|
Post by Ghast on Feb 2, 2011 15:19:08 GMT -5
ACU does NOT get used by vets.
|
|
|
Post by Canto on Feb 2, 2011 15:40:16 GMT -5
Friendship/Comrades - A large majority of players want to stick with their friends and home teams. For example... If FLAK is showing up to an event on the tan side of things, I would not want to be switched away from my home team to play with a bunch of people that I do not know. It happens a lot, we (event coordinators) get a lot of whines and gripes when we so much as ask a few players to switch. Now granted, a lot of players also do not mind switching to help aid in balancing purposes. Cost - I love my Russian Kamesh and LBV... It is my all time favorite uniform. It's also quite expensive (imported)... The majority of relatively experienced players like to show off (I'm not excluded from this) and wear their new gear, new uniforms, etc. This at the same time can pose a problem... Another example would be the new Team Hellfish uniform (I won't say what it is). But I can guarantee that you guys would want to wear it at the next possible juncture... As opposed to telling you that your entire team needs to go green for an event. I do believe that by placing ACU/ABU on the green side of things for events would help alleviate the experience and numbers issue. But it's not a 'one size fits all' problem either... Not sure if this list will help or not... Green Based Uniforms: Woodland, MARPAT, Olive Drab, DPM, and Tiger Stripe. Tan/Black Based Uniforms: Tri-Color Desert, Six-Color Desert, Arid MARPAT, Khaki, Black, and Arid DPM. Subjective Uniforms: ACU, ABU, and Multicam. Civilian Based Uniforms: Contractor.
|
|
|
Post by Zorak on Feb 2, 2011 15:44:15 GMT -5
More players & teams need to make an effort to develop green and tan loadouts to make things easier for event organizers. These days GK is more likely to show up to a baby shower than an op, but our default camo options were woodland and MC, with quite a few of us able to show up in desert too.
The ideal is open and locked-in registration, so that organizers can say, "Hey, we have a dozen unfamiliar names on green and three established teams on tan. No new tan registrations will be accepted until green gets parity. If any of the tan teams would like to switch, speak up, and then we can get things rolling again." (And while we're on it, I increasingly favor the Lion Claws approach. Only two types of uniform allowed, period. It simplifies things enormously.)
I can live with armbands as a cosmetic issue but they also cause gameplay issues. In rec play I have no problem yelling "call your colors" if I see a leg or replica but no armband. In milsim play, it would really cheapen the experience.
Edit: Splitting up teams by weapon might be interesting, except that trying to ID a replica at range can be really difficult. I foresee huge IFF problems and a lot of frustration from teams that never expected to be broken up that way.
|
|
Master_Oki_Akai
New Member
Minister of Indoctrination
The Urban Medic
Posts: 376
|
Post by Master_Oki_Akai on Feb 2, 2011 15:57:04 GMT -5
Canto: Should probably put urban on the subjective list too.
Yes, the gun split sounds interesting as a new idea, but it doesn't help at all. THink about how many players have only one (working or not) gun, then think about how almost everyone has an M4 in some variation or another. Finally consider how frikkin hard it is to identify a weapon at a distance, through cover, while it may be aimed at you.
No, the only long term, real world, logistic, efficient and totally effective solution for countering broad player skill disparities is for new/weak players to get better. They get better, they are noobs no more and can stand on their own feet. They can't get better and there's nothing you can do to help them, they're always going to get rolled no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by Canto on Feb 2, 2011 15:57:16 GMT -5
The 'Weapon Origin/Type' split is an interesting concept. I feel that it should definitely be thought over and refined and it has potential. However, I foresee huge issues with it... Simply because there are and have always been more NATO/US style weapons out there than non. Even if we broke it down to strictly weapons that were used by the United States there would still be a huge numbers gap.
It's my understanding that most players (including myself) don't like armbands. We have a hard enough time giving them to people even for specialized roles (Medic/Engineer/VIP) at events and recreational games let alone an entire team for a major event.
I do like the idea of a 'Blind' Roster. Again, I feel the concept should be refined and well thought over before anything is even considered. Otherwise it could end VERY poorly. 50 Green Vs. 80 Tan.
Master_Oki_Akai,
I think we should try some of these at our next team practice. Make it an 'Alpha' test and see which concepts we can scrap immediately and which show promise.
|
|
Master_Oki_Akai
New Member
Minister of Indoctrination
The Urban Medic
Posts: 376
|
Post by Master_Oki_Akai on Feb 2, 2011 16:02:11 GMT -5
Sure thing. I know I sound like I'm poo-pooing everything, but every idea deserves at least one good legitimate test.
|
|
|
Post by Gimpalong on Feb 2, 2011 20:00:07 GMT -5
Oki_Akai, you're playing the conservative role. Which is an important role to play. Honestly, we do not need to alter a system that is working perfectly. Yet, I think we can all agree that something does need to be changed to keep things competitive. It is important for us to find the "middle ground" and you're helping us find it.
I do have to chime in for a second.
The idea that new players "just need to get better" and that this will solve team imbalance issues is, in my mind, less than sound.
