:: Community ::
ForumsMessagesGroupsChat (1)Friends
 

Forums :: Galcon Fusion :: Misc. :: 5v5v1 vs 5v5 (Impact of Loners)

You must sign in to post.

Page 1 / 2 1   2 

5v5v1 vs 5v5 (Impact of Loners) :: Jul 3, 2012 @ 4:05pm

Ensign KlR4

Joined: Jan 5, 2012
Posts: 1622
Location: House Lannister

Re: 5v5v1 vs 5v5 (Impact of Loners) :: Jul 3, 2012 @ 4:06pm

Ensign KlR4

Joined: Jan 5, 2012
Posts: 1622
Location: House Lannister

I forgot about 5v5v1, but I still don't think it's fair. Where the loner spawns is random and usually will only impact 1 player, who is in the vicinity of that loner. Thus 1 player (from one of the 2 teams) will lose ships fighting the loner.

A. You can't guarantee that either the loner or the 1 player near the loner will not engage in a fight, so you must assume they do fight.

B. You also can't control the behavior of the loner or the other players, and cannot assume that there is perfect playing, where the loner fairly attacks players from both teams.

Anyway, once this happens, the team with the player who is fighting the loner is automatically at a disadvantage, since you have 5 unharmed players vs. 4 unharmed players.

Thus, the only way to ensure a fair fight is with 5v5 and no loners.

And so, yes it is fair and admirable for an admin to sacrifice his enjoyment by setting himself away and leaving 2 evenly-matched teams to have a fair fight.
post updated on Jul 3, 2012 @ 4:09pm
Re: 5v5v1 vs 5v5 (Impact of Loners) :: Jul 3, 2012 @ 4:19pm

Cabin Boy marky1991

Joined: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 7267
Location: Douglasville, GA

Deputy
First, I refer you to these threads:

http://www.galcon.com/forums/33/37/5296/?cur=0 
http://www.galcon.com/forums/33/39/4698/?cur=0 

"Where the loner spawns is random and usually will only impact 1 player, who is in the vicinity of that loner."

This assumes that either the loner or the one guy mentioned is a moron. Morons will ruin any game. This is not specific to games with loners.

"You can't guarantee that either the loner or the 1 player near the loner will not engage in a fight, so you must assume they do fight."

That doesn't logically follow at all. You can't make a (reasonable) assumption either way. (You can of course make the assumption, but it's essentially the same as assuming that a coin flip will always land on heads)

"Thus, the only way to ensure a fair fight is with 5v5 and no loners."

You can't ensure that's fair either. For all we know, it could be 5 amazing players vs 5 brand new players. Therefore, to ensure a fair game, we have to have no players at all. Really, I can't ensure that a bot fight would be fair either... Therefore, the only way to ensure a fair fight is to have no fight at all.

(Moved to miscellaneous instead of teams as teams is actually about clans. (It's a horrible name, I know))


edit: Added the move notice.
post updated on Jul 3, 2012 @ 4:24pm
Re: 5v5v1 vs 5v5 (Impact of Loners) :: Jul 3, 2012 @ 10:48pm

Cabin Boy khubilai

Joined: May 7, 2011
Posts: 254
Location: Australia

Lol Marky, it seems to be mainly you who defends neutrals in those threads.

In the majority of games with a neutral, the neutral stuffs it up, handing it to one team and wasting everyone's time.

I used to love playing neutral because the chance of winning was higher. Just camp a bit, wait for some idiot on one of the teams to attack the other, and voila! An easy win.

A neutral is much like three way, except not everyone treats it as such (hence, the game's are often a waste of time). Personally, I don't like threeway much as it tends to lapse into a campfest and is decided by a mistake, not by skill.


Also, Marky, I think it is 'honorable' for an admin to set away when there's an odd number of players in teams, as most people hate neutral matches for the above stated reasons.
Re: 5v5v1 vs 5v5 (Impact of Loners) :: Jul 3, 2012 @ 11:04pm

Cabin Boy marky1991

Joined: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 7267
Location: Douglasville, GA

Deputy
"In the majority of games with a neutral, the neutral stuffs it up, handing it to one team and wasting everyone's time."

Then in the "majority" (I'm not claiming this to be the case nor do I believe it to be) of games, the loner doesn't know what he's doing. How it's applied doesn't impact the identity of the setup itself. Sucky players will ruin any setup. That doesn't mean that all setups suck, it just means that sucky players suck.

"A neutral is much like three way, except not everyone treats it as such" 

The solution is in education, not avoidance.

"Also, Marky, I think it is 'honorable' for an admin to set away when there's an odd number of players in teams, as most people hate neutral matches for the above stated reasons."

