uips

so it only stores data of amount of wins for both teams if im correct? What about downscale every time limit is reached? for example if current balance is allies: 250 wins , axis 150 wins. Match limit: 400 Allies win 251 ; 150 ; total value = 401 (over limit) downscale to 400 Allies: 250,3741, Axis: 149,6259 Idea behind it ratio is the real value that bias shows. Ratio stays the same. This way it is as next match will always be 401th one. So it will endlessly simulate 401th match. Also could start with initial values of 200 for both teams, Whenever u load a new map it is already 200 wins for both teams and it starts working its way towards balance from there. No big fluctuations and always gradual dynamic flow

Another problem with reset is that in the beginning the fluctuation is very big, it will slowly start working towards static number. for example 11th match will cause around 5% change in bias. I Think most optimal data range is 100-500. As 100 keeps updating fast enough, 500 will cause minimal change of 0,1%. Going over 500 will lose the dynamic effect. If u take most popular map, how many times it is played in one day if anyone knows the answer. (15min map, 4 maps in hour. 96 maps per day, 16 rotation cycle that is 6 times a day, so rough estimate maybe 5 times a day?) Cycle of 100 will refresh in about 20 days (month). Cycle of 500 will refresh in 100 days (3+ months). And every time there is a change for example spawn time it will take the cycle to work slowly towards new number, automated process no need for admin to manually do something. I think using data of x last matches is the best way to go, depends how hard it is to achieve it But yup reset will at least erase all old data so the number can become true value.

that explains why some bias become so "static"

is it very hard to make it use info of last maps only? for example influence on value of past 100 maps is around 0,5%. That means every match will cause about +- 0,5% change into Map bias. Change on 2000 is 0,025%. That means to make a 0,1% change in bias one team has to win map 4 times in row. (0,5% change in bias is 20 maps win in row). Eventually it just becomes static number. Down is little graphic to illustrate the change in bias as the data range goes big the line becomes straight. Using limited value range rather than total value will bring live updates to bias that would present current state of map in the server more accurately and it keeps changing in real time.

yup, very general answer. I was curious about the fact if it takes into account total amount of maps or past x amount of maps. Because if it is total amount and it has been for example million matches, from that point on nothing will probably change the bias as in reality people can get more skilled, learn more tactics, server side or legacy tweaks can affect the outcome. Probably 10 last matches is not enough accurate data. Infinite amount of data will make the bias unchangeable eventually. I think more accurate presentation would be over x amount of last matches. 100, 200 etc at one point trend diversity will minimize and from that point on it will give same result even after 10 million matches. For map bias to reflect change it should be calculated over past matches, not total matches. I see almost no change in map bias of some maps.

Does anyone know exactly how map bias works? algorithm behind it?

Map bias +28% in favor for allies. Current spawn times Axis: 20sec Allies: 12sec either -2sec to axis spawn or +2sec to allies spawn might make things a little bit more even and easier for axis team.

Here is more accurate visual concept of the UI. I think it looks good. Less info faster processing = easier. Perhaps only 1 vote you just click the button and it is done

I believe smaller list is still better. As the before next map start is very small. Current big list and 3 votes get overwhelming. + There is general stats of players and just random chat after each map that happens in that little time window. I used to try give all 3 votes, decide what gets 3pts, what 1pt. It really took too much time and it was boring to compare and analyze from my perspective. I quit using other 2 votes. What i do now is quickly go through the whole list and throw 1 vote for map i want to play next. And i still have time to pee before next match starts. If lowering the map count does not give the desired outcome: Never see your favourite maps all night. Then maybe change the algorithm that chooses maps for the list can be changed (making sure there is always one popular map in the list). Maybe the whole voting system might need little rework to make it easier for server admins to set it up as preferred. (Map count, Amount of votes, Value of each vote, Map list preference: popular maps, unpopular maps, big maps, small maps). Another think players or TM members can do is try endorse next map in chat. It does seem to be a fact whenever someone calls out one map in chat to vote next, that map actually ends up with more votes .

That is true, i cant see any other Legacy server that has enough players to even compete with TM server. Shooting 2 rnades into blind tunnel because you can count spawn and due the high amount of players very high chance to cause lot of damage and kills. If engineer power bar is equal to 100,. Then right now one rnade shot takes 50 from that bar. That means you have 50 left for another rnade shot or other engineer jobs (constructing etc.) For example if one shot would be 75, you are left with 25 and need to wait till bar charges 50points, up to 75 for another shot. Iit takes 15sec to charge 50points then that time would be the delay engineer has before he can shoot another rnade. That is 3.33 charge per sec. For example making the shot 60pts makes the delay to next shot 6secs. (Some more examples in attached picture). This eliminates rnade "spam" as u cant shoot next one right away. And another cost is it does take more from engineers powerbar aka other potential engi activities. To me not a an issue, involves more micromanagement as choosing to use rnade can cause lil more deficit on powerbar. Maybe using rnade at all situations is not the optimal way. Again perhaps my personal preference, might not be agreed by others.

