This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2  |
Author Topic:   Clan war setup
kv
Member
posted March 09, 2005 08:12 AM            
Shortly before the last clan war it was suggested that the player count be upped to 6 members per clan.

Discuss.

I personally have no problem with it. More targets for me.

(if you received an email about this issue, please do not discuss it. I'm personally dealing with that.)

IP:

=DNX= Matrix
Member
posted March 09, 2005 09:19 AM            
DNX has no issues with a 6 player limit. Should liven things up a bit.

[This message has been edited by =DNX= Matrix (edited March 09, 2005).]

IP:

=CAT=PABLITO
Member
posted March 09, 2005 09:48 AM            
We don't have a problem with 6

(I'm not sure if LDA is using a new utility but it was handling very good last night, almost like it was sharing all resources as evenly possible! cool. There were about 11 people at the time )

IP:

=DNX= Ni
Member
posted March 09, 2005 11:07 AM            
Respect to Matrix's point but I'd like to offer my individual perspective: I VOTE YES!

IP:

=DNX= Matrix
Member
posted March 09, 2005 12:07 PM            
I sent them tools to optimize their connection MTU settings pabs. These tools are freely available in our members FTP should you want them. It does help to have good settings at both ends.

IP:

Irascible
Member
posted March 09, 2005 03:28 PM            
I have no problem with six - just as long as LWA, GA, TBI, MOD and whatever other clan that doesn't stand a chance doesn't bother to show. That'll leave us with three clans and 15 to 18 players. The server can handle that.

Are the bigger clans so desperate to win that they are willing to completely wreck the game play? The purpose of the limit was to keep it competitive and to reduce lag. The competitiveness is a non-starter at 6. DNX, CAT and maybe BWL (I actually have hope) might be able to field six. The rest need not apply. And lag? Holy Crap - what are you people thinking? It's already bad. Let's make it worse, shall we?

Require a minimum of four players to show for each clan and I'm all for it. This is competitive play. Make it so that there’s real competition. Either that or call it what it really is: A DNX / CAT grudge match with the rest of the clans providing the targets.

IP:

Irascible
Member
posted March 09, 2005 03:40 PM            
Consider carefully. There is the law of unintended consequences. Don't know what I mean? You will.

IP:

kv
Member
posted March 09, 2005 04:52 PM            
I don't think the big clans are looking for easy wins, they already finish in the top places all the time. Letting them field an extra player isn't going to change that.

bandwidth isn't really an issue. Only about 2 clans have the ability to actually field the extra player, and most of the lag issues have to do with people dropping and joining throughout the event.

what I find most interesting about the last clan war was that even the smallest clans were able to hold their own against the larger ones, at some points even ranking higher. No, they don't win, but they don't get totally destroyed either. I'm also reluctant to tell someone they can't play just because some of their members can't show up. We already basically require a clan to have 3 members to be able to call themselves a clan, more restrictions just make people leave.

IP:

=DNX= Matrix
Member
posted March 09, 2005 05:20 PM            
"call it what it really is: A DNX / CAT grudge match"

- LMFAO !!! U kill me man.... where did THAT gem come from lol .... DNX have been planning a friendly with CAT clan for a while now, and Bam is experimenting with server settings - whats wrong with that ? and why see it as a basis for undermining the whole clan war numbers thing - how is it even involved ? neither CATs nor DNX proposed the number increase, that was LWA Kv in his capacity as server Op - and dont complain now, too late, you were given the opportunity and you declined.

As is the way with this community, were talking it through and getting opinions - is this not the course of action you always advocate anyway ?

Duh !

[This message has been edited by =DNX= Matrix (edited March 09, 2005).]

IP:

Irascible
Member
posted March 09, 2005 05:27 PM            
Uh... no. The big clans don't already finish top place all the time. It's only in the last few months that DNX has even moved to second place. And how long have they been around? BWL hasn't won in quite a while.

Lag was consistent the entire time irregardless of people joining or dropping. It just gets that much worse when they do.

