- This topic has 80 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This vote is for whether or not players should be forced to autojoin teams.
Feel free to discuss the issue and vote accordingly.
I would only vote for certain maps like aztec, cbble, office and italy. These are just maps where I notice most of the stacking and *edited* playing.
I like this idea, and fully support it. Prevents stacking, and will technically get things going faster, since people won’t wait around to see which team get the advantage. Also, this might give people an opportunity to play on a side they don’t normally do, which is a good thing. Only problem I see is that some people will quit if they can’t get on the team they want – but who really cares about tools like that.
i voted no,
i never stack teams (on purpose) i like playing on the teams my friends are playing on so i can talk to them and shoot the *edited*. Typically i only join the game when a buddy shoots me a msg and gets me to come.
can the admins have the options at least?
NoDice said:
can the admins have the options at least?Sometimes admins are the ones that stack. If we have the option of allowing admins to bypass this it would be for exec and root only.
MasterP said:
exec and root only.so…. who wants to hook me up… lol
actually point to bring up. some times as an admin ill join the team of a person who i think is “iffy” to see what he says and its easier to track him.. i dunno if others do this
still think that auto assign is best… just a point to bring up
Definitely we should use this. Though I think admins should be able to switch teams, because if an Admin stacks, which
goes against the rules, why is he/or she an Admin then (?) (breaking rule point of view). But sometimes it could be necessary.
will spectate still be an option?
otherwise we might have more afks (that is until they get moved to spectate or booted) and it would be impossible to make demos
still a yes vote…
I’m going to go ahead and call it. If it causes problems we’ll remove it.
Liam, please add this to your todo list.
Voted no, I hate servers that force auto join. Sometimes I actually want to play with my friends. Regardless of autojoin, people will find a way to be on the team they want. I think the server is policed enough already. This won’t have the desired effect.
Kappamerc said:
Voted no, I hate servers that force auto join. Sometimes I actually want to play with my friends. Regardless of autojoin, people will find a way to be on the team they want. I think the server is policed enough already. This won’t have the desired effect.For the record, I also voted no for the very same reasons.
I don’t care which team I am on as far as I am concerned I am still “playing” with my friends, I enjoy the challenge of going against them at times just as I enjoy playing on the same team as them, what this will prevent is two friends who play extremely well together always joining the same team and stacking it, sorry but sometimes people gotta take a hit for the community and it looks like they want it….
my .02
There is not a team balancer that will balance teams effectively. It is impossible because the balance of a team is subjective and not an absolute truth, no program can make subjective decisions. There is not a method we can employ that will keep teams from being stacked.
I don’t care if I’m winning or losing. I’ll stay on the losing team the entire time as long as I have my friends to talk to. Its a pub. I think there are too many sore losers in this community. Just because you aren’t winning doesn’t mean you can’t have fun. /shrug, squeeze too tight and your gonna start losing people.
O/T, but i think the issue has been decided
Kappamerc said:
squeeze too tight and your gonna start losing people.I agree with kappa
its just funny how long the thread was up before it was 15-1 and then 17-3 and now 23-5. We clearly want it.
YouWinGameOver said:
its just funny how long the thread was up before it was 15-1 and then 17-3 and now 23-5. We clearly want it.Clearly… want and need are two different things. Unnecessary restrictions only cause problems. That is what I’m trying to avoid.
I would argue that 23-5 is an very low representation of our entire css community.
LOLOL yeah I was going to say. Just because 23 forum users want it doesn’t mean the rest of the community wants it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.