Pheoni

First off, I'd like everyone to note my membership date, post count, and lack of supporting member tag. I was introduced to |TG| through BF2142, and hooked on the forced squad play or kick rule. Anyone who has a problem with this post can thank the -7th for my interest in |TG| ^_^. I've recently grown sick of 2142's Evercrack feel with the unlocks and awards (personally I'm bad about the one more turn syndrom from my early Civ days). I was looking for my next FPS fix when I came across a post in the TF2 forum about "team stacking".

Now when I mention team stacking (ts), I'm referring to |TG| members trying to get on the same side as other |TG| members, not stacking one side to always win. Personally I prefer to loose with people who's company I enjoy than to win with people I don't know. I also /ENJOY/ loosing. I will also go far to say that a majority of |TG| members also enjoy loosing, for without a challenge there is no room for growth. So for the sake of this argument, we'll trust that this has everything to do with playing with friends and nothing to do with being on the winning side.

|TG| is a community that supports growth through team play, for the whole is (usually) more than the sum of its parts. Now to grow as a team, you need to play as a team. Playing as a team, however, is hard when you play on a server with auto-balance. You are usually stuck with one of 4 options: wait as a spectator, constantly check for an opening while playing, only check at the beginning of a round, or just play with who your stuck with. Two of those options are unfair to the other players on the server (one by reducing the number of active players, the other by reducing the quality of play from the team member waiting to switch sides), the other two are unfair to the player as they can be stuck not playing with their teammates for long periods of time. There really isn't much of a middle ground to be had there.

So why don't we make one?

Why don't we run a server side script that will automatically pair up members of IHS together? After all, they are paying to play together, so why not make it easy on them and prevent the name calling when they do try and play together?

Now I understand that some games do not have the scripting support to allow such a server side script and other games may not want one do to the nature of that particular game community. There's also the issue of game balance if you stack one side with (what are expected/viewed to be) experienced players. But for the most part, I believe that such a feature would go to not only make play more enjoyable for supporting members, it would be a feature that people (namely me ^_^) would pay to have.

Now what I envision is a system that would pair up members of IHS based off of their tag, so if you don't wear your |TG-IHS| then you don't get paired up. IHS are also split between the two teams to promote a competitive environment and spread the TG love to non TG members on the server. So if the -7th and the -13th are playing on the server, they are put on opposing teams. Vanilla |TG| tag wearers are used to even the difference.

What if there are only members from 1 ISH playing on the server? Then you put them on the "weaker" side. Let them show that teamwork can overcome greater obsticles.

What if there are only a few |TG| members on the server? If there are under 5 |TG| tag wearers (for example) then they are put on the same side and treated as a single IHS.

I haven't covered all the issues. I just wanted to show some of the thoughts I had when thinking about it. Everyone should know the script won't ever be perfect. It will take quite a bit of scripting and testing for each individual game, which I'm willing to help with. Over all, I think it should work to strike a better balance between playing with your friends and promoting a competitive gaming environment.

Thoughts?

(For the record, I did a few searches on the topic of adding such a feature and came up blank. And yes, I did just offer to pay $8 a month to be put to work on writing server side scripts. ^_^)

Edit: On more searching I found Pokerface responsable for some server mods, and started digging up some of his posts for more info. I found /team-fortress-2-general-discussion/99320-auto-balance.html (admin link plz?). I want to point out that this would not prevent auto-balancing during a match, but will reunite the members on the next round/map. This may help cut down the discontent with the current autobalance system.

Sirusblk

No offense, honestly. But wasn't this solved in the other thread?

__________________

Pheoni

Which post? The one I linked?

If you are referring to the one I linked, then we're talking about 2 different issues. I'm suggesting a mod that teams you up with your IHS when a new round begins. The post I linked is talking about being moved teams in mid game.

I'm not proposing to take away auto-balancing.

If you are referring to another thread, please link so I may educate myself ^_^/

Chewy

We are always in talks about improving the game. Specifically, we are discussing ways in which we can help make the game-play more competitive and much less with a "stacking" feel. Hopefully we will have a solution for everyone soon... stay tuned.

__________________

Superfast

I'm sorry, but the team i'm on usually wins. TG will just have to live with it or else i'll be moving elsewhere with my awesomeness. Scripting me around is not an option

No, but if it's possible to be able to stay on same team as our others ihs members, i think that would be a cool feature to consider.

__________________

Apophis

I'm going to let the TF2 admin team deal with the bulk of this but I did want to comment on this one statement you made. In house squads were formed INSIDE of Tactical Gamer, not outside. These individuals don't pay so they can play together, they've been supporting members and then either joined or formed an existing in-house squad. Playing "exclusively" together came after the fact and is more harmful overall to Tactical Gamer than mixing it up and playing with the other members of TG during normal everyday play.

The point of the IHS system is NOT to provide exclusive little cliques within the structure of Tactical Gamer. It was designed to promote in-house competition and cross-training and help get people used to working in small teams. This system has been VERY distorted and will be undergoing an overhaul as part of the restructuring we're doing.

