it can't be laddered.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: An opinion piece - in regard to the public-server ladder [message #257372 is a reply to message #257325] |
Sat, 05 May 2007 00:40 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| StealthEye wrote on Fri, 04 May 2007 17:01 |
First, I think there are far more important issues relating the ladder that have to be fixed.
Then, you should consider that team changing isn't always unfair. If there is a 2-player-difference, at BI we allow moderators to teamchange theirself/someone else who wants. Also, for testing someone, some moderators use it. Also, I really doubt that it will seriously change much to your ladder points in the end... I think this issue could better be ignored, also because it is technically hard.
|
Ask yourself why there would be a difference in the number of players.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: An opinion piece - in regard to the public-server ladder [message #257383 is a reply to message #257310] |
Sat, 05 May 2007 03:28 |
 |
m1a1_abrams
Messages: 375
Registered: August 2003
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
You might say that having to play a game with literally uneven teams is like ending up with all the good players on one side. They're both unfair situations, but it's just the nature of the game really.
My point being that while you could ensure that the teams are numerically even, you can never ensure an evenly matched game, so is it really that pressing an issue? The smaller team might turn out to have all the best players anyway, so you could be giving them even more of an advantage. I just don't see the point of moderators, or whoever else, trying to make the game fairer, when the entire system is bound not to be.
Besides, the ladder is an individual points ranking anyway, so you can lose a few to bad luck. If you're really bothered about it, all you've got to do is make sure you're near the top of the losing side and you're fine. You'd be extremely unlucky to be in the situation enough times that it has a noticeable affect on your ladder score.
|
|
|
|
| Re: An opinion piece - in regard to the public-server ladder [message #257386 is a reply to message #257310] |
Sat, 05 May 2007 04:47 |
 |
futura83
Messages: 1285
Registered: July 2006
Location: England
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Viva la Resistance! |
|
|
I think if mods are used then it shouldnt be allowed on the ladder;
on crazy CTF servers, for killing a hotwire or technician (super units that have one-hit kill weapons) you get 4000 points for it, which (obviously) is far too many points for killing one unit, and people who play exclusively these games will most likely be on top...
Also, what stops people using hacks from getting points on the ladder?
This is a signature. Reading this is wasting your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: An opinion piece - in regard to the public-server ladder [message #257400 is a reply to message #257370] |
Sat, 05 May 2007 06:54 |
Kanezor
Messages: 855
Registered: February 2005
Location: Sugar Land, TX, USA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| MaidenTy1 wrote on Sat, 05 May 2007 01:42 |
| Renx wrote on Fri, 04 May 2007 17:27 |
And what if you're playing with another person in the same room? If you end up on different teams, you can hear everything going on on the other team, or you and your buddy can just tell each other what's going on.
|
...if you choose to. Note the key word, "choose"
You cannot realistically argue that it's OK to circumvent the very basic nature of the public server ladder just because you choose to play in the same room as your buddy.
Once again, there's an option specifically designed for games where you choose your teammates. Public servers are specifically designed so that if you choose your team, it can't be laddered.
|
You, sir, fail.
You fail at understanding the common reasonings behind playing in the same room:
- Some people are not allowed to have computers in their bedrooms (eg, two underage siblings, etc)
- Some rooms are shared by multiple people (eg, dorms)
- Practicality reasons might prohibit the computers from behing in separate rooms (wireless access points are very finicky, some rooms have a lot more screen glare, etc)
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: An opinion piece - in regard to the public-server ladder [message #257407 is a reply to message #257406] |
Sat, 05 May 2007 09:07 |
|
futura83
Messages: 1285
Registered: July 2006
Location: England
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Viva la Resistance! |
|
|
| gamemodding wrote on Sat, 05 May 2007 16:58 |
| CarrierII wrote on Sat, 05 May 2007 13:35 |
Renguard 1.0322 and BIATCH.
I think any server submitting to the ladder should be verified that it's an AOW or similar, not a role-play or some other modification.
|
biatch and rengaurd wouldn't help at all. what if a server owner decided to make his own points really high with the engine call "Set_Points" (server-side).
|
Then maybe server owners should be warned that being caught doing this would result in points being negated off his score which is twice that which he/she raised it.
This is a signature. Reading this is wasting your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
.