Your comment of interest is a fantasy. I'm saying that there's a top three and soon to be top two. The rest need not apply. Take a look at the 1st vs 4th place scores of all three games:
100 to 51
99 to 48
99 to 47
There is no competitiveness whatsoever except for the top three and soon to be possibly two clans. Upping the limit will increase lag and exacerbate that disparity. Competitive games are not welfare programs of fairness. They're competitive. Rules are there to keep them that way. Any major sport limits the number of players on the field. Are you all verklempt about the poor souls that got cut? I didn't think so.

Give this thread a week before you declare any decision as having been made. We have plenty of time.

IP:

Irascible
Member
posted March 09, 2005 05:28 PM            
Abso-freakin-lutely Matrix. I insist on discussion. And I'm in the process of discussing. :P

And as always, you're factually confused: /forums/archive/ubb/Forum2/HTML/004377.html
It was proposed by DNX (who has recently been able to field the most) and most loudly supported by CAT (who had just signed their sixth active member). In other words, the two clans that stand to benefit are naturally the two that support it the most. kv brings it up here precisely because of Coax's post. kv said as much. There's nothing wrong with lobbying for self-interest. Just don't blow smoke up my @ss telling me it's anything but self-interest.

Give this thread a week before you declare any decision as having been made. We have plenty of time.

[This message has been edited by Irascible (edited March 09, 2005).]

IP:

666
Member
posted March 09, 2005 06:20 PM            
the more there are...the more for me to frag....Mwuhahahahahahahhaha...LOL

IP:

kv
Member
posted March 09, 2005 06:23 PM            
about scores:

are you supprised that clans with twice as many players get twice as many kills? My statement was that big clans place higher, the pics from the last clan war support that. And considering that 4th was outnumbered almost 2:1, making the rate of attrition 1:1+, that's an impressive score.

about lag:

I only saw lag when someone joined, and given recent changes to bandwidth, I currently dismiss any other arguements until a later date.

about support:

yeah, the two most vocal people about this are in the two largest clans, but i'm joining them in support of this. I've made it clear that I play for fun, so I don't stand to gain or lose anything in this. We have the bandwidth to do this, so why not?

and I now see another small clan supports this.

[This message has been edited by kv (edited March 09, 2005).]

IP:

kv
Member
posted March 09, 2005 06:29 PM            
hmmm... I reviewed my math, it's a little off, but the point still stands.

IP:

666
Member
posted March 09, 2005 06:32 PM            
Well, Susan had 2 comments regarding all of bickering in the forums.

TM members squabble like a bunch of old women.

There will always be lag...deal with it!

IP:

pablito
Member
posted March 09, 2005 06:42 PM            
lol, yea the point stands.

**Is there a way to share players' resources to the main server (cpu & ram)?... How cool would it be to have a 50 player clan battle?...

bwl will stand in their position for quite sometime, you can try "6" once and see what happens... I don't think the goldentanktrophy.jpg will be stolen or lost :P

IP:

666
Member
posted March 09, 2005 06:45 PM            
Well for the lag issue, though you may think differently, the map choice will make a difference.

If you dont beleive it, try a little experiment yourself. Using the stock Pinnacle map and the Clan Pinnacle map in single player mode use 24 AI with 5 teams. Set the time for 20 minutes. That would make it 5 members on each team. Tell me what your experience is like and the time it took to reach the 99 frags if you do.

I know you will be surprise at the difference between the 2 maps on the action, the spawning, and the lag.

Well, as for agreeing with the raised limit...well I have always thought that it should be open to all, though it is never fair for the smaller clans. So Ras has a point.

Forgot that you will will need to set the single player mode for team damage, team score, and AI skill at 100% for the test...let me know what happens. OH yes...if possible take out the shadow...only if you know what you are doing though. You will need to put it back in.

[This message has been edited by 666 (edited March 09, 2005).]

IP:

Irascible
Member
posted March 09, 2005 06:59 PM            
I bicker like a young women thank you very much.

