Leaderboard

Hi, I have a suggestion to revamp the current warning system. Right now when people get warned for anything, mainly spawnkilling, it takes 4 warnings in a single map to face any kind of consequenses. In this case getting kicked. This makes it very easy to abuse the system by spawnkilling, getting warned once or twice and then stopping before getting kicked. Repeat on the next map or whenever it suits their team again. Today I learned the warnings are stored in some sort of history so I thought of this idea: Start counting the warnings by map, by day and by week and place punishments accordingly. For example: 3 warnings in a map -> kick 5 warnings in 24h period -> 1d ban 7 warnings in a week -> 3d ban 10 warnings in a week -> 1w ban Didn't spend much time thinking of proper amounts but you get the idea. What do you think? In my opinion it's not very difficult to play without warnings so this shouldn't affect active players that much. I just see the same people get warned over the same things over and over, abusing the system because it's so easy. At least this way the regular spawnkillers would have to watch it if they don't want to get banned.

I like the idea of SR. I thought it will solve the unbalanced teams problem. But it doesn't work as we want. Why? Because SR is not calculated well. Some players, who are not making a big difference when joining a one side, have very high SR. Also, I noticed that these players who really makes a difference have SR between 20-30. I think we have to improve SR system. I'm not sure how it is calculated in the back-end. I think it's time to look at the algorithm and look at the data. Pick common data for good players. I'm not sure if SR is counting when a player is playing with bots. My opinion is that SR shouldn't increase when there are bots on the server. We can gather all the data about the user (avg. acc, avg. hs acc, win/loss and more) All we have to do is to choose the right weights for the data. We have data, so we need to make some UX Research and analysis. After that, I recommend resetting SR. We did one iteration of SR system. From my experience, developing a software, it is about repeating these loops: research, prototype, develop, test. I know that probably it's a request for Legacy developers, but I think it's worth to ask them Talking about ideas you wrote. I'm not a fan of making shuffle at the beginning of each map. It will ruin the game.

I put it here.. one map to suggest: UJE_Rotterdam.. I didnt have pics but google with name and you see something.. Its quite fun map

Team balance is topic of an ever going discussion. We've had countless threads on here about the issue and we tried so many things. In the end the conclusion has always been that the only way to keep teams balanced is to make people aware of team-balance and ask them to be considerate before joining a team. And sometimes maybe even swap mid-game in case people from the other team leave. It is something we expect from our members, and very much appreciate to see from friends, regulars and guests. Members can shuffle in warm-up but this is far from a guarantee for team-balance. In fact it often makes it worse as well. I have needed two or even three shuffles to get it a bit decent again. Force-shuffling every round will ruin the game once it would finally be balanced. Also, winning or loosing a round is often confused with unbalance. If teams were to be exactly 50-50, in theory the defending team would always win. My advice? Try swapping teams if your team is crushing the other; winning a round from a team that seems much stronger is the best fun you can have. Very often it takes one good medic with one good engi to take the round. Even if the rest of your team is crap. And accept that team-balance in games will always remain very peculiar.