| |
You must sign in to post. | Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 8, 2011 @ 1:32pm |
|---|
 esparano
Joined: Nov 5, 2009
Posts: 1415 | How about this idea? In order to switch, both players must agree to the switch. Have an accept or decline button and that's it. Simple, doesn't change the way the game works, yet is more effective than many of the suggestions.. Random teams is too extreme for me. I want to be able to choose my partner, no matter what rank. And having a switch every so many games will jist create a new wave of rank whores who join, play with the good players, then leave when it's their turn with the noob. And no, don't suggest that they have a mandatory amount of games before they can leave. That's oppressive.
I think the lock idea is the best out of those suggested so far by the way.post updated on Apr 8, 2011 @ 1:36pm | | Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 8, 2011 @ 1:37pm |
|---|
no.yes 
Joined: Mar 7, 2010
Posts: 119 | yes esparano we need you here! you solved how to make adjustment for switching, maybe you will be able to solve switching altogether :))
then maybe phil will finally get to work if he sees good solution.post updated on Apr 8, 2011 @ 2:11pm | | Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 8, 2011 @ 1:47pm |
|---|
no.yes
Joined: Mar 7, 2010
Posts: 119 | could you expand on your "both players agreement" idea? how would it work in rooms with 3 good players and one noob | | Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 8, 2011 @ 2:33pm |
|---|
swollenpig 
Joined: Jun 12, 2010
Posts: 951
Location: Colorado | Or, if esparanos idea is too complex to implement, yet again, just make it so 2 or three players have to hit start for it to start, yet again, you would still have an occasional team of two stripes, and two greens starting (if it's two ppl hitting start instead of three) but it would cut down on the problem, and I would think that would be easy to implement. | | Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 8, 2011 @ 2:40pm |
|---|
 jazz
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Posts: 525
Location: aka The_Musician | ^ I like that idea best. It is the easiest to implement.
If anyone switches, then all players have to hit Start Game button to continue. If someone switches again, then the process starts over from square one again.
Those who keep switching often, will either force everyone else to leave in disgust or force people to actively choose to play with whatever team arrangement the group decides on as a whole. | | Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 8, 2011 @ 2:49pm |
|---|
no.yes
Joined: Mar 7, 2010
Posts: 119 | at least three people to hit start is a very good combination of jazz voting and esparano mutual agreement ideas - much easier to implement. again, how will it work in rooms with 3 good players and one noob? maybe it will work, just asking post updated on Apr 8, 2011 @ 2:51pm | | Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 8, 2011 @ 2:51pm |
|---|
swollenpig
Joined: Jun 12, 2010
Posts: 951
Location: Colorado | To stop the constant switching, you could also make it so you can only switch once per a second or so.
For 3 players: two people have to hit start.post updated on Apr 8, 2011 @ 2:51pm | | Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 8, 2011 @ 2:55pm |
|---|
no.yes
Joined: Mar 7, 2010
Posts: 119 | To stop the constant switching, you could also make it so you can only switch once per a second or so.
yes, i assume all "start hits" (votes) will be cleared after switch, so each "team proposition" will need time to gather 3 approvalspost updated on Apr 8, 2011 @ 2:57pm | | Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 8, 2011 @ 2:59pm |
|---|
jazz
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Posts: 525
Location: aka The_Musician | Yes, good compromise.
I don't really see a downside even in the 3 player mode.
If 4 players are present, it takes 3 to start the game.
If 3 players are present, it takes 2 to start the game.
If the noob doesn't press start, then the two good players can have a decisive and logical means by which they alternate playing with the less skilled player.
If the noob DOES press start, then it still requires ONE of the other two good players to agree to the pairing. If the other good player disagrees, then that player can switch again and force a revote before any game starts. | | Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 8, 2011 @ 3:28pm |
|---|
steve.jobs Joined: Jan 1, 2010
Posts: 99 | I like the voting idea. Also like the multiple start button requirement. I'd say every player has to hit start though if you do that
I think Phil's original design was to maximize game play and less time waiting to play even if team selection wasn't perfect. Might be best to just keep the same simple method and add the two second team lock to help with the unfair last min switching. The voting idea does sound promising though, if it can be implemented in a way that didnt take forever if one player was laggingpost updated on Apr 8, 2011 @ 3:31pm | | Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 8, 2011 @ 3:33pm |
|---|
no.yes
Joined: Mar 7, 2010
Posts: 119 | true, the voting idea will increase a lot time between games. | | Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 8, 2011 @ 3:34pm |
|---|
swollenpig
Joined: Jun 12, 2010
Posts: 951
Location: Colorado | That's why you don't have to have every player start, because someone could sit in a room and never start. Two or three players seem optimum. (naturaly two players would be faster, but three players will make sure the teams are what people want them to be. post updated on Apr 8, 2011 @ 3:35pm | | Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 8, 2011 @ 3:39pm |
|---|
rhydon 
Joined: Dec 21, 2010
Posts: 1337
Location: Pallet Town of Course! | This is the most active thread I've seen in a long time. | | Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 8, 2011 @ 3:47pm |
|---|
no.yes
Joined: Mar 7, 2010
Posts: 119 | esparano wrote that he would like to have option to choose partner. but this is in disagreement of what we try to solve here.