Your proposal to make it "easy on them" reminds me of something I heard Vicente Fox say in an interview yesterday. Illegal immigration into the USA is only a problem because we've made it illegal. If we make it legal, no more crimes will be committed crossing the border. So I guess we should go easy on them and allow them to do their own thing rather than asking them to maybe consider the rest of the community and help show newer players what TG is all about. We'll get rid of the philosophy rather than asking people to follow it.

Personally, I think that all of the in house squads should realize that participating with others is how they came to find TG in the first place. This participation was the work of OTHERS before them and helped make TG a great place to play. The newer players and squads that have formed since BF2 hit the scene should give back and contribute to future growth for the COMMUNITY and not just themselves.

With all this said, your proposal does sound interesting as it balances out the players across the two teams. But I don't want to end up with a situation where all the public players are on one team and a single IHS is on the other leaving the public team with potentially no leadership, teamwork, or structure. THAT is not what this community is about and we never would have gotten where we are today if we adopted that philosophy.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

Nemesis

Apophis,

I think you can look at any one of my posts and know where I stand in regards to TG and how I feel about this place.

But I seriously have to take exception with that comment. I find it offensive and basically, so far out of what I expect from TG as to make me reconsider my stance.

I'm not part of any IHS, but I did come in with BF2. I also have a good amount of people I consider friends in almost every IHS we have running. So does that mean that I haven't contributed to the community? Or how about all the people that have joined TG since BF2? Many that are here because of the IHS's and the way the "newer" players took to this place, believed in it and pointed them here. WE represented TG the right way and I take exception to anyone that will say differently.

But now I'm being told that I don't get it? That I don't contribute to the community or its future growth? Come again?

I seriously think there is a HUGE disconnect between what you wanted this place to be and what's it has become. The Admins, do an amazing job and they help hold this place together. But it's the members, paying and non paying alike, that make this place special. Because, we ALL buy into it. Maybe not in the way you want us to, but it's there none the less.

And I really think that's where the problem comes. TG isn't what you expected or really wanted anymore. Seriously some of your recent comments sound exactly like something a parent would say after their kid grew up to be something other than what they wanted, or expected.

Yet you have to take responsibility if TG isn't the TG you hoped for. Because where we are now was done with EVERYONE'S consent. Something I think a lot of people that are in Admin positions should remember the next time they decide to drop the "you aren't being TG enough" hammer.

It seems that TF2 has become the battleground over "OUR" TacticalGamer and "THEIR" TacticalGamer. Why? We're micromanaging the game and players to a distressing degree. But then we tell people, "Hey, come play on the TG servers! We'll show you the RIGHT way to play." Ummmm....how do you expect to do that when you've basically just alienated most of the |TG| player base that was into this game?

Now I realize that some comments made by some IHS members may have come across the wrong way. And I'll also concede that some people that claim to be |TG| really, when you get down to it, aren't. There are agenda's being pushed, but not all of them are coming from the "membership" side.

It really just makes me sad that such a broad brush is being used to paint all of the BF2 crowd in such a harsh light. It's uncalled for and basically beneath anyone that calls this place a home. Yet the voices of a few have tainted the ideals of the many.

It's become, "You're either with us, or you're against us." I'm sorry, but I just don't see this issue in as black and white terms. But the hounds have been released and the hunt, it seems, is on.

I pay money to this site because I believed it in. Maybe not everything down to the letter in which it was concieved, but the spirit of the place. Today, I'm just not sure where that spirit has gone. Or if my faith was misplaced.

I guess I need to re-think a lot of things as well.

Edit: Sorry for the Hijack, but I really needed to voice my opinion on this.

__________________
It's all in the Reflexes.

Apophis

I think you're forcing my comments to apply to you when they really don't apply to you at all. When BF2 started at TG the whole concept of our IHS system started to change. It turned into something we didn't intend. I've never said that BFx players are bad, or they don't belong, but I am saying that the IHS system changed considerably over the past couple years.

This also does NOT have to do with any one IHS but more to do with individuals themselves. So please don't go out of your way to be offended here.

As far as "micromanaging TF2" goes. I'm not sure what you mean as I can't see anything really off the wall at all here. I think you may be referring to the mere DISCUSSION about rules between admins during your brief tenure as a TF2 admin. If admins simply discussing the game between each other and suggesting resolutions to issues they see and trying to think ahead a bit is micromanaging, then every game under the TG umbrella is micromanaged because the admins DO tend to discuss stuff like that even though 99% of all "rule" propositions end up being discussed out of requirement or actual need.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

Beatnik

This (and similar quotes that have been made since TF2 beta was released) reminds me of the Simpsons halloween episode where Kang and Kodos assume the forms of Bob Dole and Bill Clinton in a pre-election debate. Alien Bill Clinton is speaking at a rally and says, "Abortions for everyone!" and the whole crowd boos. So then Dole says, "Ok, no abortions for anyone!" and the crowd boos again. So then he says, "Ok, Abortions for Some, Miniature American flags for Others!"