IP:

=DNX= Matrix
Member
posted March 09, 2005 07:12 PM            
Ras you ARE a young woman lol ....

Reviewing your post, i find myself consistently amazed at the sheer effort you put into discrediting others - you are a true master of the art. As you state i am factually wrong - the idea was put forth by Coaxs which i supported by experimental means.

BUT

If you go further back, to my original post about a different way to score matches via Killers Excellent System - you would realise that kill% per clan does not depend on how many players it has - that system does away with all that; it has still to be tried TO MY KNOWLEDGE and would be an ideal solution to how many ppl attend per clan if the winner is chosen by kill% instead of total kills. How coulkd anyone in any fairness expect say MOD to come first if they show with 1 player ?

As for how long have we been around - well - about 14 to 15 years... and ive seen a LOT of score methods, ive never agreed with TM's method 100% opting instead for the solution created by Killer on my behest.

The solutions are there..... lag will always be an issue, all you can do is play with the formula - and ppl must move and evolve with the situation... If theres lower lag maps, and higher bandwidth available - play with it and find a new balance !!

If scores are unfair - get a new method that is fair - stop bickering about it, just get off your arse and accept it... or at least TRY IT.

There were too many clans to cope - i created a solution, a lot of maps had lag, 666 helped with his clan maps, a yadda a yadda a yadda and forgive me if i keep bleeting on, but THE ANSWERS TO ALL THESE ISSUES ARE ALREADY AVAILABLE... just play with them and find a nice new medium everyone is happy with instead of moaning like a bunch of grannies about hw their false teeth dont fit properly. Do Something About It.... Be Proactive. Ras, all you do is MOAN ABOUT STUFF, but when the opportunity arose, you said "no thanks"... get off yer arse man.

The LDA is on a new system, in a new office, on a fatter pipe with tweeked MTU settings... we as a community have created ways to reduce lag and make room for more clans and players - so like, why are we still discussing ?

I say TRY IT !! Instead of fostering an environment where ppl live in last years technological and available gaming climate.

My 2p.

[This message has been edited by =DNX= Matrix (edited March 09, 2005).]

IP:

Irascible
Member
posted March 09, 2005 07:58 PM            
You've never seen me oppose the frag/death methodology Matrix.

As far as any alleged effort put into discrediting you goes, tis no effort at all. You make it waaay too easy on me. LOL! :P I mean come on man. Coax's post isn't that old.

I proposed the ONLY real solution to lag some time back. That's proactive. You opposed it. And countering your nonsensical self-serving bull - that's REALLY proactive.

IP:

synack
Member
posted March 09, 2005 08:01 PM         
"irregardless" ??

ouch

ain't no such word.

IP:

jujaga
Member
posted March 09, 2005 08:05 PM         
I do agree with Matrix, that percent idea seems quite good, like adding up all of the frags in the session, then having each clan be compared to the overall, a fraction if you will. I am taking math right now, and that seems to be a good idea... of course, the system of percentages has to be fine tuned a bit... to be able to accurately determine the ranks... those are my 2 cents for today... odd... these cents look green... o well.
Also, I always get a ping of 300, but that's cuz I use a cheap old modem... lag... in the clan war, I didn't see any change going on at all on the number... just an observation...

------------------
=MOD= FISH!!! Whee!!! RB/RBT/TM anyone? Modulus :D Firefox 1.0 Rocks!!!

IP:

kv
Member
posted March 09, 2005 08:09 PM            
ok, this is getting way off topic. Can we please keep the discussion on the player count change?

IP:

Irascible
Member
posted March 09, 2005 08:10 PM            
If NY Times can use the word, so can I. Of course, they're mostly comprised of liberal crackpots. So I best reconsider.

IP:

jujaga
Member
posted March 09, 2005 08:15 PM         
Another 2 cents then... leave it at five...

------------------
=MOD= FISH!!! Whee!!! RB/RBT/TM anyone? Modulus :D Firefox 1.0 Rocks!!!

IP:

This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2