If someone doesn't like the setup, they're free to set away. Expecting someone else to do it because you don't care for it is pure selfishness.
Re: 5v5v1 vs 5v5 (Impact of Loners) :: Jul 4, 2012 @ 1:40am

Captain Gideon

Joined: Dec 16, 2010
Posts: 176
Location: Utah, USA

A) One of the main draws for Team games, for me and many others, is FAST games.  A game with a loner is almost always much slower (i.e., plays like a regular threeway), so it throws off the flow of a team server.

B) Unless of course a player overlooks the status of the loner and unloads on him.  Then it is fast, but it is decided not based on skill of players, but on an oversight of the type of game it is (threeway instead of Team1 vs Team2).  Marky, this is different than other games that are decided by stupid moves (many are, of course), because THIS stupid move isn't even about the tactics of the game. The whole event was based not on skill, but on ONE player not noticing who the loner is, or if there even is one. 

On a technical and logical level, 551 is just as FAIR as 55, if played correctly; but even when it's played correctly (which is not the majority of the time), it's not as FUN for me, and most other players.
post updated on Jul 4, 2012 @ 1:40am
Re: 5v5v1 vs 5v5 (Impact of Loners) :: Jul 4, 2012 @ 1:46am

Ensign hollander

Joined: Dec 20, 2009
Posts: 1659
Location: your pants

I'll quote what I said earlier about this:

"Any game of teams is even when the number of players in one team is not greater than the total of players in the other team(s). When people ask for an abort or when I see the players get confused when some sort of 'odd', yet numerally fair, team partition is played then I (consider) abort. 

some examples of possible teams: 
6v6 
6v3v3 * and ** 
5v5v1 
4v4v3 
6v2v2v2 * and ** 
2v2v2v2v2v2 
5v3v2 * and ** 
5v4v3 * 
4v3v2v1 * 

(*) It's obvious that team games like these, where one team is greater than or equal to the biggest of one of the multiple opponent teams, should only be played with players with decent skill. 

(**) These team games, where the biggest team is the sum of the total of multiple opponent teams, seem to have an extra disadvantage for the smaller teams since (almost always) immediate action is needed, where the smaller teams can't feed each other as much as the biggest team, which makes them slower in some maps. Though I think this could be fun to. 

I (nearly) always abort when teams are numerally unfair to the description I gave in the first line."


When a player doesn't like to play a game with a neutral then he should set away and the problem will be solved. :)
Re: 5v5v1 vs 5v5 (Impact of Loners) :: Jul 4, 2012 @ 2:01am

Cabin Boy marky1991

Joined: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 7267
Location: Douglasville, GA

Deputy
"Unless of course a player overlooks the status of the loner and unloads on him.  Then it is fast, but it is decided not based on skill of players, but on an oversight of the type of game it is (threeway instead of Team1 vs Team2).  Marky, this is different than other games that are decided by stupid moves (many are, of course), because THIS stupid move isn't even about the tactics of the game. The whole event was based not on skill, but on ONE player not noticing who the loner is, or if there even is one."

Basic map-reading is the most fundamental of skills. Not knowing or being too clueless to read the map reflects on a player's skill.

"but even when it's played correctly (which is not the majority of the time), it's not as FUN for me, and most other players."

Then you're free to set away. Expecting an admin to do it instead is selfish.
Re: 5v5v1 vs 5v5 (Impact of Loners) :: Jul 4, 2012 @ 2:05am

1 Stripe Admiral esparano

Joined: Nov 5, 2009
Posts: 2505

Any possible combination that is "symmetric" (e.g. 5v5, 5v1v5, 3v4v3), in which the largest team does not have a majority, is mathematically fair. Hollander sums it up nicely. Non-symmetric games like 4v3v2v1 and games in which the largest team equals the sum of the opposing teams (6v3v3) could be arguably unfair, though only slightly.

Also, saying that 5v5v1 is unfair because the loner could be an idiot is not a valid argument. I could likewise say that 5v5 is unfair because one of the teams might have a noob. A particular 5v5v1 or a particular 5v5 can be extremely unfair based on the players that are playing, but there is nothing inherently unfair about a 5v5v1.

But anyways, who gives a crap? If people want to play 7v4v1, it's their right to do so.
post updated on Jul 4, 2012 @ 2:13am
Re: 5v5v1 vs 5v5 (Impact of Loners) :: Jul 4, 2012 @ 3:35am

Ensign hollander

Joined: Dec 20, 2009
Posts: 1659
Location: your pants

"But anyways, who gives a crap? If people want to play 7v4v1, it's their right to do so."

Indeed, when all 12 players beg me to not abort and tell me they love to play 7v4v1 then why should I abort it?
Re: 5v5v1 vs 5v5 (Impact of Loners) :: Jul 4, 2012 @ 6:22am

Cabin Boy khubilai

Joined: May 7, 2011
Posts: 254
Location: Australia

1) I never said that I expect admins to set away.

