Enforcing players to sit

[Slender]

Not long ago this thread was created, a game on ladder took place where multiple players from both Red and Blue teams, got disconnected (mostly ping kicks).

Red had 2 players disconnected for god knows how many minutes and blue had all their players. EVERYONE called "teams" on the team chat and no one on blue had the decency to kindly sit and make game the balanced until the players disconnected, joined again. This went throughout the whole rest of the game.

Many of us, ladder players, hugely unapprove this kind of situations and makes the game highly unenjoyable, causing many to leave and just kill ladder.

So for god sakes, admins, make a rule that enforces players to sit when anyone calls "teams" in the main chat. If any team in such situation of sitting, does not obey, they will be sanctioned. I dont care what kind of sanction, but just make this a rule and enforce it



Game details:
http://www.altitudeladder.com/match....&mode=ball_6v6

edit: I checked the game details, and only the losing team had players disconnected. 3 of them. So it was a 3v6 bs game.

[elxir]

ye but...how

like, there are certain baddies who refuse to sit

and there are certain goodies like sunaku who always sit

so like

wat do for like

[Carlos98]

Originally Posted by elxir

ye but...how

like, there are certain baddies who refuse to sit

and there are certain goodies like sunaku who always sit

so like

wat do for like

couldn't have said it better myself

[Tekn0]

Sunaku is best boat, where is he nowadays???

We cannot enforce anyone sitting but like I already suggested in a previous thread, ladder can easily compute the rating of the current player who disconnected and say "5 v 6 teams" "Suggested spec: X" the player X is determined as the closest player in terms of rating to the one who disconnected.

[sunshineduck]

that idea doesn't fix anything at all

[Flight 666]

I always sit

[Ribilla]

Someone came up with an idea for this that would be both awesome and fair. No idea how hard it would be to implement though.

Basically ladder runs a queue on the team with too many players, so if it's 5 vs 6, (6 on red), the spawn timer for the first person on red to die doesn't start until another person on red dies. This means there is always one player held in limbo until the person gets back. It won't mess with team comp too much because no one will be dead for that long and it will mean the spec has about average rating.

[sunshineduck]

spawn timers are hard coded into the game afaik, and run in cycles of spawns (which is why everyone on your team that died recently spawns at once, even though the actual times of death are different) so it would require a lot of work

[Tekn0]

Originally Posted by sunshineduck

that idea doesn't fix anything at all

Yes it isn't addressing the topic directly and it isn't meant to "fix" it. It's merely giving additional information that's not totally random.

[sunshineduck]

Originally Posted by Tekn0

Yes it isn't addressing the topic directly and it isn't meant to "fix" it. It's merely giving additional information that's not totally random.

i was saying that it's useless information. if you want to spout useless information be my guest, i was making sure that nobody wasted their time actually working on said useless idea

[Tekn0]

Originally Posted by sunshineduck

i was saying that it's useless information. if you want to spout useless information be my guest, i was making sure that nobody wasted their time actually working on said useless idea

Next to forceful spectating, suggesting the person to be spectated is not as useless as you claim it to be. I agree it's not solving the problem of 5v6. 5v6 matches cannot be truly solved because whatever ladder thought was balanced has now essentially become unbalanced with no real replacement. Making a 5v5 balanced match will never be the same as the original 6v6. The attempt here is to avoid 5v6 but forcing players to sit does not seem viable.

[sunshineduck]

so what's the point of doing it if it doesn't solve anything again?

all it does is force whoever the number cruncher chose to be on the spot in terms of spectating whether they want to or not. typically what is done is that the worst player on the team with 6 who is also willing to spectate will sit, and the match goes on 5v5. if nobody on the other team is willing to spectate anyway, then suggesting someone to spectate won't change a thing.

[Tekn0]

Originally Posted by sunshineduck

so what's the point of doing it if it doesn't solve anything again?

all it does is force whoever the number cruncher chose to be on the spot in terms of spectating whether they want to or not. typically what is done is that the worst player on the team with 6 who is also willing to spectate will sit, and the match goes on 5v5. if nobody on the other team is willing to spectate anyway, then suggesting someone to spectate won't change a thing.

