Reserve slot system
Firewater
Balance Expert Join Date: 2002-12-12 Member: 10690Members, Constellation
Balance Expert Join Date: 2002-12-12 Member: 10690Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">RSS with server labeling</div>Hey all,
Recently there has been quite a lengthy discussion about how to balance skill on a server. Numerous statistical solutions have been offered, but none really seemed viable regardless how in-depth or the amount of variables that were taken in.
I propose an indirect method for balancing out players. This is a combination of a reserve slot system as well as a server labeling. I feel this system is the most effective for several reasons.
<b>A reserve slot system gives direct access to admins to allow whoever they want to frequent their server</b>
By giving admins this power, it allows them to decide who comes on the server and plays. Most likely these will be people who will follow the rules and generally don't stack teams. When more and more reserve slots are given out, more desirable players often connect, less desirable ones can become removed from the server (if it is a kicking slot). Administrators can distribute reserve access as they see fit.
<b>Self-Labeling will give players a heads up as to what server they connect to</b>
More specifically, by labeling a server Competitive, Casual, or Open, will assist players into seperating themselves from each other, if they so choose to. There are a lot of casual NS players out there, and thats fine, but most of them don't want to play too competitively, thats ok too. By labeling the servers as well as giving out reserve slots admins can direct ly control who comes into the server, and who does not.
By creating this system, the developers can contribute to balancing skill on servers by giving the admins the tool to do so. There are no skewed stats or false projections of skill or lack there of, there is player judgment, as well as ultimately administrative judgment that can be used to determine whether or not a player fits in with a particular server.
Providing a sytem like this free's up the developers to include even better features, as I can't imagine that this would take much time to implement/test, as well as obsolves them from any isolation/confrontation that a stats system will inevitably cause. The disputes will be will the individual server admins, and not the developers if a person does not fit in with a server. This is the least controversial and arguably most effective method for balancing out skill level without being directly involved in the process.
Recently there has been quite a lengthy discussion about how to balance skill on a server. Numerous statistical solutions have been offered, but none really seemed viable regardless how in-depth or the amount of variables that were taken in.
I propose an indirect method for balancing out players. This is a combination of a reserve slot system as well as a server labeling. I feel this system is the most effective for several reasons.
<b>A reserve slot system gives direct access to admins to allow whoever they want to frequent their server</b>
By giving admins this power, it allows them to decide who comes on the server and plays. Most likely these will be people who will follow the rules and generally don't stack teams. When more and more reserve slots are given out, more desirable players often connect, less desirable ones can become removed from the server (if it is a kicking slot). Administrators can distribute reserve access as they see fit.
<b>Self-Labeling will give players a heads up as to what server they connect to</b>
More specifically, by labeling a server Competitive, Casual, or Open, will assist players into seperating themselves from each other, if they so choose to. There are a lot of casual NS players out there, and thats fine, but most of them don't want to play too competitively, thats ok too. By labeling the servers as well as giving out reserve slots admins can direct ly control who comes into the server, and who does not.
By creating this system, the developers can contribute to balancing skill on servers by giving the admins the tool to do so. There are no skewed stats or false projections of skill or lack there of, there is player judgment, as well as ultimately administrative judgment that can be used to determine whether or not a player fits in with a particular server.
Providing a sytem like this free's up the developers to include even better features, as I can't imagine that this would take much time to implement/test, as well as obsolves them from any isolation/confrontation that a stats system will inevitably cause. The disputes will be will the individual server admins, and not the developers if a person does not fit in with a server. This is the least controversial and arguably most effective method for balancing out skill level without being directly involved in the process.
Comments
With that said, I would still look into statistics as another "soft test" for players looking at servers, for instance, Kero (cxwf) suggested a threat rating for players based on W:L of their respective teams. While I don't agree with using W:L over K:D, I like the idea of keeping a rough scale of player skill attached to steam accounts.
For example, a player would load NS2, and open the server browser. Said player would be greeted with a list display with difficulty icons beside every server showing how they rate their expected clientèle on skill.
