Danimal

Map Poll Update: 36 players voted! Thanks everyone who joined in! The results are starting to show clear favourites: Top maps so far: Erdenberg_t2 (14 votes) ETL_SP_Delivery (12 votes) Decay_b7 (11 votes) ETL_Adlernest (10 votes) Library_beta3 / Bremen_Truckmod / ETL_Supply (9 votes each)

At request, added some missing maps: Warbell, troop train, base race, praetoria mission 2 25 peeps have voted so far Special delivery favourite map to date, followed closely by Erden. 1️⃣ ETL SP Delivery 11 8.8% 2️⃣ Erdenberg_t2 10 8% 3️⃣ ETL Adlernest 7 5.6% 3️⃣ Bremen Truckmod 7 5.6% 3️⃣ ETL Supply 7 5.6% Strong mention to: Decay_b7, Oasi final, Pirates final, 6 votes each Library beta3, Haemar beta1, ETL Frostbite, ETL Base, ETL Braundorf, Cluedo, 5 votes each

Thanks for the feedback PatrickJane... and this is exactly the kind of difficult balance the admins face - completely opposing views. Good to have a very clear and strong opinion. You could still vote anyways regarding what your favourite maps are?

hi @meanmachine, thanks for voting and providing the feedback on the post being confusing. Let's have another go... Right now the server has a system where a map can only appear again after fifteen other maps have been played. This keeps things varied. It also means the most popular maps don't come up that often. If you miss your favourite map, you might not see it again for a quite a long time. The purpose of this poll is simply to find out which maps the community enjoys the most. If there are clear favourites, TeamMuppet could choose to let those maps appear a little more often in the voting pool. Nothing drastic, just a small adjustment that would make the rotation feel better for most players while still keeping plenty of variety. So the poll is here to show which maps people actually want to play more regularly.

Hey all, I just want to start by saying how much I appreciate the work TeamMuppet, Flo, and everyone involved put into running this server. In my view, it’s by far the best place to play ET. Everything below is simply a suggestion from a regular player who enjoys the server and wants to contribute something constructive. Over the past few months I’ve noticed that the map voting pool often includes a lot of new or lesser known maps, while the most popular ones only appear every fifteen or sixteen games. As i understand it, the server currently only allows the same maps to be played once a 15 map cycle is completed. As a result, favourites like Erden and Delivery etc show up far less often than many players would like. This can be very frustrating... especially if you have an absolute favourite and miss it. I understand the intention behind encouraging variety and giving new maps a chance... it keeps things fresh. At the same time, I think there might be room for a small adjustment that still respects that goal.... allow the most popular maps to appear slightly more frequently in the voting pool. These maps are popular for a reason... they are balanced, fun, and attract players. Allowing them to be voted on more frequently would make the rotation feel more satisfying for the majority of players, while still keeping space for new maps. To help TM think about this, I’ve set up a community poll where each player can vote for their top five maps. The maps that receive the most support would be an indication to TM about which maps could, if they were so inclined, get special treatment. Meaning they could reappear sooner in the rotation, for example by reducing g_minMapAge for those maps only. I spoke briefly with Flo about my frustrations with the current config and he mentioned how difficult it is to please both sides. Some players want more new maps while others prefer the classics. This suggestion aims to give both groups a fairer system. Please vote below for your top five maps. It will also be interesting to see if there are clear favourites. Pick the 5 maps you enjoy the most. The poll contains all 32 maps currently on the server. You can vote for up to 5. Vote here: https://strawpoll.com/e7ZJaMY0Gg3 Feel free to discuss your choices in the thread too. Thanks in advancce for taking part. The more votes we get, the more informed TM can be about what maps people actually want to play. Hopefully, our friends at TM will consider allowing these maps to come up more often in the map pool selection. Cheers Danimal

Nice post. I'm in favour of SR because on balance i think it helps to encourage objective play. Otherwise, more players than currently would just play for frags. SR is definitely imperfect and there are real issues... as you mentinoned stacking, late‑match quitting, and people protecting their rating instead of playing properly are real issues... they do affect the quality of games. but ultimately it's up to the players themselves to not try and manipulate the system and be fair to everyone.

Can it not be set by SR? i.e. you would need an SR of 10 or more? Or something like that? I really don't know what would be the practical way of doing it could be. I have no tech skills, so no idea how to implement it. Maybe someone else might know a way?

I wanted to start a new topic and float an idea. Should there be some sort of limit on who can use heavy weapons? For example, a minimum skill rating could be required before a player can take a panzer or mobile MG. This would reflect both the scarcity and destructive potential of these weapons, as well as the risk of team damage when they are used poorly. In practice, newer players often pick soldier and simply do not yet know how to use heavy weapons effectively. On the other end of the spectrum, very low skilled players can end up hogging the panzer for multiple rounds, which can seriously hurt team progress and objectives. This is not meant as a criticism of newer players, but rather as a way to protect team balance and encourage learning of core roles before using high impact weapons. I am not sure what the right approach should be, but it feels like a problem worth discussing. Are there better ways to handle heavy weapon access without hurting new player experience? Interested to hear what others think. Just an idea for discussion.

many thanks for taking on the feedback and engaging with the thread

Playing erden yesterday from the beginning of the map as allies... with around six minutes of the map left I'm forced to "balance" to axis.... meanwhile other strong players joined allies a couple of mins before i was forced to move to axis and were able to remain in allies. It's really frustrating and not fair imo. Allies ended up losing the map. I know i keep bringing this up but its just so frustrating and I think from this thread you will see it looks like the majority of players agree with me. Can't TM members just re-join the weaker team if they are balanced away from it?

I second this motion... def better to swap late comers than those that have been playing from the beginning of the map imho.

Exactly this... its pretty often that a strong allied team would lose players in the closing minute of a map due to getting too frustrated with a good axis defence and then someone that has really battled to get to this point is then moved... I strongly think if you started the map for a team, then in most cases you should be able to finish the map with that team.... maybe lost's idea of not allowing the balancing in the last few minutes would be worth attempting if you dont want to move late joiners to the other team...

No one would claim SR is perfect... but it's what we have... not sure what else you could use to discern players easily (without having team captains pick their teams!)

Thanks for explaining the changes... I understand now why you moved away from the old system. That said, I think the current autobalance is worse. Yesterday on Erden I started as Allies (we only had about a 20% win chance) and six minutes in I was switched to the much stronger Axis side “for balance.” That really is not what you want to happen. Maybe a hybrid approach could work? For example: Prioritise moving players who joined the map more recently. Put some limit on SR so that stronger players who deliberately join the weaker team are not the ones moved. A big problem is high skilled players joining a map late and "stacking" ... these guys should be the ones first moved to the weaker team.

Thanks for the reply although I am not quite sure which parts you did agree with? 😉 Duration of being on the server I agree that the total time someone has been on the server should not matter. However, I do think the duration within a specific map or round should be a factor. That is why I felt U!p’s football analogy was a fair comparison imho. If you have been playing the whole match, it is different from just joining at half time or late on. Stacking teams I do not mind rebalancing at the start of a map (shuffles etc) or early if teams end up stacked, but towards the end it feels unfair. For example, yesterday DC1 joined Axis midway through the match and I was then switched to Allies near the end, despite starting the map on Axis. Our SRs were very similar, but I was the one moved. That did not feel right and was just very annoying. Moving skilled late joiners I agree that it would be bad if someone with high skill joined the weaker team late and was then moved to the stronger team, making the imbalance worse. But in practice, that kind of situation seems rare. As you hinted with your Allies comment, players very rarely leave the stronger side, so auto-balance usually ends up targeting people who have been there from the beginning. Playing Allies Fair point... I have actually been playing Allies more in the past week but understand what you are saying... btw there are some players that just want to play allies so it works both ways. SR frustration Just to clarify, SR can still be affected. A week ago on Frostbite, I was moved from Axis to Allies with only 3 minutes left. Axis then lost, and I dropped 0.18 SR. I went spec rather than continue. For me though, it is not only about SR... I only play for the objective, which is why it is more frustrating. I never play for frags. From what I have seen, you seem more focused on frags, which might explain why we view this differently. Football analogy I understand your point about public servers being different from scrims, but I still think the principle holds. If you have put the time and effort into supporting your team from the start, it feels wrong to be pulled away right at the end. And just to add, I completely agree with your point (which you often make in-game) that people switching teams mid-map just to join the stronger side is terrible for balance. I have never done that, and it definitely undermines fairness. "Maybe the simplest solution will be to disable autobalance when there will be only some % of the time left to the end of the map. Because usually this wont change anything if someone will be swapped 2-3 minute before end of the map." I think it is better to keep numbers even and so i would be in favour of moving anyone who had joined the other team after the start of the map...

