[Kogu]

Well since I'm here at this forum I might as well write a little on how I feel about this. Afterall, I did just get BANNED for what stemmed from "team stacking".

The team score should not be the end all judgement point of whether a team is stacked or not. A team's score shouldn't even matter if one team is utterly dominating the other team round after round. Consider this senario for a second: 20 people are on the CS:S server, 10v10. On one team is the top 10 players of the server. On the other team is 10 random players most of whom are not maxed level. By the definition given to me by the wise Pringles (a team is stacked when they are winning by a score of 4 or more.), these teams would be considered perfectly even; even if, for the first 3 rounds the 10 random players did not score one kill. Now let's just pretend that the top 10 players got lazy and didn't want to do objectives. The 10 random players, still not managing a kill, managed to win 4 rounds in a row. Are they still considered stacked?

That was a slightly extreme example, but I hope you agree that it shows a real flaw in the current system. Here is a more real life example: I was playing on aztec at the start of the map where I auto'd as a CT. For the first 4 rounds, I was doing moderatlely well (3-2? 4-2?) while my team wins out. Round 5, one of our top players get moved to Ts but we still manage to win. Round 6, our top player and admin Ninja-X gets switched over. At this point, the Ts are starting to win out by killing more CTs. Towards the end of the round it was maybe 7 Ts alive as opposed to 3 CTs, myself included. Ts planted, I kill off 3-4 of them and defuse. Round 7, no players changed, same thing happens. Ts mercilessly killing off more CTs at the beginning of the round but manage to lose because they don't want to protect their objective. Round 8, I get kicked (by Pringles) because I did not personally switch myself over to T side. Now, if at any point I had simply just typed "kill" in the console and let the Ts win, this wouldn't be an issue and I would not be considered a stacker. But because I chose to play the game, I get kicked and ultimately banned(temp, though might be perm after this)

One more example? Midway through a map, the score is 5-1 in favor of Ts. Top player gets switched over and CTs begin to dominate. Ts don't even get close to winning, but will have to wait until the score is 5-9 before it's considered a stack and they get any help. Does this sound right to you?

If the server were to implement something like PTB which automatically switches players to try and even things out, it would help a lot. I don't feel that the players really need to enforce an "unstacking" themselves. Players want to concentrate on playing the game. If I lost a round, I challenge myself to play better and get revenge against the team that beat me. I don't want that team's best players because I chose to suck it up a few rounds. That IS why admins are there, to gauge which players would make the most impact in evening out teams. The current system simply creates rape from one side to the other and punishes "close" games.

[Jelly]

ill go through your speech, paragraph by paragraph.


1st. i cant justify your ban, wasnt there.

2nd. ok your senario. if 10 pros go against 10 idiots and the 10 idiots win 4 times in a row, does that make the pros pros anymore? becuase one team is lazy and doesnt do crap, lowers how good they are, so no your example is not extreme nor does it prove anything. now lets say we swap 2 from each team. now people start doing things, cuz obviosuly the 2 idiots will fight the other idiots to win wheter the rest of the team is lazy.

3rd. Your right, we do have flaws, no server, NO server is perfect. we try to stop stack, we try to have teams not dominate one another, but sometimes its just nature really. we never really swap more than 2 people a round, if needed really. i understand the domination part. its hard. ive always wanted rounds to end even so that its like 3 on 3 or 4 on 5 or whatever, but sometimes it just doesnt work like that.(you go onto your situation) i have no say in this, wasnt there.

4th. no its not right, but as discussed in 3, its hard to do. single people can ultimately win it for a team, and sometimes if you dont kill him/them its hard to win. but again, like you, we try to play to win, so when we have more momentum, shit happens.

5th. O god is PTB such a bad system. it really does not pick the right people nor is it effective. ive been on servers taht have PTB, and i just find it terrible. admins are much better at the job.
--

Remeber not all the time when we switch people does it actually help. ive been in many games where i have to constantly switch people and the losing team STILL loses, now how fair is to lose constantly?

If you have beef with the system, tough.

Ive made those rules to enforce a balanced game. people have been abusing stacks and we cant tolerate it anymore. all of us have agreed to this. people must learn.
oh and trust me, 4 rounds is lenient. ive seen servers taht ban on differences of 2 or 3. even 4 rounds is lenient, it depends how the game is going.

[Killer of People]

I was in the server when Kogu was banned, and the amount of switching teams for individual players was unnecessary. There isn't a "good" way to fix stacked teams, but your way is nearly intolerable. Getting switched back and forth a player doesn't have a chance to coordinate strategys with his/her teamates which takes away from the gameplay experience. If teams are stacked one way, switch them so the teams are even ONCE per round. That keeps the teams pretty even for most of the game AND it gives players a chance to work with their teamates to work out new strategies for the following round.

[Jelly]

cant argue you killer, havent seen that myself soooo nothing to say really.

unless the person was admin... he can be switched as many times as pleased. (to help unstack ofcourse)

[Killer of People]

There were a couple of people in the server who were switched nearly every round, which was absolutely unnecessary. The 4+ rounds won is a good guideline, but I don't think it should be an iron rule. Things should be taken into account like how well the 'weaker' team is holding off the 'stronger' team and whether or not there are good players on each team before people are switched.

For example, if some folks were playing on cs_office and the Ts were putting up a very good fight, holding off the CTs for nearly the entire amount of time allowed for the round. However, the CTs are still winning every round. Does this mean that the teams are stacked? Not at all! No one should be switched.

