Mixer Reunion...

[OldeWolfe]

I like all the thoughts and suggestions, they need to be finalized somehow, perhaps a poll...how to identify "trolls" may be a problem...how to qualify new invitees and/or the length of the probationary period...to limit or not to limit weapons...to limit the number of players per game, etc...and Gorthaur may be right, some chainers may have been scared off but I think some may return; I just need to know exactly what changes the Gang wants implemented to the CYGNUS servers (gaming and Ts3) and it's a done deal as far as I'm concerned. It may make the game fun for me again

[JaggedMarble]

We can always go with limiting teams to let's say 11. People who don't get selected in that first game:
#1 Have the server password and are free to spectate the game.
#2 You can even talk with the other people spectating the game since you're all in teamspeak.
#3 you can join a pub server for awhile, if you're in teamspeak you'll know as soon as the game is over.
#4 They HAVE to be in the next game unless they openly state that they're willing to sit again. (to me this one means they have to OFFER to sit again NOT be asked, I don't want anyone feeling like a dick because they want to play)

This might lead to people having to wait and having to pick teams when we'd rather just play same teams. However, I think that's just kinda the price we pay. Besides if only 2 people had to sit from the first game we could do same teams next round and just each team sub someone out, I know at least with the core group getting someone to do it for one map so others can play would NOT be an issue. With the core group I think it wouldn't be hard to find two people of similar skill willing to spectate for one map and I trust everyone here to be enough of an adult to not get hurt feelings when we discuss SIMILAR skill levels. I know yall are cool enough to realize we're just trying to find a way to be SOMEWHAT even and we're not trying to be mean and "none of the wah wah I'm better then him, we're not the same skill level" drama. We've all played together enough, we can make rough approximations.

As for a PURGE... While I'm not against it in theory I'm really of the opinion that everyone there should have a FINAL CHANCE to prove that they wanna be a part and they can get along with everyone. Basically everyone needs to be their "good behavior" setting. If you're still causing trouble I have no qualms with simply removing them. However, I also wanna see how limiting game size might improve attitudes, 14v14 requires so much more coordination and leads to O/D stacks or at least the illusion of because there's 7 people on defense and if O isn't coordinated that one offense dies FAST and would like feel like there's a D stack. This will also point out people who are unwilling to sit for a round AT ALL. If they make a giant stink about it well... They've proven they shouldn't be here.

[Tasadar1]

Unfortunately this thread seems to have taken a decidedly negative turn. I really hope we don't turn off anyone's desire to play TA. That being said, there is a place for nothing barred all out games, but it is not the mixer. The young guns are itching to prove their skill, and I really enjoy playing against them. That style is not fitting in well in the mixer. Nearly all of these problems discussed here are made worse when the player count gets higher than 10v10. Maybe even 7v7.

In regard to the re-union mixer, we should keep it open to all invitees, up to the server limit. We can alternate games if there are that too many people who join.
I propose that we go back to 10v10 max for the regular mixer.
We do have 2 servers available for regular mixers and could have an anything goes match going on one and an honor match going on the other. I think we could manage it on TS as a separate channel, but I am not sure.

[hairytikiman]

(02-18-2014 06:06 PM)Tasadar1 Wrote:  Unfortunately this thread seems to have taken a decidedly negative turn. I really hope we don't turn off anyone's desire to play TA. That being said, there is a place for nothing barred all out games, but it is not the mixer. The young guns are itching to prove their skill, and I really enjoy playing against them. That style is not fitting in well in the mixer. Nearly all of these problems discussed here are made worse when the player count gets higher than 10v10. Maybe even 7v7.

In regard to the re-union mixer, we should keep it open to all invitees, up to the server limit. We can alternate games if there are that too many people who join.
I propose that we go back to 10v10 max for the regular mixer.
We do have 2 servers available for regular mixers and could have an anything goes match going on one and an honor match going on the other. I think we could manage it on TS as a separate channel, but I am not sure.

tasadar we are ridding the world of trolls like our fathers rid the world of nazis.

i like the ideas.

but what we say doesn't matter.

its what we do that matters

so lets pull out the

[_Erf_]

My wordy opinion:

First off, I like the idea of the limited team sizes, however Its just hard to define and control. Do you base it on what time a player joins teamspeak? a seniority system? skill level? I think it would require more of us being willing to step up and sit out as someone mentioned earlier. It would be tough though, because Im sure most of you are like me in that I hate sitting out on a game if I could be in it. Also, you could watch one group have a great game, and the next game you are in is a 5-0 blowout, then you sit on another great game again... it would get frustrating. I would say we should think more on it, but for now, im ok with the 14v14. Maybe Im the only one but I usually have a lot of fun in them. I think making a 14v14 work better will require more intentional effort on the part of team captains. More on that below. And if we just have an absolute ton of players, we can figure out how to split it into 2 groups.

regarding the kids:
Kids do dumb things. I was a kid. I started tribes 2 as a kid. I would venture to say that a lot of people here played tribes as kids (or at least teens). yes they will do annoying things. our job as adults is to set an example and teach them. I know I did some annoying things in T2 back in the day but thankfully lightbringr put up with me and kept me in sibko and thats why im still here today. If they get really annoying, just give them a temp kick.