Hi all, I was wondering if it would be possible to tweak the auto-balance system so that players who have been on a team from the start of a map are less likely to be switched late in the game. Instead, balance changes should prioritise moving players who joined midway through (or later), unless there really are no other options. The reason I bring this up is that I have been switched quite a few times with only 3–5 minutes left, despite having played the entire map from the beginning. It feels especially unfair when someone who joined my team just minutes earlier gets to stay, while I get moved. It is frustrating when you have spent the whole round fighting hard to support your team and push for the win, only to be pulled away at the last minute. For me, it is not just about SR (though that matters too), but about the time and effort invested in backing the team you started with. I completely understand that balancing is important, and sometimes it is unavoidable that long-standing players get moved. But in most cases, I think it would feel fairer if late joiners were the first ones affected. Just my two cents... curious to hear what others think.

Not running out of spawn and blocking others is one of the most frustrating things in ET for other players. It can also result in multiple players dying when leaving spawn as their short window of invulnerability has been lost as they try to pass through you. It's a shame that we are not allowed to knife you out of the way as sometimes peeps can get very blocked in...

I will support any change that doesn't mean the map comes to abrupt end without anyone winning. Your idea U!Ps sounds cool!

Thanks for the reply MiniMuppet. That is exactly what I meant. What about a halfway house where if the teams are drawing then you extend the time by 3 or 5 minutes (or if someone goes 1 nill up in that time period the game ends immediately) ? Dont know if this would be possible. It's frustrating to play for 20 minutes and have no winner - but i totally understand if it is a stalemate then you don't want it going on too long.

Can we return to sudden death? Also, is it worth calling it a win automatically when a team goes 5-0 up? Otherwise peeps can end up playing for ages without a hope of winning.

Let's reopen this topic and rerun the poll! I hate the prone tactic... but if you can't beat them, join them... it's started to creep into my game after seeing how effective U!ps is with it... much to my shame.

I don't see any point in playing ET (even pub) if you are not trying to win/defend the map. Why would anyone play engineer if there is no point in moving the map along? Also, what's the problem with moving onto another map? It can be equally frustrating for "objective" players when others in the team are not focussed at all on achieving/defending the objective. Beach can be incredibly frustrating as an allied player just getting spammed on the whole time or shot from a distance by someone high... the only reward from an allied perspective is to win the map through the objective. Some of us are not good enough to play 3v3 or 6v6 or simply don't want to return to competitive play. BTW, love having players as skilled as Mxt0r playing on the server... long may it continue, even if the maps end quickly

Is this actually in place? I don't think so? I havent noticed not being able to pick up my med packs? As someone who plays medic a lot and actually tries to revive players rather than just frag, I'm against this change. Quite often I will literally run into fire to revive someone or pull out my syringe to revive before firing back at the enemy. This often results in my death or being very depleted in terms of health - I need those health packs in my bag! If I can't self-heal... I will not revive first, shoot later... I will shoot first and revive later (if still alive) and i would imagine a lot of meds will not bother running into the line of fire to try and revive a teammate. If you want to alter the balance, my recommendation would be to reduce the effectiveness of the needle to two thirds of someone's health rather than a full revive. But I too would like to reduce amount of arty and mortar that can be fired by a player... my two cents...

Agree on the allies snipers being impossible to see... very frustrating. Also think the tank is too much of an advantage to axis (if they remember to fix it at the start of the map)...

@Nanaa My god Nanaa! That was some speed run! How many times have you saved allies from certain defeat!