<!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->What<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> I'm suggesting here is that, in addition to the icons and reserve slots mentioned in this thread, you also would track stats regarding kills and deaths, using a gameplay-centric algorithm to create an artificial balancing of the kills a player garnered. Once you had that information, a player could mouse over the server's difficulty icon and see (perhaps in a graph of some form) the skill of the players currently participating in the game.
I think this would add a sort of "check" for servers who would otherwise rate themselves as very high or very low skill, and because it's a soft test rather than a hard lock, it shouldn't take anywhere near the developer resources to implement, because if it does break occasionally, it still won't corrupt the filtering mechanics.
And could be expanded to something better when the devs have time to work on it.
Or maybe used by a server plugin.
So, I have no problem with having it in there. I and many others would just never use it.
As such, it is a good suggestion, but it is not a <b>solution</b> (that is, no replacement for ranked servers).
So, I have no problem with having it in there. I and many others would just never use it.
As such, it is a good suggestion, but it is not a <b>solution</b> (that is, no replacement for ranked servers).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't really see why you think that RSS works best at the end of a game's life. It worked very well at the peak of NS1's existence, even though the design of half-life's RSS wasn't very good.
I also don't see, based on your post, why RSS isn't a good replacement for ranked servers, which would otherwise restrict the choice of players and split up communities on based on unsound principles. At the most I would only support a soft threat-level test for each player as described by Radix, which would not have an impact on which player can play on which server.
Actually, I was talking about Radix's soft stats system that would get better as time progresses. I think an RSS system would work okay consistently throughout it's lifecycle, but that stats and matchmaking has more potential.
I like where Firewater is going with the naming convention, but I think we should be striving for better than "Competitive" and "Casual". Casual servers can be just as competitive as any other, even if the calibre of their tactics are in doubt.
Maybe some in-universe slang could be cooked up for it?
Further, I suggest some sort of kickvote is applied into this. I agree with the fundemental points of this suggestion, as IMHO stats would be overly complicated to implement in a truly "fair" manner.
NB - This assumes NS2 holds true to NS1, and still relies heavily on asymmetric team-based play.
I know. I was just taking your argument 'when the devs have more time to work on it' and making it my own.
Also notice I said RSS would work <b>best</b> at the end of the game's life - I didn't say it wouldn't work <b>well</b> (as a way to always have the ability to play on favourite servers) before that. I was more considering mainstream 'setup and forget' servers; which ideally would be where the majority of players (casual/public) play; and where RSS does not fit and would not be fair if implemented. At the end of the game's life, it will only be dedicated players and communities that will be running servers - and as such there will be more servers that fit RSS - it would work best.
Again, RSS is <b>not</b> a solution, it's more of a feature.
Also, is there a way to -request- reserve status? This idea holds that the admin does all the work, including choosing who to hand out reserve status to.
Its all reliant on a good admin or, better yet, a good community.
Which of course leads back to the concern about ivory towers and insular cliques.
RSlots are great for admins when they have a bunch of regular players that play well, and what players could benefit from is a system in NS where these servers can be IDENTIFIED rather than being constantly kicked to make way for a RSlot.
Bear in mind that RSlotters also don't enjoy kicking people in the middle of their game (tho arguably the person being kicked will feel it most keenly).
I like where Firewater is going with the naming convention, but I think we should be striving for better than "Competitive" and "Casual". Casual servers can be just as competitive as any other, even if the calibre of their tactics are in doubt.
Maybe some in-universe slang could be cooked up for it?
Further, I suggest some sort of kickvote is applied into this. I agree with the fundemental points of this suggestion, as IMHO stats would be overly complicated to implement in a truly "fair" manner.
NB - This assumes NS2 holds true to NS1, and still relies heavily on asymmetric team-based play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I appreciate your support of my idea, its nice to know I am positively affecting other forum goers.
I would like to take a moment to explain a bit of my logic with regards to server labels.
Its best to keep them broad, rather than using levels of skill (which would fall into stats system category). Having the server admins honestly assessing their skill levels without the social repercussions of a negative stigma based on self rank is impossible.
