Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Scramble v1.0.0 [WCS]

  1. Default

    Can we suggest that it doesn't require 75% of the votes?

    perhaps have it so that it's roughly 55% ? perhaps with a vote weighing MORE if coming from a person on the WINNING team?
    because i have been getting complaints from players that !scramble almost never being accepted when the winning players group up and decide to not vote against scrambling....

    usually that's not a problem , but with the abundant player cuntness and vaginanism on the servers currently... i can see this as a potential problem.
    Started from bottom. Now we here. <IBIS>


    Quote Originally Posted by ZERO View Post
    Trying to hack in IBIS is like trying to kill someone in a police station, not the best idea...

  2. #12

    Default

    what cyber and What said, perhaps even a better tracker for the idiots that don't read rules or don't care

    can't be that hard to detect if someone is doing what What said, automate it, and give punishment based on it


    though i imagine that'd be a delicate process :-/
    A programming genius called HEAP
    Had trouble in getting to sleep
    So he made his lambs troup
    through a huge FOR-NEXT loop
    FOR 1 TO 10000: NEXT sheep.

  3. Default

    It is already set to .7 not .75 as I knew .75 would be too high. Currently it rounds nearest but I could have it round floor instead if you think the .0x factoring is making a big difference. I could make it so that it also globally declares the name of the user who just voted for !scramble if you all want.

    I have found that there is no way to stop the scoreboard info b/c even if it could be suppressed they can just run a status command in console although now that I think of it I should be able to intersect that command and send a null response. On that note I will look into scoreboard suppression again although I believe that it gets sent client side so I might not be able to block it. Can you see it when hit by a flash bang? There must be something that I can send to a clients system that will remove it.



  4. Default

    i personally think 0.7 is still too high imho. Should be 0.55 or .6 at max bcos to get to that minimum number of votes here, it would imply that the majority of the loosers AND a 10% of the winners think the game is not fun... And you have to consider the fact that the winners will usually want to keep winning and stacking....
    Unless you make it so that it forces an automatic !scramble if a certain team won 3-4 in a row...

    but i think we agree the big problem with that would be the money discount system.



    Zero if i want to suggest a new monetary "economy" system for wcs that would be COMPATIBLE with a 3-4 round team streak automatic !scramble, as a plugin that needs to be custom made, should i document it in the parent directory?
    Started from bottom. Now we here. <IBIS>


    Quote Originally Posted by ZERO View Post
    Trying to hack in IBIS is like trying to kill someone in a police station, not the best idea...

  5. Default

    .7 is just about perfect. Too low and it opens itself up for petty abuse. Nearly everyone here claims that they do not stack and that they want fair teams. If that is truly the case, than it shouldn't be a problem to get a scramble if the teams are lopsided, especially with .7, since that would assume the entire team getting pwned will vote for it, it will need only a handful of players from the other team.
    I hit Brett right in the feels.

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by What View Post
    .7 is just about perfect. Too low and it opens itself up for petty abuse. Nearly everyone here claims that they do not stack and that they want fair teams. If that is truly the case, than it shouldn't be a problem to get a scramble if the teams are lopsided, especially with .7, since that would assume the entire team getting pwned will vote for it, it will need only a handful of players from the other team.
    handful of players from the other team, getting a handful of people, who are winning, to want to risk losing, will be hard

    also i don't think it is that easily abused since if voted for it lasts for 3 rounds, the worse case scenario is that it keeps getting voted for every 3 maps and the server stays scrambled for extended periods of time... which isn't that terrible :-/
    A programming genius called HEAP
    Had trouble in getting to sleep
    So he made his lambs troup
    through a huge FOR-NEXT loop
    FOR 1 TO 10000: NEXT sheep.

  7. Default

    I'm assuming that it can be activated again, within the 3 map period in case teams are stacked from auto assign or other reasons. Since it restarts the map, I can definitely see some of the more douchey people on the server working to get the map restart repeatedly just to be douche bags. I do not think that the team being destroyed would not vote for the scramble, and then, as I said, it should not be too hard to get some of the other team to vote for it since we have all heard for over a year now how no one stacks and just wants the teams to be even. Even the team being destroyed can not muster up a decent number of votes, then the stackage must not be perceived as an issue, and if a minority of players on the team that is losing does not feel like its an issue, then its not an issue.
    I hit Brett right in the feels.

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by What View Post
    I'm assuming that it can be activated again, within the 3 map period in case teams are stacked from auto assign or other reasons. Since it restarts the map, I can definitely see some of the more douchey people on the server working to get the map restart repeatedly just to be douche bags. I do not think that the team being destroyed would not vote for the scramble, and then, as I said, it should not be too hard to get some of the other team to vote for it since we have all heard for over a year now how no one stacks and just wants the teams to be even. Even the team being destroyed can not muster up a decent number of votes, then the stackage must not be perceived as an issue, and if a minority of players on the team that is losing does not feel like its an issue, then its not an issue.
    i assumed that it wouldn't allow it to be activated again in the 3 map period

    and perhaps, What, you give people too much credit, since as i understood it, most of the people complaining about stacked teams... weren't on the stacked team, and with 55%(okay maybe 60-65%) and no way to choose what team you're on, then the team numbers should stay pretty even, which means it would require everyone on the losing team to feel like it's an issue, plus a small number of proud people on the stacked team

    if people wanted the map changed repeatedly we already have the RTV system in place for that
    A programming genius called HEAP
    Had trouble in getting to sleep
    So he made his lambs troup
    through a huge FOR-NEXT loop
    FOR 1 TO 10000: NEXT sheep.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kionay View Post
    i assumed that it wouldn't allow it to be activated again in the 3 map period

    and perhaps, What, you give people too much credit, since as i understood it, most of the people complaining about stacked teams... weren't on the stacked team, and with 55%(okay maybe 60-65%) and no way to choose what team you're on, then the team numbers should stay pretty even, which means it would require everyone on the losing team to feel like it's an issue, plus a small number of proud people on the stacked team

    if people wanted the map changed repeatedly we already have the RTV system in place for that
    You are not understanding anything I am saying. Resetting the map is different than an RTV vote first and foremost. It will also be easier to do if we make the vote threshold ridiculously low. Also, 90% of the people I have heard complain about stacked teams, are usually the ones on the stack teams, but they have seemed to convey a notion of, "Well, what can I do about it?" Now they have an option and if they are not full of shit and are not hypocrites, then 70% is perfectly fine. 55% is stupidly low, since it would require just about a single person from the so called "stacked" team in addition to the unstacked team. If the unstacked team can not muster their own people to type a vote command to make the teams "even" then it must not be a real issue.

    Also, sometimes, it is a single person who is making a team "stacked" in this case, all scramble would do is allow some new people to be on the winning team on a map restart, and not really help, which is why too low of a threshold is stupid. People can just vote so they have the one veteran in the server on their team, and once the other team starts to get pwned, they will want to scramble as well etc.
    I hit Brett right in the feels.

  10. Default

    Would it be possible to have it instead create/balance the teams? The most accurate way to balance the teams would probably be to average the teams K/D ratio and swap people so that they are as close as possible.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •