PDA

View Full Version : Regarding Players Disconnecting During Ladder Matches


O.o
05-16-2011, 08:36 PM
Some hypothetical situations here,

You're in TBD ladder and a player on the other team disconnects while you're pushing the bomb towards their base.
What's a reasonable solution?
Would your answer change if you were up 90% base health to 36% base health?
Would it change if it was the other way around? (36% to 90%)
1% to 100%?
1% to 1%?

You're in BALL ladder and a player disconnects.
What's a reasonable solution?
What if you're winning/losing by 1 goal? 3 goals? 5 goals?
What if it's their lowest ranked player? (ie. an 800 rating player in a 1500 average rating game)
What if it's your highest ranked player?
What if your worst player refuses to spectate?

Currently the compromise is to spectate a player on the opposite team and play on 4v4(TBD)/5v5(BALL), perhaps circling the bomb at your base and not pushing 'til everyone agrees on whether or not to wait for the person who disconnected. However, problems arise when your worst player refuses to spectate, or when one team feels cheated for losing their best player/having to spectate when the other team loses their worst player, etc.

I'm wondering if there's a good solution that satisfies all parties in all of these cases.

elxir
05-16-2011, 08:40 PM
who wrote this for you i know for a fact you can't say more than three words at the same time

best solution would be to force-spec the player on the other team who correlates best to DC'd player's rating, but that might **** teams based on plane comp

Pieface
05-16-2011, 08:43 PM
Still think a substitution system would be the best solution. An ideal system would lose the leaver points no matter what, sub in a player of nearly equal rating after asking permission, then award points to that player based on the new team composition and how the game conditions were when they subbed in.

lemon
05-16-2011, 08:57 PM
Just a note, the thing i hate the most about DCs is when someone dcs in a middle of a decisive push when you are highly likely to get a bomb hit. People here expect you to sit one player out and stop the push, but thats just bad because its takes a lot of time to sit someone (people dont want to sit generally) and during that opponents can respawn and your opportunity is gone. I personally dont stop in these situations and just go ahead with bombing even if its 5v4 because I believe this kind of dcs can be easily abused to save some time. And if some kind of force-spec system would be implemented it would definately get abused. "oh wait I died and theres a huge push coming so I just unplug this cable and my team suddenly has much better chance of holding!".

elxir
05-16-2011, 09:01 PM
if i am over halfway point of map or other team tries to push their own bomb i generally disregard teams

sunshineduck
05-16-2011, 09:28 PM
Just a note, the thing i hate the most about DCs is when someone dcs in a middle of a decisive push when you are highly likely to get a bomb hit. People here expect you to sit one player out and stop the push, but thats just bad because its takes a lot of time to sit someone (people dont want to sit generally) and during that opponents can respawn and your opportunity is gone. I personally dont stop in these situations and just go ahead with bombing even if its 5v4 because I believe this kind of dcs can be easily abused to save some time. And if some kind of force-spec system would be implemented it would definately get abused. "oh wait I died and theres a huge push coming so I just unplug this cable and my team suddenly has much better chance of holding!".

this is a wholly different issue that is completely retarded (re: your plug pull scenario)

i don't know anyone in ladder that so badly wants to win a single ladder game that they'd plug pull in order to potentially stop one bomb hit. i don't think you know anyone that fits that description either.

i personally won't run a bomb if it's 5v4 unless my team has literally cleared out everyone on the base and that one person couldn't possibly have made a difference. if it was wok3n, mat, mled, or someone else that can stop a 3v1 push, i won't hit. base damage does nothing to change this.

in the ball ladder of old, i would have stopped pushing the ball and waited for the teams to even up or the DC'd person to reconnect, then killed the ball in the corner to restart it from middle. however, since ball has more recently been infested with bad mannered players that would ignore chat and the point of killing the ball and try to score anyway, i've given up on that and usually just pass to someone else so they can deal with all the bitching.

if the most terrible player on my team doesn't sit right away, i'll typically sit and ask them to spectate so i can play. if they don't, i usually end up either taking the loss or someone i know will sit for me.

tgleaf
05-16-2011, 09:45 PM
In favor of an automatic system that subs in a player/allows subs, or that specs the worst or an equally-rated player, or that subtracts points from the d/c'er.

Not in favor of any new rules or suggestions about behavior. Ladder is too fast and lacks any viable communication (if I try to start a conversation about who should spec, I'm actually hurting my team by stalling; if I tell someone to spec, they can choose to listen or not). Sometimes two people spec and then you have to deal with who should get back in. I'm not saying teams shouldn't try to fix the situation, but just that even the best-intentioned teams sometimes f this up.

To answer your initial question, I tend to *gasp* agree with elixir. If I'm past halfway, I'm going for it. Otherwise, sure I'll hold back/try my best to either spec or force someone else to spec.

Edit: technical solution = automatically pause the game until the teams are once again even. Aha!

A Nipple
05-16-2011, 09:51 PM
/vote custom match pause

nobodyhome
05-16-2011, 09:58 PM
Pausing a game is probably one of the better solutions I've heard to this problem but unfortunately given Altitude as it is right now there is no way ladder can do this. Now, if karlam thinks implementing pausing is viable then we might have a conversation.

So far the best idea is to implement substitution but this is extremely complicated to implement.

JWhatever
05-17-2011, 12:17 AM
Faceguy is implying to this game: http://www.altitudeladder.com/match.php?id=4384&mode=ball_6v6

After Cipso got a dc, we had to sit a lot better player (rankwise), which gave us a huge disadvantage.

If pausing nor any other solution is not implanted, would it be too much of a work to make a script that would recalculate the avarage ratings of the teams in case someone disconnects for X amount of time? This way the other team wouldn't have to suffer so much in rating.

And on the other hand, if a team loses their best player, they wouldn't have to suffer for the loss of their carry.

Poor soul sat for our team making our rating 1821,6. After Cipso got a dc, their rating was 1963,8.

-J

yankinlk
05-17-2011, 09:59 AM
Im guessing the easiest solution is to have subs picked at the start of the match. There is no way to tell who is going to DC so it makes no sense to try and pick a replacement on the fly based on ladder ratings.
So for a Ball match the 13th and 14th players would be subs.

When the player comes back after DC - would it then be up to the Sub to sit - or would it be possible to automatically swap them?

Tekn0
05-17-2011, 10:16 AM
Automatically spectating someone can be an issue if they are holding the ball/bomb.

Im guessing the easiest solution is to have subs picked at the start of the match. There is no way to tell who is going to DC so it makes no sense to try and pick a replacement on the fly based on ladder ratings.
So for a Ball match the 13th and 14th players would be subs.

When the player comes back after DC - would it then be up to the Sub to sit - or would it be possible to automatically swap them?

So we would need 14 people to start a match? I don't think the sub is practical though sounds good. People would be forced to sit around as subs.

How about it throws a suggestion on who to spec, the rest is upto the team to decide and take action.

Eg: Below the 6v5 teams! warning. something like "Suggested spec: Tekn0" from the Blue team. The suggestion will be based on the rating of the player who is disconnected. The suggestion will disappear after 10 seconds.

This gives an idea to both team about the rating of the player who just disconnected.

This would be ofcourse problematic if the Blue team refuses to spec the suggested player and specs someone else and the Red team is like "cheaters! spec PlayerX" or something.

A Nipple
05-17-2011, 11:33 AM
anyway code can take in to consideration ping spikes, so if a players ping is spiking constantly OR above the server limit when the vote is passed then it chooses the most suitable pings. At least minimise reasons/chance of leavers.

trendy11one
05-17-2011, 01:10 PM
Automatically spectating someone can be an issue if they are holding the ball/bomb.



So we would need 14 people to start a match? I don't think the sub is practical though sounds good. People would be forced to sit around as subs.

How about it throws a suggestion on who to spec, the rest is upto the team to decide and take action.

Eg: Below the 6v5 teams! warning. something like "Suggested spec: Tekn0" from the Blue team. The suggestion will be based on the rating of the player who is disconnected. The suggestion will disappear after 10 seconds.

This gives an idea to both team about the rating of the player who just disconnected.

This would be ofcourse problematic if the Blue team refuses to spec the suggested player and specs someone else and the Red team is like "cheaters! spec PlayerX" or something.

I like this idea, i dont think its a big deal to make server message with nickname of player, who was rating closest to d/c'd person

Tekn0
05-17-2011, 01:33 PM
The reason why the decision on who to spec should be left to the team with full players is because it is after all the fault of the other team who lost the player.