And what about the scenario when they continue to keep playing 6v5?

There's nothing explicitly in the ladder rules that I see, that a team with more players need to spectate for someone who disconnected on the other team. That implies that it's the right of the other team to continue playing in a 6v5 situation. Until a rule is added, forcefully spectating a player is not an option.

Everyone would agree that playing 6v5 isn't fair and you cannot forcefully spectate anyone for the aforementioned reason. There are a few that would exploit the 6v5 situation to gain a win. If I was in the team with 5, I'd rather have one of them on the spot about spectating than continue in a 6v5 situation.

Basically, 5v6 warning is shown immediately, then wait for X seconds while 5v6 goes on, if nobody sits after X seconds, put out a suggestion?

EDIT: Heh, chances are by X seconds they'd probably have scored a goal.. don't know about TBD.

[zz-]

This is so easily fixed by putting bots in ladder that unspec when teams go wrong. Like you know, every other server :v

[Tekn0]

Originally Posted by zz-

This is so easily fixed by putting bots in ladder that unspec when teams go wrong. Like you know, every other server :v

Can't tell if you're trolling or serious

[lemon]

How about 3 bots.

[sunshineduck]

scene: ball_snow

tekno, malakas, elixir, errorplane, mulu, and jewbag enter dressed in red. six random players join, dressed in blue.

elixir: hey lets all play reverse thrust trolololol
mulu: ok!
malakas: thats what she said
tekn0: wait what no please

~minutes pass, blue team is up 3-2, tekn0 has scored 2 goals~

Zana has left the game (connection lost)

[Server]: 5v6 teams
[Server]: Suggested spec: Tekn0

choose your own adventure!
- if you decide to play good guy tekn0 and spectate, flip to page 13
- if you spend a good forty five seconds trying to convince one of the other retards on your team to spectate so you can maybe win the game, flip to page 24
- if you suddenly realize that what the server said has absolutely no impact on what you would decide to do in that situation, flip to page 69 and acknowledge your idea is stupid

[Ribilla]

I DIDN'T TAKE MY THUMB OFF THE PAGE. YOU SAW, MY THUMB WAS RIGHT THERE.


There is a simple way to solve this.

The server calls out someone to spec (based on rating), if that person doesn't spec the next time they die, they get a 1 day ban. Simples.

[matattack]

Sadly it'll be a bad game for anyone who sits and possibly for those who continue to play. Bad game is bad :/ not much to do there cept let it pass n win the next one..dc's sux we can all agree but I doubt this can be enforced. I also don't think we shd work hard enough to even attempt to enforce it thru coding n what not cause it's just a bad game and these things happen frequently at times and never at others ._. we only point out the baddie games IMO.

[Aki1024]

If I had access to how long it will be until a player spawns, I could rotate spawn timers with a 1 hour spawn timer. This would rotate players on dc's automatically (with a short period until that first death of 6v5).

I don't know what kind of latency is between the log getting read, parser code running, that command getting written to file, and finally that command getting ran though. This may result in slightly longer timers for the 6 side.

(if Lamster ninja'ed this idea into tournymode, I wouldn't qq *hint hint* >.> )

[Tekn0]

Originally Posted by sunshineduck

scene: ball_snow

tekno, malakas, elixir, errorplane, mulu, and jewbag enter dressed in red. six random players join, dressed in blue.

elixir: hey lets all play reverse thrust trolololol
mulu: ok!
malakas: thats what she said
tekn0: wait what no please

~minutes pass, blue team is up 3-2, tekn0 has scored 2 goals~

Zana has left the game (connection lost)

[Server]: 5v6 teams
[Server]: Suggested spec: Tekn0

choose your own adventure!
- if you decide to play good guy tekn0 and spectate, flip to page 13
- if you spend a good forty five seconds trying to convince one of the other retards on your team to spectate so you can maybe win the game, flip to page 24
- if you suddenly realize that what the server said has absolutely no impact on what you would decide to do in that situation, flip to page 69 and acknowledge your idea is stupid

Why's there no option that says "Tekn0 joins the dark side, goes rev TA shouting weeeeeeeeeee to takusia (in spec) in hopes she'll be impressed" ??

