Will this be a configureable option in the ini file for those who are paying to host a DS. If we choose to spend our money to game with our friends then why should we be punished?

When someone says we're team stacking on our server; I usually tell them there are other servers they can go play on if they choose to do so. Anyone who doesn't know they are playing on a clan server must not of noticed our MOTD since you can't miss it.

Also how will this work with the current auto balance functionality? I.E. if I am on a team of newer players and the opposing side full of generals for some reason looses players. In this scenario the current functionality would trigger an auto balance am I then penalized when I am moved over to the other side?

this is g8

These look like a good set of changes!

A couple questions...

- Does the reduction in reinforcement points happen only to the "stacker" or to the whole team?

- Does the autobalance happen at the beginning of each match or just when I join the server? If not at the beginning of each round, how do you account for people leaving between rounds?

- Can this option be turned off on unranked public servers?

- A concern is that our stat-obsessed comrades will replace stacking with simply dropping out of games. Has this been taken into consideration?

- Why doesn't the reinforment rate change kick in if there's a player imbalance? For example, when a game starts out 8 on 8 and two from one team drop, why wouldn't the short-handed team get a boost?

Thanks again! Your continued efforts supporting the game is appreciated...

But will these features be configurable?

I still don't see stacking being much of a major issue here, since I see it all the time on FPS games.

This is bad. Reduction of reinforcement points? How many points are we talking?
Also, what mechanism determines if the sides are "balanced" ? Will it be purely based on rank? If yes then that sucks. What you really should do is to make the autobalance feature even out the teams based on each players score (in the current match). Like the current system, but you switch the worst player of the inferior team with the best player of the best team. And if necessary, several persons can be automatically switched. Rank only tells how long you have played the game, not how good you are.

It effects individual players not the team as a whole.

I really like the idea. :D

When you say "...based on rank" do you mean shiny icon score based rank or ladder based rank? Ladder rank would probably be better.

This sounds very promising and will surely be a lot better than the present situation. Then it will be all about tweaking it or introduce further improvements to the model.

Quote from XitArS:
This is bad. Reduction of reinforcement points? How many points are we talking?
Also, what mechanism determines if the sides are "balanced" ? Will it be purely based on rank? If yes then that sucks. What you really should do is to make the autobalance feature even out the teams based on each players score (in the current match). Like the current system, but you switch the worst player of the inferior team with the best player of the best team. And if necessary, several persons can be automatically switched. Rank only tells how long you have played the game, not how good you are.

To expand on this further just because someone is a high rank doesn't necessarily make them a good player. I've seen many high ranking officers who aren't necessarily doing well in the matches. I would hope the definition of a good player will be based on their scores, ladder positions, and role they are playing. IE I might suck at infantry but I might be really good at armor. If I am forced to play infantry on a supposed stacked team; then in theory the team is being penalized even further.

Also have to wonder if the supposed stacked team begins to loose will the reduction factor decrease allowing them to potentially turn the tables and begin to win or fight back?

Not bad of an idea,however I also think this should be in the config file for server owners to change.
People are paying for their servers and I personally I think Massive has no business telling server owners how to run their servers.Unless Massive wants to reimburse each server owner

Now,this said, here is a possibility of solutions,which I already posted on my unit website

-indicate on the server,on the website and on recruitment thread that admins reserve the right to kick people to make space for unit members
-get a second server with the same rule
-if any unit becomes friends with "free" players(players with no unit whatsoever), and especially if those players indicate that they would rather play with that unit than anyone else, consider them as 2nd most important after unit members
-each and every unit needs to remember that recruitment is not only thru forum spamming but also on servers.Having players not affiliated with any clans play on our server regularly is a good thing because they like playing with us,they like how the server is run.This potential can lead to them becoming members of dominion
-where the issue comes as far as I am concerned is other clans.Basically indicate on the server rules that other units are allowed up to 4 people on the same team

Quote from [MSV]Soundboy:
Hi all.

We don't expect this to go out of the park on the first try, so your feedback is invaluable.

Do note however that I will prefer not to discuss changes to the system until you've actually tried it. I will happily answer any questions on how the system works of course.

Answers:

-A server running with Rank balance will automatically have "stay on team" enabled.

-If people drop during cycle then it may be uneven for a while. People usually fill up the slots pretty quickly.

-It's a DS setting so you can turn off the feature completely.
If it's turned on it will ignore the [StayOnTeam] setting. We are working on a list of DS settings that ranked servers must comply with (stay tuned for that). The Rank balance settings are not a part of that at this point. This may very well change! But for now you are free to do what you want on your "own" servers!