However, labeling the style of play without at all recognizing skill is a better way to go in my opinion.
Labeling the style of play of the server basically says that a player of that particular style is welcome. There can be competitive games on a casual server, and laid back games on a competitive server, but with the appropriate labeling, players of either style should not be banned (theoretically) as long they are playing in an appropriately labeled server.
Labeling a server by skill level has no concrete definition. What would be the difference between a low, intermediate, and high skill server? Would the results in one server generalize to another of the same "skill level"? If not, how does labeling by skill accomplish anything? The only way to label by skill is to create a stats system that would contain a stats system that will not be able to contain the validity to do so.
Labeling by playstyle allows the user to have an idea of what kind of environment they are going to expect. Casual servers would cater to players have a laid back approach to the game, and just play for the thrill of playing. Competitive servers would cater to the players that play to win, no matter what. Open servers (i.e. non-labeled) would welcome all players.
By keeping the labels based on playstyle as opposed to an unquantifiable measurement of skill allows the player to choose based on their personal preference, without the negative social effects that would exist with a skill level ranking. Server labels also acts as a fair warning as to what the server would expect from each individual player.
RSS does not cater to these and as such is not a solution, but a feature for active admins and community-based servers.
And just because NS2 is trying to have an even greater team-focus, does not mean that it's going for a more community-based focus*. That would be ignoring the multitudes of public and casual players.
*what this stems from is the idea that all servers be 'community' based, which i am opposed to because i'm considering the mainstream population and the early life of the game. you need to bring players in and give them an experience worthy enough to stay, before they'll want to join any sort of community.
<!--QuoteBegin-Necrosis+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Which of course leads back to the concern about ivory towers and insular cliques.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I had the same concern. Favouritism and whatnot. Another reason it's no solution.
Also, the labelling I would use is "easy, intermediate and expert". It has a lot better connotations than 'low-skill' (n00b) and 'high-skill' (l33t).
RSS does not cater to these and as such is not a solution, but a feature for active admins and community-based servers.
And just because NS2 is trying to have an even greater team-focus, does not mean that it's going for a more community-based focus*. That would be ignoring the multitudes of public and casual players.
*what this stems from is the idea that all servers be 'community' based, which i am opposed to because i'm considering the mainstream population and the early life of the game. you need to bring players in and give them an experience worthy enough to stay, before they'll want to join any sort of community.
I had the same concern. Favouritism and whatnot. Another reason it's no solution.
Also, the labelling I would use is "easy, intermediate and expert". It has a lot better connotations than 'low-skill' (n00b) and 'high-skill' (l33t).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS is a social game, one of the developer's goals for NS1 was to have communities be created around the servers. I am ignoring public servers? All servers with reserve slots are public with the occasional lock down for a captains night. A majority of the reserve slot servers out there were casual as well. "Setup and Forget" should get whatever effort they put into their servers. If they want to just setup a server with no community around it, thats fine. Truthfully, in NS I don't remember a server that did not have a community that went with it, even if it was just on IRC.
NS has more team focus, but not an increase of community focus? I can't understand this one at all. The NS team once supported the server community FR31NS because they lost some funding. Charile took constellation money out of his own pocket and sent them a check. If that is not focusing on Communities, I don't know what is. Communities grew at the beginning of the game as well. I remember joining several communities the first week the game came out. I played a game on a server, enjoyed it, looked up the URL in server listing and signed up. Why the game has to be around for a while BEFORE a reserve slot system is in is kind of a head scratcher to me.
Mainstream population has a few options 1)Join a server community. Make some new friends, play some games and earn a reserve slot. 2)Donate to a server in exchange for a reserve slot. 3)Play on mainstream servers that according to you won't utilize the reserve slot system in the first place.
The worthy experience from most, comes from the first 15 minutues or first day's worth of gameplay. After that, if a player is not impressed, they are pretty much done. If they are done. The reserve slot system promotes the individual servers to regulate traffic on the type of player they want. Since it is optional, the mainstream servers without a community can attract those mainstream players who don't want one at first. Later on, they can choose to move on to a community server, or stay on the mainstream, or play on both.