So while spec'ing one player should be a -must- (refusal should lead to a ban at end of game), the decision on who to spec should be a RIGHT of the other team.

It might also be good if Ladder collects statistics every match on HOW long continuously did the game go on as 6v5 situation. e.g. if Blue lost a player and red doesn't spectate for say 60 seconds, then maybe bans can be handed out for very unsportive behaviour. This can be factually supported if statistics are available for every match. Should be fairly straight forward to implement.

Implementing this stats will get players spectating much quicker.

O.o
05-17-2011, 05:21 PM
The reason why the decision on who to spec should be left to the team with full players is because it is after all the fault of the other team who lost the player.

So while spec'ing one player should be a -must- (refusal should lead to a ban at end of game), the decision on who to spec should be a RIGHT of the other team.

The problem I have with this train of thought is this:
For the player who disconnected - does the rest of his team deserve to be punished for having a player who disconnected? This is especially a big deal if the highest ranked player in the current match disconnects and, seeing how players don't choose their teammates, it seems unfair to punish them by getting the other team to spectate their worst player.

I do like Tekn0's "suggested spec" idea; it seems easily doable but I worry about the conflicts that will arise when the 'suggested spec' is not the player the other team chooses to spectate.

Tekn0
05-17-2011, 06:06 PM
From re-reading your first post I gather 2 issues:

1. Refusing to spectate.
The problem of refusing to spectate can be overcome with the stats suggestion I posted earlier.


..if Ladder collects statistics every match on HOW long continuously did the game go on as 6v5 situation. e.g. if Blue lost a player and red doesn't spectate for say 60 seconds, then maybe bans can be handed out for very unsportive behaviour. This can be factually supported if statistics are available for every match. Should be fairly straight forward to implement. Implementing this stats will get players spectating much quicker for fear of getting a ban.


2. Spectating a player of very varying skill.
The problem I have with this train of thought is this:
For the player who disconnected - does the rest of his team deserve to be punished for having a player who disconnected? This is especially a big deal if the highest ranked player in the current match disconnects and, seeing how players don't choose their teammates, it seems unfair to punish them by getting the other team to spectate their worst player.


Good point, I momentarily forgot this is ladder of individuals and not real teams.

However, given the fact that we all agree that we cannot forcefully spec (as they might be carrying ball/bomb or be in a critical situation etc.) or spec'ing them on their next death (esp. problematic with TBD where lifespan is longer and possibly be dodged) the alternatives I can think up right now are suggesting a spec or voting a spec. Voting a spec is also ruled out (too annoying, too frequent, involves collective bias, etc.)

Will be interesting to see other suggestions on this.

yankinlk
05-17-2011, 06:27 PM
I do like Tekn0's "suggested spec" idea; it seems easily doable but I worry about the conflicts that will arise when the 'suggested spec' is not the player the other team chooses to spectate.

I always thot it was lowest ranked loopy. :P

shrode
05-17-2011, 07:40 PM
Worst person should spec, always. Other team should get punished for having a leaver. This causes the leaver to be punished (unless it is danielle or bsd), and if you don't leave or DC much then you will be on the positive end of this hole issue in the long run.

I would even support an idea of leaver getting half points if his/her team won after the leave.

My reasons for these ideas is that leaving/disconnecting is bad and unacceptable. 4v4 play in tbd is broken. TA is reDONKulous. If your internet is having issues, go play pubs.

CCN
05-18-2011, 05:09 PM
people are bottom of ladder generally (with a few exceptions) because they are selfish and stupid as ****, good luck getting them to not be retarded for two seconds. I already play with the mentality that a retard is more of a map doodad.

Ribilla
05-18-2011, 05:16 PM
people are bottom of ladder generally (with a few exceptions) because they are stupid and selfish as ****, good luck getting them to not be retarded for two seconds. I already play with the mentality that a retard is more of a map doodad.

I thought you would agree with the idea we discussed:

The teams continue to play 5 vs 6, but the team with more players gets

CCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCC NCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNC CNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCN CCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCC NCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNC CNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCN CCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCC NCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNC CNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCN CCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCC NCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNC CNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCN CCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCC NCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNC CNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCNCCN

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Written across their screen to even things up. This basically already happens whenever CCN joins anyway, so I don't see the problem.

CCN
05-18-2011, 05:32 PM
i can live with this solution