Often, when someone decides they want to play neutral, a lot of people sigh and complain. Very frequently, I see an admin set away to make the number even again. I do not expect this of admins more than anyone else (including myself), but i consider it, umm, considerate when they do so.

2) 'How it's applied doesn't impact the identity of the setup itself. Sucky players will ruin any setup.'

The general idea that 5v3v2 is a valid game type so long as you have skilled players is an argument against the format (and similar formats). If you need skilled players to make it workable, then there is something inherently wrong with it.

Sure, erratic/new/bad/troll players will ruin any game, but given a random assortment of players 5v5 will be much more likely to be a fair game than 5v5v1.

*btw, 'fairness' is important in teams as constantly unbalanced teams aren't enjoyable from either side believe it or not.



Also, the current trend in the teams rooms is for 'x' v 'x'. It seems most people come to teams to play Galcon, not camp like in classic rooms. There are a few people who like threeways, but almost none who like neutrals.
Re: 5v5v1 vs 5v5 (Impact of Loners) :: Jul 4, 2012 @ 7:12am

Cabin Boy socratic

Joined: Feb 10, 2010
Posts: 1937
Location: =3

Neutrals spice up the game.

I personally hate neutrals unless I AM the neutral. The neutral is what determines (most of the time) who wins or loses by who he or she attacks. It all depends on the players in the game.
Re: 5v5v1 vs 5v5 (Impact of Loners) :: Jul 4, 2012 @ 7:55am

Captain Gideon

Joined: Dec 16, 2010
Posts: 176
Location: Utah, USA

Amen Khubilai.  

Like I conceded in my post, and Marky and others are dwelling on, sure it is technically "fair" to play with a  loner.  But even when played correctly, it is generally much slower (and most players like the fast movement of team games).  No one addresses this issue, and I think it is key.  

Also, don't ignore the reality that, as Khubilai mentioned and I want to emphasize, a great many players (I'd love poll numbers on this, I'd guess it's more than 80 percent) would rather play a team game without a loner than with.  Even if you believe that is illogical, simplistic, short-sighted, stupid, or whatever, you cannot refute that it still means that a player who sets away to avoid a loner is doing something that most teams players appreciate.  And if most players appreciate it, then it is commendable when players are willing to do it, though of course it should never be required.
Re: 5v5v1 vs 5v5 (Impact of Loners) :: Jul 4, 2012 @ 8:58am

Cabin Boy ziche

Joined: May 2, 2011
Posts: 1191
Location: Australia

My thoughts exactly ^

I was going to write something like that earlier, but I was too lazy..
Re: 5v5v1 vs 5v5 (Impact of Loners) :: Jul 4, 2012 @ 9:52am

Cabin Boy marky1991

Joined: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 7267
Location: Douglasville, GA

Deputy
"I never said that I expect admins to set away."

That's why the thread was originally created!

"The general idea that 5v3v2 is a valid game type so long as you have skilled players is an argument against the format (and similar formats). "

How 5v3v2 works has nothing to do with how NvNv1 works.

"If you need skilled players to make it workable, then there is something inherently wrong with it."

No one as said you need "skilled" players, we said you need non-morons. NvN has the exact same requirement.


edit: Italicization fix.
post updated on Jul 4, 2012 @ 9:53am
Re: 5v5v1 vs 5v5 (Impact of Loners) :: Jul 4, 2012 @ 10:52am

Cabin Boy TheCount

Joined: Feb 15, 2011
Posts: 277
Location: in darkness

This seems to have been properly discussed, but here I am adding my two cents anyway.

Fairness (all teams perfectly matched) almost never happens, but a game where all teams are closely matched will be more intense and fun for me. This kind of close match could include mismatched team sizes or a neutral. 

Threeway Teams, for me, are not very fun even if they are 'fair' or closely matched. I am good at them, but Winning is not always Fun. In fact, I would rather watch a 2 way fight from away than participate in a 3 way. I set away myself. I do not do this to be courteous, and I do not expect anyone else to do so. People often thank me for doing this even though I am not setting away for them.

An admin's job, in my opinion, is to help the server run smoothly and keep majority of players happy. This is above and beyond the basic rules enforcement. A high quality admin will serve the majority at their own expense. The admin's opinion of what a fair game is or if they feel like playing the asked-for setup should be less important.

If the majority wants uneven or neutral games aborted and for someone to set away to make 'even' games possible, then a high quality admin would set away. It is not required, but I would recommend it even if the admin would have been personally ok with the match.

I feel the same way about stacking. I would much rather lose in a closer match, than stick myself on a stack to win easily. Winning is not always Fun. I think many players feel the same way. A high quality admin, then, will also join opposite team of a stack to help the games be closer, even if that means losing more often. Again, not required but recommended.