I really don't see what the argument is here, as you don't seem to be able to keep consistent, coherent points.
...
However, labeling the style of play without at all recognizing skill is a better way to go in my opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Forgive the surgical quote, but I only really need to address those bits.
First, my pleasure, I know we've tussled in the past on interpretation of game balance, but the key point is that we all love the game, and I think that this system is a great idea. Second, I am in complete agreement that play style is a better label for NS than skill. Individual skill really does not translate well to cooperative, team-based skill.
A "low skill" player can be an exceptional team player by acknowledging his problems and acting supportively. He can be the welder man, the hive gorge, the support lerk, the decoy marine. He's by no means the world's greatest player, but he's making a better contribution than Frontiersman Rambo.
To the topic at hand -
RSlots would ideally require a community, admin, or at the very least it requires a sophisticated piece of server-side stat checking that automatically RSlots people who meet the criteria for that server.
Actually, there's an idea... what about a server-side AutoSlotter that hands out slots to people who meet some sort of target for fade kills, or gorge heals/builds, or general marine ability? This would naturally be overridden by a human admin, but allows servers to almost run themselves with regards to encouraging regulars.
Good for lazy or absent admins, and its local criteria, not global. Something to consider, perhaps.
Firewater, I think Harimau's concern is that servers degenerate into a small group of isolationist communities, stuck in their ways and not favourable to others. This isn't entirely unfounded - a community with enough RSlot players would inevitably reach saturation and have no need or desire for new blood.
Of course, thats taking it to the darkest extreme. NS was large enough to accomodate all tastes, and even a few Casablanca servers.
I raised that same concern myself, but I would hasten to point out that it is just a concern, and something that can be avoided by making servers that much easier to run good games on.
As I recall, the Allegiance community went through the same thing, until they did a big push on deliberately bringing in new players.
First, my pleasure, I know we've tussled in the past on interpretation of game balance, but the key point is that we all love the game, and I think that this system is a great idea. Second, I am in complete agreement that play style is a better label for NS than skill. Individual skill really does not translate well to cooperative, team-based skill.
A "low skill" player can be an exceptional team player by acknowledging his problems and acting supportively. He can be the welder man, the hive gorge, the support lerk, the decoy marine. He's by no means the world's greatest player, but he's making a better contribution than Frontiersman Rambo.
To the topic at hand -
RSlots would ideally require a community, admin, or at the very least it requires a sophisticated piece of server-side stat checking that automatically RSlots people who meet the criteria for that server.
Actually, there's an idea... what about a server-side AutoSlotter that hands out slots to people who meet some sort of target for fade kills, or gorge heals/builds, or general marine ability? This would naturally be overridden by a human admin, but allows servers to almost run themselves with regards to encouraging regulars.
Good for lazy or absent admins, and its local criteria, not global. Something to consider, perhaps.
Firewater, I think Harimau's concern is that servers degenerate into a small group of isolationist communities, stuck in their ways and not favourable to others. This isn't entirely unfounded - a community with enough RSlot players would inevitably reach saturation and have no need or desire for new blood.
Of course, thats taking it to the darkest extreme. NS was large enough to accomodate all tastes, and even a few Casablanca servers.
I raised that same concern myself, but I would hasten to point out that it is just a concern, and something that can be avoided by making servers that much easier to run good games on.
As I recall, the Allegiance community went through the same thing, until they did a big push on deliberately bringing in new players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like where you're headed with this, but it seems like something that would be farther in the future with a stats system all ready implemented. RSS is something could come out with the release of the game, but I don't think that an adequate matchmaking system could. Again, I do like how you're folding matchmaking into RSS.
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a bit though. Do we really want to separate players into servers based on casual and competitive(whatever names we call them)? You bring up a good point, as others have, that you want both a good fade, and a good gorge. Those two lifeforms have very different play styles at pretty much every level. This is going to sound a bit trite but UWE wants to "Unite the world through play". Is segregating playstyles the way to do that?