I am glad to hear that this is a DS setting for those of us hosting servers. Look forward to seeing what the DS setting requirements will be.

Alright, in theory this is a good idea for all, but there are issues that need to be addressed...

1. As I understand it, players will be automatically placed on a team dependent on their rank. There is really no stopping players from creating new profiles and being under-ranked as mentioned in another post on this thread.
2. If you attempt to play this game online without any sense of teamwork, you can plan on accomplishing one thing: Turning your units into magnificent large billowing pillars of smoke and fire that the rest of us can all stare in awe at. That's why this new format should/must incorporate sticking clan members on the same team. For those of us who want to play with our fellow teammates, having a system that discourages (or worse, penalizes) that teamwork in a game like WiC would be wrong.

I realize that I am fairly new to WiC, so please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

-Bear Sanders

Quote from [MSV]Soundboy:
Hi all.

We don't expect this to go out of the park on the first try, so your feedback is invaluable.

Do note however that I will prefer not to discuss changes to the system until you've actually tried it. I will happily answer any questions on how the system works of course.

Answers:

-A server running with Rank balance will automatically have "stay on team" enabled.

-If people drop during cycle then it may be uneven for a while. People usually fill up the slots pretty quickly.

-It's a DS setting so you can turn off the feature completely.
If it's turned on it will ignore the [StayOnTeam] setting. We are working on a list of DS settings that ranked servers must comply with (stay tuned for that). The Rank balance settings are not a part of that at this point. This may very well change! But for now you are free to do what you want on your "own" servers!

Let me get this straight and use an example:

Lets say that it is a 16 slots server. We have 5 people from the same unit(lets call them A) and 5 people either without unit,either from a different unit(lets call them B)
Would the A(all 5 from the same unit) be able to play together against the other 5?


Also, what happens if the feature is turned off?The server would remain as now?

As long as this functionality stays configureable the following will not be a problem, however if at some point this becomes a mandatory setting there is going to be a sizeable issue with smurfing. I hope this will be seriously considered along with any decision to make the setting mandatory.

As smurfing is an entirely different topic it does relate to this setting in a big way especially in clan matches where smurfing is considered by some to be the greatest threat.

I applaud Massgate....er....MASSIVE :) on addressing this issue. The concepts in the update look solid, and will undoubtedly upset some people. Look forward to seeing how this works out in the future.

If Massive were EA (*gasp*), then they would have been like: "whatev", and continued charging people $10.00 for 3 new maps.

Quote from [oWs]Sixshot:
But will these features be configurable?

I still don't see stacking being much of a major issue here, since I see it all the time on FPS games.

Agreed.

Quote from [MSV]Soundboy:
Answers:

-It's a DS setting so you can turn off the feature completely.
If it's turned on it will ignore the [StayOnTeam] setting. We are working on a list of DS settings that ranked servers must comply with (stay tuned for that). The Rank balance settings are not a part of that at this point. This may very well change! But for now you are free to do what you want on your "own" servers!

I suggest that this setting be optional and not mandatory for ranked servers. Let the players decide for themselves if they wish to play on servers with this setting on. Again, I stress that I see stacking quite often in FPS (and maybe other) games. Stacking is a non-issue for me. If my team gets beat badly, so be it.

Also, since this is to be a DS setting... will this setting be viewable when browsing through servers? And can it be filtered?

WOW - now we are heading in the right direction EXCEPT one HUGE thing you have not taken into account (elsewhere in the forum you can see my breakdown of stats) - The top scores by the very nature of NOT (and absolutely should) having a built in difficulty factor WILL all be Support, some Air and a few Infantry specialists.

In your new scenario the top 16 against each other will have 2 choices:

1. 2 teams of support players blowing hell out of each other from distance
2. Some of them will be forced to play roles they are not the best at and you have a farcical match.

I am proud to be an armour specialist and and even prouder to be acknowledged as such but I know I have reached my limit on the general ladder - the support guys get 1500 points a game without raising a sweat while I am lucky to get that score in a day!

I will sit and work it out mathematically EXACTLTY from the stats but my guess ( and I did spend a day working it our statistically) is a weighting factor something like this:

Look at the top twenty in individual roles before you pass judgement on this:

Support: X 1
Air X 1.1
Infantry X 1.2
Armour X1.4


I think it is wider than that actually but I will take say the top 100 players and work out exactly what their respective percentages are for each of the 4 roles - those that read this analysis and actually check what I do are going to be in for one massive fright (pun intended)

In the meantime I love this pastime and play probably more than I should so I am not griping, just trying to help improve the accuracy of ratings.