lets think about example situation: 15 games in one room with same players
for random teams each team combination will be played about 5 times. So YOU WILL STILL PLAY WITH YOUR FAVOURITE PARTNER 5 TIMES and 10 times with others. This is the essence of what we try to solve here. You wont be able to play with chosen partner too long.
in effect it is as if we switched teams every 5 games and played all combinations - the most fair arrangement
this will not prolong the waiting between games
this is the only solution that is completely fair for everybody
this solution will leave absolutely no chance to work the stats (rank whores no more)
it will give enough time before game to "learn" what are new teams (see below implementation)
it has nothing to do with requiring mandatory games and automated switching every 5 or 10 games (it was for automated rotation of players proposition - not good one)post updated on Apr 9, 2011 @ 9:54am | | Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 8, 2011 @ 3:53pm |
|---|
no.yes
Joined: Mar 7, 2010
Posts: 119 | the randomness here is the same as as random luck in 1v1 (with planets) - with enough games played luck is no factor
how to implement it:
there will be two part countdown before game
part 1 (few seconds)
- list of players in room shown
- everyone can leave room with no consequences (as before)
part 2 (few seconds)
- teams shown (randomly chosen)
- can leave room but counted as if left during game (your partner plays and game counts toward your score)post updated on Apr 9, 2011 @ 9:58am | | Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 8, 2011 @ 4:33pm |
|---|
jazz
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Posts: 525
Location: aka The_Musician | This is the most active thread I've seen in a long time.
The collective input of active players is impressive to watch in action. :)
Sometimes all it takes is a spark... | | Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 8, 2011 @ 4:36pm |
|---|
jazz
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Posts: 525
Location: aka The_Musician | I like the random idea, but dislike that it still really doesn't solve the "skill gap problem". Get two really lucky pairings right off the bat, and then leave....
What about having a toggle to switch between random games and non-random games? Maybe different servers perhaps?post updated on Apr 8, 2011 @ 4:38pm | | Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 8, 2011 @ 4:48pm |
|---|
no.yes
Joined: Mar 7, 2010
Posts: 119 | Get two really lucky pairings right off the bat, and then leave....
its the same as in 1v1. with enough games played it doesnt matter. other time you will get two unlucky pairings.post updated on Apr 9, 2011 @ 10:04am | | Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 9, 2011 @ 10:28am |
|---|
 dewar
Joined: Oct 7, 2009
Posts: 165 | Switch is good
Switch is for pro
Yep, also lying to the referee in any professional sport (playacting, waving hands," I swear I didn't touch the ball" thing) is also for the pros.
All professional players do it, football, basketbsll, hockey, you name it, part of the game.
But try to sell this argument in a game with people you know, on some courtyard in your neighbourhood and see how well it plays :-)
I had a few "brilliant" suggestions some months ago on how to limit number of switching, but now I am not so sure about all that. Maybe it the best to leave the things as they are, someone will always chase rank, many people will always try to team with the superstars... | | Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 9, 2011 @ 9:14pm |
|---|
esparano
Joined: Nov 5, 2009
Posts: 1415 | The random/rotating partners is good in theory, but won't actually work well because people will leave as soon as it's their turn with the noob. So I'm wholly against any kind of random gameplay. Plus, I want to be able to choose my partner, I don't want to be forced to switch every round. And I'm sure a lot of people will agree with me there.
I really like the voting idea. However, Phil specifically said that he wanted to keep waiting times to a minimum so that the game is more "fast-paced" (as he advertises in the description of the game). So for that reason only, I'm a little bit worried about that idea. Plus, what if there are two noobs that don't know how to start the game? (Yes, I've played with people like this hahaha) Or if two people are holding up the game?
I was suggesting that both players agree to the switch somehow. I suggested an "accept/decline/offer" button, but I'm against that now. Because what would happen if you get two offers at the same time? Or if you want to offer while you receive an offer? It's just a big buttony space-eating mess. So I'd suggest something simpler.
Let's say you click on somebody's name (to switch with them). On their screen, your name turns green to let them know that you want to switch. All the other person has to do is click on your green name to accept the switch. This way, you can handle multiple offers at the same time, it doesn't eat up any space at all, and it doesn't waste time. Or maybe if you don't want to change your color (because people already have certain colors) a small green light could pop up next to their name. I think that the simpler and easier to implement the change is, the more likely Phil will be to implement it. I don't want to change the game too drastically (like adding random switching, etc.) What do you guys think?post updated on Apr 9, 2011 @ 9:20pm |
You must sign in to post. |
|