[leggomyeggo]

I don't care enough to read any of this thread except for ssd's post (because it had colors) and the first 2 or 3, but why don't we just implement a simple rule? If >= 50% of the people on your team ask you to spectate while the teams are uneven, you must spectate. If you choose to disobey your teammates, you receive a ban.

Yes, there are problems like having people muted (me and loli), playing in capturemode (nipple), etc etc... But, overall, I think it'd cut down a little bit on this.

[Princess Squirtle]

Except that people would abuse this. It's like giving a free pass to bully some people.

[leggomyeggo]

Originally Posted by Princess Squirtle

Except that people would abuse this. It's like giving a free pass to bully some people.

Exactly. .

[elxir]

Originally Posted by Princess Squirtle

Except that people would abuse this. It's like giving a free pass to bully some people.

soo what are we waiting for?

[elmofreak]

Originally Posted by sunshineduck

scene: ball_snow
...
[Pretend it's here and scroll up to read]

^ Exactly.

I'd just like to point out togafaru was playing rev whale. I even called him out to spec. We also had a 4 - 16, loopy so I figured one of them would spectate 'cause I had the ball at that time. I even hung around the part behind the net in maze waiting for someone to but no one did.

Eventually we did have Error/Jelly spectating until the player came back.

Anyways, it was never 3v6. Not even a 4v6. Briefly perhaps, but defiantly not for long. It was for the most part, a 5v6.

[tee_you]

What about this.
We have red and a blue team. Now, someone on red team disconnect and no one want to spec on blue, then a vote box pops up with all the blue players names and the team can simply vote someone from the team to spec:-)

He is allowed to jump back in, but if he do without the red player is back he risks a ban.

Hihi

[elxir]

Originally Posted by tee_you

What about this.
We have red and a blue team. Now, someone on red team disconnect and no one want to spec on blue, then a vote box pops up with all the blue players names and the team can simply vote someone from the team to spec:-)

He is allowed to jump back in, but if he do without the red player is back he risks a ban.

Hihi

Player X rank 400 disconnects

/vote spec Player Y rank 3600

solution found!

[some poor soul]

i like the idea of suggesting a player to spec based on comparable rating. obviously, it's not guaranteed to work every time, but it's a clear improvement over the current situation and would probably be the easiest idea to implement.

although lix thinks it would change nothing (or perhaps would only make a difference in scant few games), i think social science research suggests that such a system might actually be quite effective.

for example, there is a large body of psychological studies investigating why bystanders will often not take action to help or even report to the police a crime that they witness. these studies consistently show that the strongest factor leading to a failure to act as a "good samaritan" is a diffusion of responsibility. if there are a fifty people who all are walking by and see it happen, each individual is much less likely to intervene or report the incident -- even if the victim screams for help. but if the victim instead singles out one of the bystanders and says "you! help me!" then it's much more likely that that person will come to their aid.

here's a quote from a note in the yale law journal from 1985:

In recent years, social psychology researchers have attempted to provide scientific explanations for the lack of bystander intervention in emergencies and the underreporting of crime. Rather than attributing bystander inaction to callousness or selfishness, their work points to significant sociological and psychological factors that affect such behavior. Chief among these factors is diffusion of responsibility. The presence of several or more bystanders diffuses individual responsibility and blame for not helping among the group, thereby serving both to reduce and to delay intervention, at times resulting in inaction by all.

Note, Jack Wenik, Forcing the Bystander to Get Involved: A Case for a Statute Requiring Witnesses to Report Crime, 94 Yale L.J. 1787, 1788-89 (1985) (citations omitted).