Quote from [*DOM*]Mathews:

Quote from XitArS:
This is bad. Reduction of reinforcement points? How many points are we talking?
Also, what mechanism determines if the sides are "balanced" ? Will it be purely based on rank? If yes then that sucks. What you really should do is to make the autobalance feature even out the teams based on each players score (in the current match). Like the current system, but you switch the worst player of the inferior team with the best player of the best team. And if necessary, several persons can be automatically switched. Rank only tells how long you have played the game, not how good you are.

To expand on this further just because someone is a high rank doesn't necessarily make them a good player. I've seen many high ranking officers who aren't necessarily doing well in the matches. I would hope the definition of a good player will be based on their scores, ladder positions, and role they are playing. IE I might suck at infantry but I might be really good at armor. If I am forced to play infantry on a supposed stacked team; then in theory the team is being penalized even further.

Also have to wonder if the supposed stacked team begins to loose will the reduction factor decrease allowing them to potentially turn the tables and begin to win or fight back?

You got the point, i'm always wondering why are those 'naive' noobs always yelling about high ranker = good player?? Is it true the higher rank gives u better skill? the answer is absolutely NO! I've seen too many 3~4 star generals not doing well in matchs, i even call some of them are noobs. The only way for me to consider a good player is the STAT. A Lt. can be very good player (without statpadding) and a general could be a noob (with statpadding).

When is the update coming?

This is the biggest pile of “*@#*@” insert your explative “in the world.
So because whiners didnt want to lose, freinds will no longer be allowed to play with each other, and if they do they are penalized.
I will tell you what will happen…….
1 : You will lose players, period . - Forcing / penalizing good players from playing togther is equvilent to telling the a good sports team, they have use fewer players, just so the other team has a chance.
2 : Most obvious, freinds will dump there 4 star profiles, use no ranks and completly destroy the other team. In fact this will allow good players to force the other team to have reduced units on the field. Because LT’s, captains, etc.etc still want there 4 stars. So the good players under altenate names all privates will have even more advantage.
mmmmm. great f…..ing idea.
Massgate there is no need to socialize / commie up a game.. Let people play it the way the frigging want to.

I wish to add something to my rant above.

I stated that this is a game. Do you get better at a game or at anything by wining. NO… I became a better player by losing, and losing a lot. Learning from mistakes. Me and my friends all sucked and lost a lot at first. And we become better by playing togther. But we didn’t get better until we figured out how to stop losing.

But again this is a game. Why should I or my friends be penalized for playing together.

With all that said, I will switch to the “noob team” I give the 3-6 games to listen. If they don’t play as a team, or attempt to play as a team I leave. Also, I’m close to 40 years old. I don’t want to play a game with 8 year old kids. Why in the world are you trying to force me to play with people I don’t like or care to play with.

This is downright stupid and for some reason you want to make this game politically correct.

In a previous posting I made mention of something better than what you are suggesting. Rather than reducing reinforcement points, ta, auto balance or things like that. Why don’t you just make every game a tie. NO ONE WINS, EVER. Because if you lose , oh its soo sad. And while where at it, lets remove all the weaponry from the game. Just give all the soldiers lollipops and balloons. And instead of tanks make them clown cars. Instead stead of choppers give air, hot air balloons that sprinkle fairy dust on the everyone.

Oh and no TA for arty , Chem. Strikes or nukes. Just TA for group hugs and puppy dogs .

And since your making sure that everything is fair, who needs ranks or medals anyway. Everyone should just be a private forever. Or better yet, why don’t we all just throw the game away an go outside and pick daisy’s.

Sierra, you want to have a good game, you want to be the game of the year. When you play multiplayer on public servers in Halo, or other games, do they force you to play with idiots? No they let you play with your friends. If you force people to play with people they don’t like, then why play the game at all. Bottom line, this will hurt your reputation, and it will hurt sales.

DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT penalize people for playing with people they want to play with. You have a good product, do not try to force social engineering into a game.

This new fix is gonna ruin my gameplay with my buddies . We love pwning noobs on pub servers but with this new thing its gonna be harder. I never cared about teamstacking because someone always went to the other team. In short i think this fix is only gonna be good for all the beginer players and bad for all the skilled players. Personally i think theres gonna be more negative talk about this from the good players then positive.

plese note everything im saying here is simply opinion and do not try to correct me if my points do not sound fair to u.