New Players:
I think growth is good for our community and I like to see new skill, playstyles and ideas come in. That said I dont think we should invite just anyone, and should have more of an "unofficial trial" of playing with someone in multiple pubs over a period of time before inviting them or even telling them about it. I think if we could somehow recruit completely new (low level) players that could be great too - find the lowbies who are getting frustrated about being beaten in pubs, and show them how coordinated gameplay can make the game awesome. They get better and we have more fun in the process. Win/Win. And if someone stumbles in that refuses to play in our ruleset, dont pick them for a team. More on that below too.

regarding "The Purge":
I know how you love the hammer, tiki, but except in the case of proven cheating, I dont agree with outright banning people. It sends the wrong message about the community. I would propose that we better leverage the leadership of the captains in game to both control and inspire the trouble players into a more sportsmanlike play style.

I know its not always easy for a captain to keep tabs on what is happening (since they are playing) but those of us on this forum can watch out for it as well (on both your own team and the enemy). I think the biggest thing is that if someone is playing in a way that is detrimental to the fun of the game as a whole, call them out on it. If you are on the enemy team, take a few seconds after you die to chat it. If you are on the players team, call them out in TS. Also note that they should also be called out in a civil and respectful way, not just with belligerent yelling.

For instance, one time when I was captaining, we got to a point where we were up 5-1 with 5 minutes left. Someone (I really dont remember who) got into a tank and started tank D on our flagstand. I called them out and told them to stop because there was no reason to use that tactic when we are winning 5-1. I didnt belittle them, I just told them that it wasnt a sportsmanlike way to play when we were winning like this and that it was just annoying.

If a team doesnt notice one of their own players behaving this way, but the other team reveals it in chat, then its on the captain to assess it and tell that player to alter their style. If they dont do that, assign them to a different role. If they still dont comply, then when the match is over and we regroup for new teams, we dont pick that player. They sit out. They can obs if they like. If they dont cooperate with that and start joining a team anyway, then we can bring the KICK hammer.

I think using a method like this gives people every opportunity to play in a way that's beneficial for everyone, and for those who wont, continually sitting out will probably push them away from coming back without having to use a ban.

I think it would be a good idea in general to transition the role of captain to more of a leadership role than just picking players and assigning positions. Instead of just telling people their task, work more full field awareness and coordination. I have not done a good job of this when I have captained, but I would like to improve it. Maybe this means that captains should have a less "full-time" role like capper or LD and instead fill a role where they can better assess the game as a whole, such as HO or LO.

If we were feeling adventurous, a unique thing we could try is to have the captains for each team not play at all - they would both use freelook observer and only command their team (think enders game). Of course this would create some different challenges, as "stealth" isnt as viable since the observers could see cap routes, etc. There would also have to be an honor system of not directly following players. I still dont know how I would feel about this, because as I said earlier, I like actually playing. If you like the idea we can think more on it.

Either way, I think this just puts a call on everyone here to be more willing to step up as captains and actually lead teams, rather than just picking 2 random players to pick teams. Honestly, I think the games turn out a lot better when there are two of us picking because 1 -we know most people and 2 - we generally try not to stack teams.

One last note for captains is to pay attention to the flow of the game - if you quickly jump up 4-0 in the beginning of the game, shuffle your team roster around. Put people in roles they dont play as often. It evens the game, gives players experience in new areas and it makes it more fun for both teams. Our goal isnt to win. It's for good times

TL;DR:
Growth of our community is a good thing and we should work to lead and direct it rather than stifle it.

Thanks for reading to anyone who bothered to read all that.

[hairytikiman]

(02-19-2014 03:58 PM)_Erf_ Wrote:  My wordy opinion:

First off, I like the idea of the limited team sizes, however Its just hard to define and control. Do you base it on what time a player joins teamspeak? a seniority system? skill level? I think it would require more of us being willing to step up and sit out as someone mentioned earlier. It would be tough though, because Im sure most of you are like me in that I hate sitting out on a game if I could be in it. Also, you could watch one group have a great game, and the next game you are in is a 5-0 blowout, then you sit on another great game again... it would get frustrating. I would say we should think more on it, but for now, im ok with the 14v14. Maybe Im the only one but I usually have a lot of fun in them. I think making a 14v14 work better will require more intentional effort on the part of team captains. More on that below. And if we just have an absolute ton of players, we can figure out how to split it into 2 groups.

regarding the kids:
Kids do dumb things. I was a kid. I started tribes 2 as a kid. I would venture to say that a lot of people here played tribes as kids (or at least teens). yes they will do annoying things. our job as adults is to set an example and teach them. I know I did some annoying things in T2 back in the day but thankfully lightbringr put up with me and kept me in sibko and thats why im still here today. If they get really annoying, just give them a temp kick.