Actually, there's an idea... what about a server-side AutoSlotter that hands out slots to people who meet some sort of target for fade kills, or gorge heals/builds, or general marine ability? This would naturally be overridden by a human admin, but allows servers to almost run themselves with regards to encouraging regulars.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. A RS server doesn't have to have one admin. Initially, it may start that way. Admin powers are then handed out to trusted players who perform admin duties as needed.
2. An RS server will gain a community without the need to implement the slots. People who like the server will keep playing there and competing for a slot when the server is full.
3. If you're talking about stat-checkers, you're looking at a variation of ranked servers, but based on more variables and selective for classes (which is better). If something like this is developed, the parameters should be customizable by the server administrators so at least they can choose what type of players they want. The risk is that this kind of stat system will most likely be abused in the off-hours of the server to get reserved slots - so the algorithms would end up having to be very complex. I honestly don't think there's a good replacement for admins that can be easily programmed.
<!--quoteo(post=1675544:date=Apr 10 2008, 01:50 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 10 2008, 01:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675544"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Good for lazy or absent admins, and its local criteria, not global. Something to consider, perhaps.
Firewater, I think Harimau's concern is that servers degenerate into a small group of isolationist communities, stuck in their ways and not favourable to others. This isn't entirely unfounded - a community with enough RSlot players would inevitably reach saturation and have no need or desire for new blood.
Of course, thats taking it to the darkest extreme. NS was large enough to accomodate all tastes, and even a few Casablanca servers.
I raised that same concern myself, but I would hasten to point out that it is just a concern, and something that can be avoided by making servers that much easier to run good games on.
As I recall, the Allegiance community went through the same thing, until they did a big push on deliberately bringing in new players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When a community reaches saturation, then the demand for server access will shift to other non-saturated communities. This will continue and more servers will pop up as necessary. Why is this undesirable? As players find their niches, servers fill up, and the need for more servers is then addressed by the addition of more servers. When casual players drop in, they can find servers which aren't saturated and make these more popular by filling them up. They may get reserved slots themselves or they may just contribute to filling up servers. Either way, it is fine. This is the way society works, unfortunately, and it gets re-enacted in games.
It's a difference of:
servers becoming filled with players that are desirable by the admins
versus
servers becoming filled with players that are determined by an arbitrary system
players getting denied access / kicked out due to non-inclusion in the community
versus
players getting denied access due to an arbitrary skill restriction
access to servers that have open slots (even if for a short time)
versus
access only to servers within your skill bracket or those that don't use a ranking system
There're lots of other differences - but neither system will guarantee that games will be fun or that skill (in various forms) will really be balanced. The reasons why I vouch for RSS are that it takes less effort to program, supports community growth (out of communities come additional admins who can manage reserved slots, a sense of uniqueness to servers, etc.), and does not force hard restrictions - it gives more options to players.
In essence neither RSS or ranked servers are really a solution - they could even both be used at the same time and still not solve any of the problems that are being "addressed" because the exact problems were lost in translation a long time ago due to bad definitions.
Locally -
I know we have discussed this in another thread, and I have highlighted the complexity of a "global" ranking system. The joy of a server-specific "ranking" system means that admins can say "I'd like a player who builds/welds regularly with a reasonable K:D who plays on my server every weekend" and that information can be easily tabulated and compared.
Every server has its regulars, and this method rewards people who find a regular server (or group of servers) and stick to them. Yes, I'll concede that it is a form of segregation, but it is a friendly segregation by player choice. It means that players choose where they like to play, and the servers reward them. Noone is forced to play on a server they don't like, and noone is barred from a server due to skill.
If the team wanted, they could poll the servers for the most preferred "stats" and use them in further releases.
In regards to "segregating playstyles", the problem is manyfold. For one, some people stick with gorge because they have a bad connection, or they're outclassed, or they're just plain new. Additionally, some people stick to Fade because perhaps they feel above playing a gorge. More likely, they're bloody good at killing marines and it makes no sense for them to screw their team by being a gorge.