Bare with me as I digress into a poor analogy. In general, high school athletic teams are divided into two groups, JV and Varsity. The two groups may practice and work together, but the entire JV is not pitted against the Varsity every day. In many cases they practice separately and face different opponents, JV versus JV, Varsity versus Varsity. The JV learn as a group, develop skills and eventually become the new Varsity. Pitting JV players against Varsity all of the time prevents the VJ from developing. You do not make up deficits in skill by pitting the highly skilled against the poorly skilled. Rather, you pit the poorly skilled against the slightly better skilled for maximal development. The way to do this at MiA events is to make sure there is a distribution of both new and veteran players on each team.
New players need to at least be given a chance on the field in order to gain the experience to "get better." Newer players who are consistently being eliminated, sent back to "spawn," and then eliminated again might be gaining some experience, but are more than likely just becoming frustrated. This seemed to be the predominate attitude among the "green" players that I spoke with at Arctic Squall.
The result of this frustration is that newer players do not show up to the next game, or that they simply decide "hey, the green team is always terrible, so today I'll wear tan." We need to foster an environment in which new players can learn, not one in which they are treated as cannon fodder. Anyone familiar with military history understands the importance of having a core of veterans.
Additionally, each year the number and type of attendees changes. Veterans stop playing, move on to other hobbies or develop new obligations that take them away from playing. New players come and go, some becoming veterans, others moving on. We will always have new players so there is little point in telling these new players "well, just suck it up, you'll get better." I think that we can all agree that all players should come into a game with an expectation that both sides will have similar chances for "mission success." The way to insure this balance is to make sure, via some system, perhaps one of the systems recommended previously, that veterans end up being mixed in with newer players.
|
|
Master_Oki_Akai
New Member
Minister of Indoctrination
The Urban Medic
Posts: 376
|
Post by Master_Oki_Akai on Feb 2, 2011 21:13:11 GMT -5
That is a good point. Of coarse we can't go and do "ranked matches" to keep JV and VA players inside their skill set. But yes, the best solution is to have an even skill spread. Unfortunatly unlike in pro sports, there's no coach keeping track of players abilities to make sure things stay even. Players have to self regulate, and that is difficult. We do need new players who are willing and agressive to learn, absolutly. And a person either has it or they don't. And I have seen and worked with my share of these players. They are VERY encouraging! But what I think we need more of (to go with it) are veteran players who take a personal interest in training up and supporting these new players. Now I know we have more than a few of these folks, but I still see more who just don't care to know, associate with them or just turn their noses up at noobs. And for me that is unacceptable.
But the goal remains to take new/weak players and raise their abilities to the tier of the vets, not to bring the vets abilities and capacities down to be closer to noob level. That's not forward progress. Best way is for vets to take noobs by the shoulder on both teams and run the field. Vets need to communicate with them and the noobs need to watch and listen. Problem still hinges on individual choices, which we can't deny players.
|
|
|
Post by Knief on Feb 2, 2011 21:33:04 GMT -5
It seems to me that the solution we're looking for has to meet a few very critical criteria. It might help to lay them all out. These are the ones that I see coming out of this discussion, but I'm sure there are more to be take into consideration.
1) The team balance must come out as even as possible in terms of numbers 2) The team balance must come out as even as possible in terms of skill (perceived skill might be the best we can do, since everybody has bad days and some new players might rock house). 3) Local teams ought to be preserved (Hellfish with Hellfish, FLAK with FLAK, GK with GK, etc). 4) Easily identifiable on the field 5) Established pre-game play (evening out teams in game disrupts play as much or more than uneven teams) 6) Established pre-game day if possible 7) Controlled by event staff, rather than players
A quick note about 7. As much as we'd like to leave it up to the players to police themselves, it won't always happen. Inevitably, there's going to be a game where teams stack themselves, even unintentionally. Leaving this possibility open means that we have an imperfect system, and that loop ought to be closed if possible. The goal here is to make this as idiot proof as possible.
With all of this in mind, I have an idea that's a bit of a composite of the ideas shared so far. In the event thread, the host identifies the uniforms that will be allowed. The players then sign up and list which of those uniforms they have available to wear and any team affiliation they have. The event host then gets to pick teams before the event begins, and attempt to form them as evenly as possible, keep similar camo colors and players with team affiliation together as much as possible.
So, for example, let's say that Canto hosts an event where Woodland, Woodland MARPAT, Desert MARPAT, Multicam, DCU, and ACU are allowed.
I would sign up as: Knief Hellfish Multicam, Woodland MARPAT
The rest of the attending Hellfish would then sign up similarly, since we all have Multicam and Woodlan MARPAT
ODA 561 might sign up as: Thor ODA 561 ACU, Multicam
etc.
So now, Canto has the option of putting the Hellfish on the team with Woodland MARPAT or the team with Multicam. He also has the option of putting ODA 561 on the team with ACU or the team with Multicam. The great thing is, he has some flexibility with where he puts what camo. Maybe the Hellfish are coming 12 strong, and ODA is coming 5 strong. Maybe adding 12 Multicam players to Team A give them too many, but adding 5 ACU players to team A will balance things well. So he can put Multicam on Team B and ACU on Team A and balance things out. Or, similarly, if 20 players have Multicam available, and that would stack a team, he can see that 10 of those players also have DCU available and separate the two groups.