Just because some admins take their responsibility to the selfless extreme does not mean we should require all admins to do so.
post updated on Jul 4, 2012 @ 11:05am
Re: 5v5v1 vs 5v5 (Impact of Loners) :: Jul 4, 2012 @ 11:24am

Cabin Boy chi-ro

Joined: Dec 26, 2008
Posts: 4033
Location: The cluster behind you..

Under-Sheriff
5v5v1 isn't unfair, I actually prefer it to someone sitting out or 3 even teams most of the time. You simply have to know what you're doing as the 1 (and that's really not hard).


Edit: Also, let me point out one thing.

(I'd love poll numbers on this, I'd guess it's more than 80 percent)


If this is the case (and I don't necessarily doubt you, to each his own) then this whole argument is a waste of time.

One thing you don't seem to get at all here, is that the people who don't like the neutral ultimately hold 100% of the power. In an 11 player game, with 80% disliking neutrals that's really only 2 or 3 people who want it. That leaves 8-9 people who have the ability to INSTANTLY put an end to this game mode by setting away and making it even teams. That's all it takes, one person from the 80% of the lobby biting the bullet and setting away from this awful mode for a single game out of every 8 or 9 played.

Just because someone goes neutral it's not their responsibility to set away if others don't like the idea. They just as much want to be a part of the game as the other 80% of the people. The difference is they've initiated a solution that suits their needs. If you disagree with that solution (as Marky has said multiple times) one of that vast majority of you can just set away and be done with it altogether.

I really don't understand the problem here at all in light of this fact. I would understand if the people in favor of neutrals were complaining. But why on earth are the people who disapprove and can fix their problem so easily this upset and at odds?
post updated on Jul 4, 2012 @ 11:46am
Re: 5v5v1 vs 5v5 (Impact of Loners) :: Jul 4, 2012 @ 11:58am

1 Stripe Admiral esparano

Joined: Nov 5, 2009
Posts: 2505

If there is a complete idiot in a 5v5, he essentially turns the game into a 5v4. If the loner in a 5v5v1 is a complete idiot and attacks another player, he essentially turns the game into a 5v4 while they're fighting. Idiots have almost the same effect in both situations. 

The only "problem" is that when played correctly, 5v5v1 often boils down into a 3-way. But saying that is a "problem" doesn't make sense. That's a preference.
post updated on Jul 4, 2012 @ 12:01pm
Re: 5v5v1 vs 5v5 (Impact of Loners) :: Jul 4, 2012 @ 3:24pm

Captain Gideon

Joined: Dec 16, 2010
Posts: 176
Location: Utah, USA

I agree with pretty much everything Chi-Ro just said.  This is a very minor issue, and it does not need to be "addressed" in any way.  Because as Chi-Ro wisely notes, if people in-game care enough, they can set away.  And that is fair enough.  But it's also true that while many (the 80% I'm guessing at) prefer a game without a loner, they DON'T care enough to set away themselves.  So we get games with loners despite that large majority unless one of those players feels strongly enough about it to sit one out. And that is all fine.

I think my persistent interest in this thread has more to do with Marky's (and a few others') almost atagonist tone that players who don't like games with loners are irrational, or that setting away to avoid threeway games is not a service that most players appreciate.  So I, and a few others, have tried to lay out the rationale.  

To me it's been an interesting discussion, I understand various points of view better, and, of course no "action" is necessary.  It's just bantering.  (I say no action is necessary, but I will confess that in my "ideal," the team servers would only allow even numbers of players in them, and odd numbers would result in the last joiner being put in the queue automatically until a match joins, or somone leaves.....but of course that's pie-in-the-sky, and it appears not everyone would like it that way).
Re: 5v5v1 vs 5v5 (Impact of Loners) :: Jul 4, 2012 @ 3:48pm

Ensign KlR4

Joined: Jan 5, 2012
Posts: 1622
Location: House Lannister

Agreed with Gideon and all other anti-loner players! ;)

I definitely fall in the 80%. It's far too hard to control the quality of a game with a loner present. It's hard enough making fair teams of 5v5 for example, without also having to worry about a free radical (the loner) sitting in the middle, waiting to add chaos to the match.

And this talk of what is 'technically' fair is a bit useless in my opinion? It doesn't realistically reflect the realities of the game and how it plays out. It might technically be fair to have a 5v5v1 setup, or I'd say symmetric and balanced, but it remains that the loner acts like more of a 'free radical' in the match and slows down the pace of the teams game.

I also don't think you can equate a noob loner to a noob player in one of the teams. A noob player in a team can make a bad decision, but other team members can usually make up for it by getting the noob to "feed" ships to a more skilled player. Or, a skilled player can jump in as the noob is about to send way too many ships to one planet and take the planet first, thereby 'stealing' the noob's ships and then put them to better use.

Page 1 / 2 1   2 

You must sign in to post.