Using a pure K:D stat system, these players will never meet. It will force good Fade players to go Gorge for the sake of their team, or force a "round robin" affair. Not everyone wants to have to play top-level EVERY single game, and it also gives an unfair ranking which would skew any automatching. By taking out K:D, you allow these players to work together. The Fade player gets a reliable gorge, the gorge gets an awesome killer on his team. Everybody wins.
Sarisel -
1) If you read the text you quoted, I say an Admin, a community, or a server-side mod. A community is going to be the very players you have just suggested. However, the goal is to make it as Admin or player free as possible. You want a launch and forget server, for mass market appeal, and an automated RSlotter makes it happen. You set it up, you run it, and you can go off to work, or study, and then come back and check your stats, make sure everything is smooth, then you can go off and have dinner. Server-for-hire companies would love that sort of thing.
2) Slots are a carrot (if you will) to the server's community. The players populate the server, they get a reward to encourage them to play on it, and therefore IMPROVE the quality of teamplay on that server over time. It should also discourage players from overflowing the server, when combined with Firewater's proposed "RSlot kick warning". If you check your server list, and see that a server has a 100% chance of booting you for a slotted player, you are then encouraged to find another server.
This should lead to players sticking to a selection of servers, rather than grazing between dozens, which in turn leads to communities and better teamplay across the board (alternatively, if you care nothing for RSlots, you could graze happily).
3) I am talking about very specific server-side stat checking. Not a global stat counter, but server level. This will take into account the average player for that server, it effectively creates a "skill baseline", and does not stiff when you try to enter a different server. This would mean that a average skill player would rate very highly on a "newbie" server, and would very likely rate abysmally on Hamptons. I think you'll agree that that is pretty fair. Note that if they played on both *regularly*, they would have more chance of slotting on an average or newbie server, and substantially less chance of slotting on Hamptons.
Please note that the RSlot automated stat thing would work in concert with traditional "merit based" slotting. That is, a diabolically poor player could still be slotted on Hamptons, if the admins decided they liked said player.
One small request - could you please elucidate me on the subject of how this would be abused? I'm interested, because I can use that information to improve the idea. With regards to off-hours, I can see this being a problem on North American servers, due to the time difference with Europe. Perhaps less of a problem on Eurasian servers, since you can get a good ping across several time zones.
Is there really such a thing as off-hours though? I mean, if you are running combat with <8 players, then it shouldnt really impact on Classic stats. You're relying on 8 people playing enough games in off-hours to skew the stats of the players on primetime. While I don't dispute that this could be done, you're talking about a phenomenal waste of time (since players will just votekick you, which will inevitably lead to banning). Failing that, would a good solution be to only run stats for a server-designated "prime time", decided by the admin from usage stats?
Anyhow, to continue -
Your exposition regarding server growth is great... however, it assumes that more servers will be created. This categorically did not happen in Allegiance. The community stagnated until there was a dedicated push for new players. This could happen just as easily in NS, which is an equally clique-y game that relies on a certain cooperative mindset. By making servers easier to run, by reducing the work of the admins, you encourage server propagation. By encouraging slots, you encourage players to go to these other servers in order to get their slots. You can still play on any server you choose - you just have more chance of a better game by following the RSlot system.
You may say that this is heavy handed - I would say that its more a method of motivation. If I keep getting kicked for a Slotter, and I can't meet the skill level on a server, then I am going to go elsewhere. If there are 50 slotters on a server, I am going to find another server to play on, so that my Slot means something.
I agree that neither RSS or "Ranking" is a straightforward solution, but if nothing else they should help compartmentalise servers into a more easily comprehended system.
1) If you read the text you quoted, I say an Admin, a community, or a server-side mod. A community is going to be the very players you have just suggested. However, the goal is to make it as Admin or player free as possible. You want a launch and forget server, for mass market appeal, and an automated RSlotter makes it happen. You set it up, you run it, and you can go off to work, or study, and then come back and check your stats, make sure everything is smooth, then you can go off and have dinner. Server-for-hire companies would love that sort of thing.