Quote from StupidMonkey:
This is the biggest pile of “*@#*@” insert your explative “in the world.
So because whiners didnt want to lose, freinds will no longer be allowed to play with each other, and if they do they are penalized.
I will tell you what will happen…….
1 : You will lose players, period . - Forcing / penalizing good players from playing togther is equvilent to telling the a good sports team, they have use fewer players, just so the other team has a chance.
2 : Most obvious, freinds will dump there 4 star profiles, use no ranks and completly destroy the other team. In fact this will allow good players to force the other team to have reduced units on the field. Because LT’s, captains, etc.etc still want there 4 stars. So the good players under altenate names all privates will have even more advantage.
mmmmm. great f…..ing idea.
Massgate there is no need to socialize / commie up a game.. Let people play it the way the frigging want to.

I wish to add something to my rant above.

I stated that this is a game. Do you get better at a game or at anything by wining. NO… I became a better player by losing, and losing a lot. Learning from mistakes. Me and my friends all sucked and lost a lot at first. And we become better by playing togther. But we didn’t get better until we figured out how to stop losing.

But again this is a game. Why should I or my friends be penalized for playing together.

With all that said, I will switch to the “noob team” I give the 3-6 games to listen. If they don’t play as a team, or attempt to play as a team I leave. Also, I’m close to 40 years old. I don’t want to play a game with 8 year old kids. Why in the world are you trying to force me to play with people I don’t like or care to play with.

This is downright stupid and for some reason you want to make this game politically correct.

In a previous posting I made mention of something better than what you are suggesting. Rather than reducing reinforcement points, ta, auto balance or things like that. Why don’t you just make every game a tie. NO ONE WINS, EVER. Because if you lose , oh its soo sad. And while where at it, lets remove all the weaponry from the game. Just give all the soldiers lollipops and balloons. And instead of tanks make them clown cars. Instead stead of choppers give air, hot air balloons that sprinkle fairy dust on the everyone.

Oh and no TA for arty , Chem. Strikes or nukes. Just TA for group hugs and puppy dogs .

And since your making sure that everything is fair, who needs ranks or medals anyway. Everyone should just be a private forever. Or better yet, why don’t we all just throw the game away an go outside and pick daisy’s.

Sierra, you want to have a good game, you want to be the game of the year. When you play multiplayer on public servers in Halo, or other games, do they force you to play with idiots? No they let you play with your friends. If you force people to play with people they don’t like, then why play the game at all. Bottom line, this will hurt your reputation, and it will hurt sales.

DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT penalize people for playing with people they want to play with. You have a good product, do not try to force social engineering into a game.

u have some good points there. Cause if u get less reinforcement points then that means u get less total score n TA and theres gonna be some major negative feedback on that for sure. This game i dont want to play with all the idiots who suck at the game and drop heavy arty. And i dont wanna go to the team my friends r playing on only to find out that i get no reinforcements points to get a decent score. I think that u need to strap this idea of fixing team stacking to 400 pounds of C4 and throw it out the window. Cause ppl who love to play together to kill and dominate the opposing noob team are gonna get realy fed up with this idea. No one who plays good at this game cares about the noobs on pub servers who complain about team stacking.

nothing keeps you from playing with your friends and having all your points to spend - only if the other team is much worse than your's. And that's fair isn't it? Like a handicap in golf? or auto-adjusting skill-level bots in FPS games? or Auto-team balance in fps games? That's been around since unreal.

Quote from House^SpazAttak:
nothing keeps you from playing with your friends and having all your points to spend - only if the other team is much worse than your's. And that's fair isn't it? Like a handicap in golf? or auto-adjusting skill-level bots in FPS games? or Auto-team balance in fps games? That's been around since unreal.

This is more fitting of how golf works

Stacked team get's handicap'd and looses. System then determines that their handicap must not of been fair (assuming same players stay) and adjusts it making it less of a penalty or better yet the system dynamically alters their handicap throughout the game if they continue to loose prior to the end of the game. I only say this is a more adequate compairson to golf because a players handicap technically is fluctuating to some degree with each match they play.

I think the real result will be that the newer players will harrass the stacked team and the result of what's really going to occur is that there is going to be a greater rift than ever between the top players and the lower players. More experienced players will flock to non public DS servers where this functionality is disabled.

This will essentially leave the public servers to new players as the new players get better they will realize that they no longer want to play under the same scenario either and will try to migrate away. People like us who host a ranked DS server will quickly realize that we can't meet the demand and keep our own members on the server without constantly kicking people. Our next logical step then will be to password protect our server and give out the password to the people we want to game with.

In the long run the community will begin to dwindle and fade away. The ultimate result after massive realizes this will be forced Team Stack balance on for all DS Ranked servers and if this happens I know we will be hosting one less ranked DS.

M