I think the biggest unbalance happens when server gets full, value of rifle goes up as each "random" or not random shot has higher chance to hit and cause damage due to increased population. When lots of players are pushed into small areas (small maps) they become very easy and appealing targets to aoe damages. Rifle can be very deadly in hands of skilled player. If anything fixxed limited value of rifles or rnades. From my point of view the rnades have most potential so lowering amount of rnades seems more logical to tune down the amount of heavy aoe damage (From current 8 to 6 or 4). Or make rnades eat up more power bar so they can not be spammed (from current 50% to 75% or 100%). I think any kind of scarcity makes gameplay more fun, as u need to think and plan more to be effective. (Ammo, HP, heavy weapons, nades, also self killing as option to refill yourself). That might be just my preference. Having to think more about such things would add another layer to the game compared to current press K before spawn and take down as many enemies as possible (seems most effective). Scarcity should increase the value of items and therefore decrease randomness of events as people might think twice before using their kit.

I agree on lower map count as well (8, 6 or 4). Right now it is 10 i think. Usualy half of the list is 0-to few votes. Most of the time it is competition between 2 maps, sometimes 3. This should lower the random diversity and it is actually easier to process and choose between smaller amount of maps. Preferable less votes as well down to 2 or 1 from current 3. Right now it is 10 maps 3 votes (3pt, 2pt, 1pt). I think it is too much information processing. It would be really easier to just pick from smaller list with 1 vote?. Get done with voting fast and effectively. Preferably in about 5secs. What i do right now is go through list of maps choose one and hit 1 3 Pts vote to get done with it. Making the voting process easier and more endorsement might get more people participating in it.

https://github.com/etlegacy/etlegacy/discussions/1939

I remember playing et pub 20-30 players with spawn times as high as 30sec. Bigger spawn times decrease the "activity". But most players might enjoy fast paced game with low spawns in a public server.

i agree on lowering rifle nades. Full server In some maps where there are limited ways and small corridors can result in lot of spam (Specail delivery upper corridor is nade heaven for axis). What about making a event for week? to try less rifle nades for a week Think it is not a bad idea to try "new" things or balance tweaks? Can always reverse back if makes things worse and people really dont like the change. Another option would be to limit amount of rifle weapons.

i have seen this in use in another server. I do not recommend it. It results in mess as people start changing votes in last secs to 2nd fav or whatever. Manipulating the voting system, making last minute changes in favor of yourself. Not seeing the result until voted will not let u manipulate the voting as it will give true result. If u do not like the result then u are not the part of majority at given time. Accuracy of the result depends on the % of people voting. Making the list smaller will also decrease point spread as there will be lesser few vote maps. Perhaps make it list of 6, compared to current 8 if i am right Another option would be to decrease chance of map appearing on list based on amount of votes received. This will give more chance to other not so popular maps but also its questionable to limit popular/favorite maps as it seems majority of people rather keep playing those. Average rotation seems to be around 13-15 maps, maybe after 14 maps, 15th cycle a custom list (3-5maps) of few new maps or not so popular maps for players to try. Although this is also questionable because in reality the 15th cycle will always be the one where u see most players leave. I still recommend to give the vote even if u think it will not succeed. For example if half players skip the vote phase. Value of the vote increases by 100%. By doing so you increase the chance of other people getting the map they want.

This value will define rotation length. If we take most popular map adlernest for example. It will be played every 10th map, increasing this value to 12 will give spot for 2 more maps and increase variety and decrease the amount of times u play your fav map. If majority feels like we keep playing same maps all the time this value should be increased. I agree. Voting should be ENCOURAGED. Bigger vote button? Colors, sounds messages, changes to menu. Its important that every player vote for map for most accurate pick for next map. That is the best way. If there are 40 players then all of them should participate in the voting for best results. Visible voting is bad idea, ive seen it on other servers and ive end up manipulating the system, last minute voting etc. It should be neutral decision from every player that decides the outcome. Ive also made suggestions to legacay dev team about map voting to make it more simple and clear. it will also fix the issue for you when u cant decide which new map to vote for https://github.com/etlegacy/etlegacy/discussions/1939

2.81.0 patch Increased (doubled) UI memory pool size for x64 architecture, fixing cases where UI would run out of memory on x64 but run fine on x86 due to different pointer sizes. 2.81 version should fix the memory issue. Once this patch goes live i think its ok to test menu again to see if the problem is solved. Meanwhile maybe someone would like to check over the rules if all the info is up to date or anything needs to be changed, removed, added and exactly like admins want it. Current Copy/paste from https://teammuppet.com/home/rules.html/ Notice: trying to keep the changes to original files minimum so there are only 2 files that overwrite original ones (nothing is removed just added lines) ingame_main.menu menus.txt If there will be changes or updates to those files from legacy team then need to adjust new ones (just copy some lines)

in a full server choke points mainly happen due to only 2 main ways. 20 players divide between 2 corridors. some kind of MG way edition might make it better "GA" edition of Caen. But i also see the door way opportunity for surprise capture of the flag. I think enabling the documents door to objective for covert ops missions might make the flag part easier. When covert would steal objective allies have to give up the flag to secure objective or lose the map. Covert can cause enough mess to make the flag capturable. It will not be easy to get past all those allies or im wrong?

This map can be considered "classic". It is on first page of popular maps according to splatterladder data. Most people know the map. Small short map with objective similar to erdenberg. I think it could switch places with one of those rarely getting voted maps currently in the rotation?

I made a post about it. Perhaps we will see it in future updates of legacy.

it still does it, only on 2nd crate

just a message

every time axis returns gold it displays +5min time bonus message

This would be the place to request a feature: https://github.com/etlegacy/etlegacy/discussions/categories/ideas