The same "all or nothing" perception applies here. Frankly, the only people that think that IHSs "play exclusively together" are those that aren't on the server. It's this erroneous "all or nothing" perception that keeps getting promoted in the forums - that because we want to play together, we ONLY want to play with each other, and not with anyone else.

That's simply not the case.

In reality, we try to play together when possible, but not at the cost of competitiveness or even teams. But go through the forum posts the past couple weeks and you'll see a consistent pattern. People with precious few hours in game making broad generalizations about the supposed conduct of people in-game, putting allegiances to their squad above competition in game. Which, again, is not the case.

I have to agree with Nemesis that it kind of feels like a suddenly hostile environment to try to have a good time in with comments like that being made. It's very frustrating to be an active participant/admin/advocate in this community for the past couple years to be painted with such a broad brush, particularly when the issue has no basis in reality.

__________________

Apophis

I can't say that "The IHSs play exclusively together", but I can say that some people DO feel that way. Similar to your Simpsons reference, some squads want abortions and some want miniature American flags.

You are NOT being painted with a broad brush. I did not say that ALL BF2 players or ALL IHS MEMBERS represent the problem. It's just a select few INDIVIDUALS.

EDIT: Regarding my statement that newer players and squads that have formed since BF2 hit the scene should give back and contribute to future growth for the COMMUNITY and not just themselves; This is still most certainly the case. If you give back and contribute to the growth of the community rather than just yourself then you're already doing what we need! Saying that members of the community SHOULD do "something" does not mean that all members of the community are NOT doing that "something". That's taking my statement, making it the opposite of what I said, and then applying that in the worst possible scenario.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

Beatnik

That sounds pretty broad to me.

__________________

Apophis

Let me clarify this as well;

This is NOT a slight on ANY game at TG. Not BF2, not BF2142, and not the members of the community that helped build those games. If that's how you're reading this, ask for clarification because that is NOT what I'm saying.

The community did great with BF2 and BF2142. The individuals that helped get those games off the ground did great as well. What we need is that same type of perseverance focused on TF2 as we did the BFx series. We need that free of any IHS complications, tags, mottos, avatars, signatures or anything else. We need the members of the TG community to be wearing a TG community hat and not an IHS hat to get things rolling properly.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

Apophis

Well, that is broad. The IHS structure did get very distorted from its original intent. The changes didn't go un-noticed over time though and I let the structure change as it did. That doesn't mean I can't reflect and say "wow, things really changed a lot and this isn't doing what it was meant to do any more" without that having that need to be some sort of personal insult to anyone.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

Apophis

Okay.....

I've spent the past couple weeks trying to explain the concerns and have been under attack for this from a variety of fronts. I'm not sure I've explained myself very well because these same questions keep coming up.

It seems like these days I can't post under my name and note when I'm speaking personally without it being taken as official TG policy.

I think I know how to plainly say what I want. I just need to word it like it was going to be an announcement and not any of my "personal" feelings:

Please try and consider while you're playing games at TG that we want to make this a good experience for everyone. We want our regular members, supporting members and TG-minded public players to enjoy themselves while playing ALL of our games.

If players could kindly be conscious of the negative effects of team stacking that would be a great help. If you're already conscious of this and do what you can to keep things fun for all, fantastic! At the same time, try and remember what drew you to Tactical Gamer in the first place and set the best example you can for others. We've grown a lot over the past couple years and things have dramatically changed in various areas of the community. We'll get through the growing pains and do what we can to accommodate our expanding community, such as our current project of re-classifying and coming up with unique primers for each classification of game. Your patience, understanding and overall community focus would be greatly appreciated and extremely helpful.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

BHack

Personally, I don't see why anyone gets 'offended' by anything at all regarding this stuff as it all just boils down to having fun playing video games. Which, is not the SERIOUS BUSINESS some of you want to make it out to be.

TG isn't a clan, its just a place where people come to play games a certain way. Sometimes, TG gets it right, sometimes it doesn't (my opinion). The philosophy works REALLY well in tactical games like armed assault, ghost recon, etc but sometimes not so well in other games where you need to put more trust in the developer. It IS possible to play one game on a TG sponsored server, and decide to go elsewhere for a different game. That seems a lot easier than trying to FIGHT THE MAN and attempt forceful change everytime you disagree with the direction one particular admin team takes with one particular game.

As an example, I exclusively played Battlefield games here, never even considered playing Armed Assault anywhere else (even admined the title for a time), but don't really want to play TF2 here. The reasons are mainly that, in this particular game, I want to A. Rocket Jump B. Hurt myself for medic uber C. Cuss D. Play with my internet friends without a 3rd party complaining and dealing with the ensuing e-drama.

I'm not even sure if all of those things are against the rules, but even if ALL of them were I'm not mad at TG for having them. I don't really care. People can run servers how they want to in our free market gaming society. I'm sure I'll come back to a TG server for future titles and in the mean time peruse the forums and contribute my awesome posts.

I'm happy - I've got a place to play with other people that mostly want to play the game like I do. TG's happy because they have their own TG server run to their standards. And now everyone else in the community is happy because I don't have to come to the forum constantly trying to post things that are inflammatory and in total disagreement with everything the admins say and do.

__________________