I believe this would satisfy all of the above criteria, as long as we trust event hosts to guess (as well as anybody could) which players are more competitive than others. It'll be a little more work on their end, but really, shouldn't be prohibitively hard. You just start with a base and do some switching around.
|
|
Master_Oki_Akai
New Member
Minister of Indoctrination
The Urban Medic
Posts: 376
|
Post by Master_Oki_Akai on Feb 2, 2011 21:48:24 GMT -5
That's the right list alright.
Not a bad idea, playing at the "coach/manager" angle. Here's what it would require. An event manager (like Canto) who has first hand knowledge of all players who sign up (which I don't know if he does) and their skill level. Keeping track of all names (anywhere between 60 and 100+) given in the time before the event. Time to guess and flip coins as to who goes where and then publish a complete team roster at LEAST 24 hours before game day so people can prepare.
This of coarse can be compromised by walk-ons and walk-offs. Then instead of people getting frustrated at how things happened to turn out as usual, they start to blame Canto personally for not doing the job right. And it also requires players to pay attention and just list their camo in the first place then limit to the two they would use and not list off their whole damn closet.
But this one deserves testing. Maybe try it for a game in the summer where folks are more willing to change on the field if needed. But don't leave it to Canto to work the list out, instead put it to whom (you, your teammates, anybody) really really wants to put the energy into seeing the system succeed. That will guarentee the best effort and work is put forth for the best possible results.
|
|
|
Post by Knief on Feb 2, 2011 22:06:37 GMT -5
I don't know if you necessarily need first hand knowledge of every name. In a lot of cases, the best assumption you can go on is whether or not you've heard of the guy before, and how long he's been a member of the forum. It's not science, and in some cases, it will be prejudiced. But it allows the host to split up the guys who are known to be good players, and split up the guys who everybody else would assume are newbs. Nobody knows everybody, but if the host is keeping up on these boards, they should know enough to balance things out better than if the players took responsibility because the host can do it without bias (hopefully).
Walk ons and walk offs will wreak havoc no matter what the team division is. Even if teams are set perfectly the day before the game, half of one team not showing up will be a catastrophe, and teams will need to be adjusted on the fly. But that's no different from any of the dozen problems that crop up on game day. As an event host, you know you're going to have to solve problems, it's just the nature of the job. Same goes for taking flak for the solutions that don't work out. We already trusts our hosts to design and run so many different things, I don't see it being a problem to trust them with one more. If they do it poorly, they'll be told so, just like when they plan objectives poorly or start the game late, or when they fall victim to any of the other mistakes event hosts can make. If you don't trust a host to put together the adequate teams, why trust him to put together adequate objectives or herd all us players through check-in and briefing smoothly?
|
|
|
Post by Knife on Feb 2, 2011 22:26:10 GMT -5
I've got one issue with the whole idea of splitting teams up by random/by host. I come out to play with my friends, and purposefully signup to play with my friends. I'd be rather annoyed if I got split up to be honest, especially if they're teammates.
I'm generally not opposed to Knief's post above however.
|
|
|
Post by Chaos on Feb 3, 2011 11:00:33 GMT -5
1. 30 player capacity for each team. (or whatever number makes sense for that game. LOW numbers) 2. Pre-pay only. 3. 3 color desert and Arid MARPAT VS. Woodland and Woodland MARPAT.
Problem solved?
|
|
Spear
New Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by Spear on Feb 3, 2011 11:27:57 GMT -5
1. 30 player capacity for each team. (or whatever number makes sense for that game. LOW numbers) 2. Pre-pay only. 3. 3 color desert and Arid MARPAT VS. Woodland and Woodland MARPAT. Problem solved? To be honest I don't think that solves any of the problems. Low team capacity doesn't mean teams won't still be stacked. I also don't like the pre-pay idea. I'd hate to not be able to go to a game because it was announced in-between paydays. Plus you still have the problem of Tan vs. Green. All the experienced players will still prefer tan, and all the new players in their woodland bdus will sign up for that side instead. Ultimately you could still have 4-5 solid teams on one side, and a bunch of new players on the next. Ultimately, I thin Kneif's suggestion would probably work the best. It would take some more work on the game administrator's part, but it seems to address every single issue at hand. Granted, maybe not perfectly, but still better than some other suggestions. I also like the gun restriction idea. My team has tried something like that in our practices, and it worked out pretty well. I've also seen it done in some other smaller games I've been to, and it was an interesting addition. I do think it comes down to though, players being willing to switch sides every once and a while when a game is too obviously stacked.
|
|
|
Post by Chaos on Feb 3, 2011 11:33:58 GMT -5
The primary reason for pre-pay is the fact that it stops a lot of the noobs from coming.
Not that I have anything against noobs, this is more of a MILSIM or serious event idea.
|
|