However, if those same folks were playing of cs_office still and the Ts were just getting swamped by the CTs, then yes a few people should be switched up to even up the teams. At the same time, folks shouldn't be switched back and forth if the admin thinks something to the effect of 'oh, switching these two people didn't help much, I'll switch this same person with someone else". It becomes unnecessary.

[T3Kmitch]

There is no good way to fix stacking problems. But I have seen some horrible stacks lately, 12-2 with the winning team just not caring. Of course they're going to keep winning, the losing team is running around with deagle's and no armor cause that's all they can afford, while the winning team is decked out in gear.

Originally Posted by Killer of People

Getting switched back and forth a player doesn't have a chance to coordinate strategys with his/her teamates which takes away from the gameplay experience.

If we ask someone to switch or switch them ourselves, and that person is trying to coordinate stargies with his/her teammates, they should try to do the same on the losing team. I have seen it happen many times. You switch someone from the winning team to the losing team, he becomes a leader and leads the losing team to victory.

Originally Posted by Killer of People

For example, if some folks were playing on cs_office and the Ts were putting up a very good fight, holding off the CTs for nearly the entire amount of time allowed for the round. However, the CTs are still winning every round. Does this mean that the teams are stacked? Not at all! No one should be switched.

You're wrong there, someone does need to be switched. Why should T's sit there losing round after round because CT's keep pulling out a win. As I stated earlier you just can't buy much gear with 2k each round.


The whole thing is hard, you have to understand we try our best to keep the game fun for both teams.

[Kogu]

Jelly, I do agree with much of what you say. I just think that we're looking at this from different angles.

A team score of 4+ is one way to judge the strength of the teams, but it shouldn't be the only method of deciding whether teams are fair or not. For one thing, it doesn't take into account the natural advantages provided by a map. Not all maps on the rotation are fair to the point where, if you place two evenly matched teams the scores will be even at the end of the map. Perhaps teams ARE even if the final score is say.. 12-8 in favor of Ts on office, italy and CTs in dust, aztec..

I suggest PTB because I see a very tweaked version of it in a 1.6 server I play and it works quite well. It often makes subtle changes that results in the losing team getting that extra push it needs to change the tides. It also has the additional bonus of pointing out to everyone when a player is trying to stack the teams in the traditional sense (continually trying to join the team with the map advantage at the start of the game).
I also agree with you that PTB's AI cannot replace a human's judgement in fixing teams. HOWEVER, the admins in your cs server have this "**** you, it shouldn't be our job to fix teams" attitude and would sooner kick you than move your themselves. They don't seem to feel that they should be the ones moving the players around for some reason, but it really is a responsibility of an admin I think.

I agree that it isn't fair for one team to lose constantly. As a player in your server I tried to do my part in keeping teams fair from my point of view. I almost always auto-select at the start of a map. I never complain about being switched over, even when the admin does it in the middle of a round and I'm surrounded by my teammates turned enemies. It's part of the game. I win for the team I am put on, I will lose honorably on that team also. (I can't say the same for everyone)

At the same time, Killer has a point about switches that happen too often and that have no effect on the outcome. It is unnecessary and throws players out of their groove, which is sometimes all one needs to change the outcome of a fight.

And finally, the office example. If the fights end up close than there may not be any changes needed. If there are, you might want to consider a 2nd or 3rd tier change. When losing gets bad, Ts get more than 2k per round. They start being able to buy an ak every round after a while. It also helps if a play learns to manage their money better. If, however, in office the CTs were rushing every round and winning within the first minute or so, then yes changes should happen. Other than that it should be in the hands of those at the end. They need the experience to get better, not to have all the pros switch to their side and take all their kills.

[possum]

The other option to switching people all the time is just to ban when it happens if they dont fix it themselves... Switches have to happen, or the teams never improve and admins have to try to even it as best as possible, just my 2 cents

[Jelly]

i dont believe in stacked maps. maps dont always have a certain advantage to one side. the only maps that i can consider hard for one team is - dust, aztec(maybe), and train(maybe).

the game still heavily relies on the people, and thier skills as well.

and because the stacking idea is enforced in teh rules, people should know about it. the "f u, not our biggie" idea isnt what we aim for. its that when there are no admins on, the map is played and teams scores keep even. no one always likes to lose, and noobs want to win too.

we swtich people for reasons. whehter to even up the number of players or to unstack, we have reasons. but because our switching may or may not fail to acomplish the reason is not our fault. again its up to how the game plays. we cant always be positive that switching "A" with "B" will ensure one or two wins for the losing side.

we dont give away money cuz handling money is part of the game. people can abuse the fact and just collect money to waste on tomes, etc and people should know how to handle money on their own. its the same idea as giving away xp. its a cheap way of helping teams, and we want people to level up by playing, not by admin. we have never given away money or xp.

[StickyGanja]

[quote=Jelly]i dont believe in stacked maps. maps dont always have a certain advantage to one side. the only maps that i can consider hard for one team is - dust, aztec(maybe), and train(maybe).


now thats crazy jelly.. have you never played assault, militia, siege and i know i could come up with a few more.. the maps you named i dont even consider too 1 sided
compared to the ones i named.

but all in all i see both sides of this conversation and agree with both ends, it needs improvment but there really isnt much more you can do, i just say watch out for that constantly switching of players.. and as for PTB i agree it never moves the right people or it says "cant move teams are full" from what ive seen the only good part of that is when it keeps people from constantly trying to join the stacked side and makes them join the other team.