I'm probably treading on hallowed ground here but here goes.
For a long, long time I've thought that the principle of sending reinforcements to a beleaguered opposition was, well, daft. It seems to me that with both teams having equal numbers, the winning or losing is down to skill, tactics, communication and, speaking for myself, luck. Imagine Tottingham Hosspers playing Arsersnol and Tottingham going 3-0 up. Is it likely that they would send over a player to 'balance' the teams?
Here's an example from last night. I was CT team strength 6. We were up 5-3 against a T team, strength 8 (iirc) Out goes the call for 'First to die swop' Which I did. At this point I should add that CTs were playing in a very 'pro' way.
When I arrived in the opposite team HQ they were having a good laugh and not taking it too seriously (That is NOT a criticism) and consequently having their asses kicked! Not too severly though.
They should not have been rewarded for their lack of....commitment. :D
The only time team balancing should/ought to take place is if one team is over endowed with talent. 8 Buttas v 8 Doormen would not be fun or balanced!
That's probably more than 2c worth, but hey!
Good points. maybe the admin call to the under achieving team should be "do you want a player to swap?"
Quote from: BlueBall;237458Good points. maybe the admin call to the under achieving team should be "do you want a player to swap?"
I think they usually will in my opinion, it doesn't make much sense to me that if you are being thrashed then to leave the teams uneven.
Unfortunately, CSS isn't quite like football, as they will be treating it more seriously, rather than a booze-fuelled Meathook on a Friday night.
Quote from: Lee;237470I think they usually will in my opinion, it doesn't make much sense to me that if you are being thrashed then to leave the teams uneven.
Unfortunately, CSS isn't quite like football, as they will be treating it more seriously, rather than a booze-fuelled Meathook on a Friday night.
Than you haven't seen that drunk referee yet :lmfao:
But yeah team balancing is hard when you have a serious and a fun team, though. Its even unplessent when you are at the serious team and wan't to play serious games and are forced to swap over. But i must say the games i've been in where rather nice, we didn't really swap much yesterday after 10ish or so, and had many games of 8-5 or 7-6.
But at the moment that there are 2 teams, playing seriously, and they are unballanced, either by the butta effect (double or tripple the nr of kills then the 2nd best shooter) or by having several or by having one team with better players (or players with more money for proper guns) then admins have to make sures it'll balance again, maybe not within one game (cuz if you are down with 5-0, and then make it 5-5 teams aren't ballanced either) but atleast for the next round.
(when you are 5-0 behind the game should end 8-5 ish and not 5-8ish if you get what i mean)
The thought occured to me that this smacks of the politically correct idea that there should be no losers. Everyone takes home a certificate! But that's a different subject. :rolleyes:
Doorman, good point well made.
To help this discussion on, I have a comment to make.
Sometimes when I join, I do what we all do and press tab to look at the scores (good so far).
But let's say the scores are 5-0.
Recent joiners (just before me) see the ass kicking going on and join the losing team (again all good).
The problem though is that the teams can end up totally unbalanced with say 12 players versus 4.
Why is this a problem?
Because the game then is no longer fun because we are looking at the team joining thing from one view point only (that of numeric balancing). The losing team then often pwns big style due to their higher number of playters (not always)
However, it might be an idea for those joining (if they understand enough) to decide to join the team with the least players even though they are on the winning team?
I would add one proviso here:
I would suggest that if an admin has seen someone joining and that they are ready to join, the admin should suggest (or team switch) which team to join, even to the point of joining the winning team.
Do you see where I'm coming from?
Basically, what I'm saying is that if the whole point of our gaming is balanced gaming, then balanced gaming can be achieved sometimes even when joining the winning team.
many people join in spectate mode and then ask which team they should join.
Works for me :)
Quote from: BlueBall;237491many people join in spectate mode and then ask which team they should join.
Works for me :)
Definitely the best option IMHO and you don't miss much.
Quote from: BlueBall;237491many people join in spectate mode and then ask which team they should join. Works for me :)
I've been asking lately. Not always I get a reply. However, when I do, it has worked quite well. Be sure to look for chatter or text asking for sides, and take the time to pick one for them, instead of answering "whatever" unless it really doesn't matter :) My 2c to the pool of coins here :)
It's a good comment jabbs,
My own approach is to try and work out if the losing team has had any new players, just looked at their kill/deaths. If its difficult to work out, Spec and ask, usually those in game have a better idea of how much team balancing has occured.
Team balancing is difficult, our methods are simple enough to let us get on with the game, but they do have their cons.
Its not fun for 1 team to be losing 6-0 but then its not fun to lose 7 games on the trot after the balancing.
I remember a time when the admins could swap 1 player from 1 team for another player on the other team of their choosing, so you could even the teams without stacking numbers! think it was a mod or something.
So if andy mcnab has a score of 30-0 and the counter terroists are 6-0 up, you can swap him for lib and then the teams will be fine:g:Not sure if this mod works in css though? or the name of it :doh:
Well we dont have anything that can do that, but we can just manually swap two people around.. but then it might just start a bit of whine from the people swapped.. its been seen before..
It's not a big deal to me. If I'm on the "fun" team and getting absolutely trounced it's not cool, but a player usually swaps. Even if we still loose as long as it's not a walkover I don't mind too much.
I have an answer. Nobody swap teams, let the admins move people if neccessary. We have the admin chat, we can chat in the background.
I know the game to which Doorman refers and I'd already said we didn't need no stinkin' help. I was more than aware that we were not taking things too seriously, and also aware that people on the other side may have been all organised.
Leave it to the admins, admins should undertake to have one on each side for exactly this purpose. The admin should act as a team rep.
You could all stop taking it so seriously, that would help. As would Browne standing on my head behind the box.....made my night that did.
Quote from: Benny;237553I have an answer...You could all stop taking it so seriously, that would help.
Wise words. :thumbsup2: +1