Galcon 2 launched on Desktop and Steam and the iOS App Store! 572 players online!
:: Community ::
ForumsMessagesGroupsChat (1)Friends
 

Forums :: iPhone :: Misc. :: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD

You must sign in to post.

Page 2 / 5 1   2   3   4   5 

Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 8, 2011 @ 1:32pm

Cabin Boy esparano

Joined: Nov 5, 2009
Posts: 2643

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

Cabin Boy 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

Cabin Boy 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

Cabin Boy 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

Cabin Boy jazz

Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Posts: 534
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

Cabin Boy 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

Cabin Boy 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

Cabin Boy 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 approvals
post updated on Apr 8, 2011 @ 2:57pm
Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 8, 2011 @ 2:59pm

Cabin Boy jazz

Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Posts: 534
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

Cabin Boy 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 lagging
post updated on Apr 8, 2011 @ 3:31pm
Re: THE OFFICIAL TEAM-SWITCHING ARGUMENT THREAD :: Apr 8, 2011 @ 3:33pm

Cabin Boy 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

Cabin Boy 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

Cabin Boy 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

Cabin Boy 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

Cabin Boy 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

Cabin Boy jazz

Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Posts: 534
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

Cabin Boy jazz

Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Posts: 534
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

Cabin Boy 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

2 Stripe Admiral dewar

Joined: Oct 7, 2009
Posts: 181

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

Cabin Boy esparano

Joined: Nov 5, 2009
Posts: 2643

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

Page 2 / 5 1   2   3   4   5 

You must sign in to post.