New Players:
I think growth is good for our community and I like to see new skill, playstyles and ideas come in. That said I dont think we should invite just anyone, and should have more of an "unofficial trial" of playing with someone in multiple pubs over a period of time before inviting them or even telling them about it. I think if we could somehow recruit completely new (low level) players that could be great too - find the lowbies who are getting frustrated about being beaten in pubs, and show them how coordinated gameplay can make the game awesome. They get better and we have more fun in the process. Win/Win. And if someone stumbles in that refuses to play in our ruleset, dont pick them for a team. More on that below too.

regarding "The Purge":
I know how you love the hammer, tiki, but except in the case of proven cheating, I dont agree with outright banning people. It sends the wrong message about the community. I would propose that we better leverage the leadership of the captains in game to both control and inspire the trouble players into a more sportsmanlike play style.

I know its not always easy for a captain to keep tabs on what is happening (since they are playing) but those of us on this forum can watch out for it as well (on both your own team and the enemy). I think the biggest thing is that if someone is playing in a way that is detrimental to the fun of the game as a whole, call them out on it. If you are on the enemy team, take a few seconds after you die to chat it. If you are on the players team, call them out in TS. Also note that they should also be called out in a civil and respectful way, not just with belligerent yelling.

For instance, one time when I was captaining, we got to a point where we were up 5-1 with 5 minutes left. Someone (I really dont remember who) got into a tank and started tank D on our flagstand. I called them out and told them to stop because there was no reason to use that tactic when we are winning 5-1. I didnt belittle them, I just told them that it wasnt a sportsmanlike way to play when we were winning like this and that it was just annoying.

If a team doesnt notice one of their own players behaving this way, but the other team reveals it in chat, then its on the captain to assess it and tell that player to alter their style. If they dont do that, assign them to a different role. If they still dont comply, then when the match is over and we regroup for new teams, we dont pick that player. They sit out. They can obs if they like. If they dont cooperate with that and start joining a team anyway, then we can bring the KICK hammer.

I think using a method like this gives people every opportunity to play in a way that's beneficial for everyone, and for those who wont, continually sitting out will probably push them away from coming back without having to use a ban.

I think it would be a good idea in general to transition the role of captain to more of a leadership role than just picking players and assigning positions. Instead of just telling people their task, work more full field awareness and coordination. I have not done a good job of this when I have captained, but I would like to improve it. Maybe this means that captains should have a less "full-time" role like capper or LD and instead fill a role where they can better assess the game as a whole, such as HO or LO.

If we were feeling adventurous, a unique thing we could try is to have the captains for each team not play at all - they would both use freelook observer and only command their team (think enders game). Of course this would create some different challenges, as "stealth" isnt as viable since the observers could see cap routes, etc. There would also have to be an honor system of not directly following players. I still dont know how I would feel about this, because as I said earlier, I like actually playing. If you like the idea we can think more on it.

Either way, I think this just puts a call on everyone here to be more willing to step up as captains and actually lead teams, rather than just picking 2 random players to pick teams. Honestly, I think the games turn out a lot better when there are two of us picking because 1 -we know most people and 2 - we generally try not to stack teams.

One last note for captains is to pay attention to the flow of the game - if you quickly jump up 4-0 in the beginning of the game, shuffle your team roster around. Put people in roles they dont play as often. It evens the game, gives players experience in new areas and it makes it more fun for both teams. Our goal isnt to win. It's for good times

TL;DR:
Growth of our community is a good thing and we should work to lead and direct it rather than stifle it.

Thanks for reading to anyone who bothered to read all that.

good post. appreciate the effort, but I disagree. and by gauging everyone's pussy foot approaches...

it's obvious that we're not going to be fixing anything any time soon.

i'll enjoy my time with you guys any and everyday but Saturday night.

Let me know if you want me to stop trying to convince you guys to clean up the shit instead of spraying air freshener.

[OldeWolfe]

Good post Erf as Tiki said.

I would have to say this: it is not a perfect world and T:A is less than that. PC games tend to bring out the worst in some people...not only cheating but also attitudes. There will always be whiners/complainers, some who will not follow the rules and some who will have ego problems while others will simply not blend in with the group for various reasons-in some cases including the age differential. I say all of this because these are some of the reasons why servers have password and kicking/banning capabilities. If it were a perfect world and gamers played and treated everyone perfectly these tools would not be necessary. I like much of what Erf said but frankly do not see many of us willing to take the time or have the ability or skills to implement many of the suggestions...we play T:A for fun with our friends and want to jump online and play the game we all love so much. We are discussing this because we want to do the right thing in the right way and not just take the short easy way out, and it will take time for the input necessary to decide how to do that. Whatever decision we make or solution we decide upon it will not be perfect and certainly will not satisfy each of us. I hope we can stick together to reach that point...and beyond.

[Tasadar1]

Well said and amen brother!

[OldeWolfe]

A question suddenly struck me solid this morning...I'm not sure how to define what a "troll" is as the term applies to T:A players. Can someone please help?

[hairytikiman]

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6]
This sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[7][8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

---

so in reference to tribes.

someone who gets off on upsetting people.

or someone who only uses the LMG.

or someone on the other team playing INF sitting on your flag listening to when you are coming

someone who uses nothing but tanks in PUBs when FF is off.

using a tactical strike on a server when it take 2 minutes to use

---

talking about bullshit during mixer operations

---

Llama over and over again for no reason