2) Slots are a carrot (if you will) to the server's community. The players populate the server, they get a reward to encourage them to play on it, and therefore IMPROVE the quality of teamplay on that server over time. It should also discourage players from overflowing the server, when combined with Firewater's proposed "RSlot kick warning". If you check your server list, and see that a server has a 100% chance of booting you for a slotted player, you are then encouraged to find another server.
This should lead to players sticking to a selection of servers, rather than grazing between dozens, which in turn leads to communities and better teamplay across the board (alternatively, if you care nothing for RSlots, you could graze happily).
3) I am talking about very specific server-side stat checking. Not a global stat counter, but server level. This will take into account the average player for that server, it effectively creates a "skill baseline", and does not stiff when you try to enter a different server. This would mean that a average skill player would rate very highly on a "newbie" server, and would very likely rate abysmally on Hamptons. I think you'll agree that that is pretty fair. Note that if they played on both *regularly*, they would have more chance of slotting on an average or newbie server, and substantially less chance of slotting on Hamptons.
Please note that the RSlot automated stat thing would work in concert with traditional "merit based" slotting. That is, a diabolically poor player could still be slotted on Hamptons, if the admins decided they liked said player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not really disagreeing with what you're saying here. My points were meant to illustrate that reserved slot servers aren't necessarily dependent on one admin and that a community can grow on its own, without the need for a stat checker. I know that making the administrative process simpler is desirable (this is the whole idea of enriching RSS), but at the same time I don't think it's too complex as it is without automatic RS assignment, so the need for administration does not invalidate the idea of RSS. It's not even an issue of disagreement, but rather a note.
<!--quoteo(post=1675715:date=Apr 13 2008, 01:16 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 13 2008, 01:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675715"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->One small request - could you please elucidate me on the subject of how this would be abused? I'm interested, because I can use that information to improve the idea. With regards to off-hours, I can see this being a problem on North American servers, due to the time difference with Europe. Perhaps less of a problem on Eurasian servers, since you can get a good ping across several time zones.
Is there really such a thing as off-hours though? I mean, if you are running combat with <8 players, then it shouldnt really impact on Classic stats. You're relying on 8 people playing enough games in off-hours to skew the stats of the players on primetime. While I don't dispute that this could be done, you're talking about a phenomenal waste of time (since players will just votekick you, which will inevitably lead to banning). Failing that, would a good solution be to only run stats for a server-designated "prime time", decided by the admin from usage stats?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whenever the server is not full (and especially when it is near being empty), players who want reserved slots could enter and attempt to garner their own ratings by doing things that wouldn't necessarily be possible in normal games. For example, they could agree not to shoot one another and just build a lot. If a group of friends do this, then it is possible for them to exploit holes in the auto-RS assignment system.
Also, it might be useful to consider whether the assignment of a reserved slot via an automatic system will be permanent (player will keep the RS regardless of later performance). If not, how would we go about defining criteria to determine when an RS is lost? Furthermore, are you thinking of introducing quotas for fade, gorge, commander reserved slots? How exactly would the values be assigned to good gorges versus fades versus lerks versus commanders? (and how would you guarantee that the good fade players wouldn't play as marines? or lerks?) And how would we define "good" to begin with. This will raise a lot of arguments. I think automatic RS should have its own topic because it will involve a lot of discussions on these and other aspects.
<!--quoteo(post=1675715:date=Apr 13 2008, 01:16 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 13 2008, 01:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675715"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your exposition regarding server growth is great... however, it assumes that more servers will be created. This categorically did not happen in Allegiance. The community stagnated until there was a dedicated push for new players. This could happen just as easily in NS, which is an equally clique-y game that relies on a certain cooperative mindset. By making servers easier to run, by reducing the work of the admins, you encourage server propagation. By encouraging slots, you encourage players to go to these other servers in order to get their slots. You can still play on any server you choose - you just have more chance of a better game by following the RSlot system.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think I'm not really receiving your message here because you don't define stagnation and propagation very well. If anything, I think the nature of the game is magnitudes greater as a factor for stagnation than server administration.
QFT.
Assuming you're running a server that auto-defaults to Combat when the server has <X people, their stats won't alter the RSlotting for Classic. To garner your own ratings would require the full cooperation of the whole server, and if they lack the ability to get slotted during primetime then chances are they're going to be swiftly kickvoted by the "regular" regulars who can then move to petition the admin.
I find it a bit difficult to believe that, say, 8 people are going to waste a day's gaming padding stats on one server just to get a slot, when they could be playing actual proper games elsewhere. Bear in mind that the stats are server side - padding on one server wont give you a magic ticket into another.
Yes, it'll be a small bother for the admin to get his banhammer out, but it'll effectively solve the problem.
With regards to "stagnation" and "propagation", Allegiance had a small hardcore community that played well within its walls. The problem was that once people drifted out of the community, there was no fresh blood to replace it. When Admins drifted out, servers died. With so few servers, many players could not relocate to others. Allegiance is like NS in that (for its time) it had a unique playstyle that relied on people understanding their role within a team. The community did not expand, it collapsed in on itself. Player apathy and costs prevented people from running new servers - they had all simply settled into their niches and could not adapt.
Allegiance was eventually saved by a fairly well publicised (on the internet) campaign to bring in some new blood, get more people playing, and more servers up.
As NS declines in popularity, servers die, people drift out rather than try to rebuild their community on another server. Some servers shift to another mod and people forget the good old days. The law of supply and demand is effectively negated whenever you bring in the human element.
Stagnation and propagation can happen at different stages of the game for different reasons. I wouldn't pin RSS as a reason for stagnation - if anything, the entire community and the developer of Allegiance (hello MS) were not really involved in marketing the game properly - which prevented any real propagation to begin with.
My ideal server list would include the following.
*Type of server
4 different icons for the following
Competitive, Casual, Open, and Locked
*Servername
*Available slots/Maximum Slots(Reserve slots+/- kicking slot) i.e. 10/24(4) 10 players in a server that holds 24 with 4 reserve slots. A server with a kicking reserve slot would be 10/24(1k) or something along those lines.
*map
*ping
Right click info tab would bring up the following
*above server info
*Player List, with score AND Frags
*Last 5 games won/lost, maps that were played, and the times it took.
*Any Custom LUA scripts that are a deviation from the standard game.
Determine the number and rate at which non-RS players have been getting kicked from the server for RS players in the last hour. Then, determine the average time needed to complete a round of NS in the last hour.
Probability of getting kicked in the first round = rate of kicking per hour / rounds per hour.
Ex. 2 players being kicked per hour, 4 rounds played per hour --> probability is 50% of getting kicked during a round.
Now, this is a very very rough indication because we're not considering the rate at which players leave the server voluntarily (this opens up slots and could increase the connected player's slot "seniority"). Also, we're not considering the total number of RS players that a server has and how many of them connect to the server during a given time of the day. The rate of kicking could vary dramatically within the hour based on these variables.
A more complex system would also include the following variables:
1. Number of RS players that are expected to join in the next hour. This could be based on RS player connection stats for a particular day based on previous week's data.
2. The average rate at which reserved slot players have been connecting to the server in the last hour (#RSplayer connects / hour). Call this r[RC].
3. The average rate at which players (including RS players) have been connecting to the server in the last hour (#player connects / hour). Call this r[PC].
4. The average rate at which players disconnect (including RS players and not by kicking) from the server in the last hour (#player disconnects / hour). Call this r[PD].
5. How many slots are open after connecting? (0 to maximum)? Call this X.
When a player connects, he will leave X number of slots open. If X = 0, then the player that just connected has the maximum chance of getting kicked by the next reserved slot player that joins. If X > 0, then it gets a bit more complicated because other players can still join and get kicked first. The risk assessment will be based on a system where seniority determines who is kicked first (i.e. last player to join and so on).
I'll think about how to combine the different rates later after I finish my exams. Maybe there is somebody who's good with stats and who has time to put together a more accurate expression right now.
You get told the odds beforehand, and then you just take your chances. An individual player can then decide whether or not he wants to gamble it.