Will it be fixed?
Is it also affecting the gain of a zombie after a death with Necromantic?
I played in a league with some AI yesterday and killed a dwarf, got the zombie during the match but it never joined my team after the game ended.
If the bug is the cause, it's a huge issue.
It's not really that strange. There was a bit of a kerfuffle half a year ago over the idea of allowing outside teams into COL (CCL was always going to be new teams only). Originally they were going to let them in, but some streamers threw such a tantrum about the idea that they locked COL to inside teams only, always. So... we get what we get, I guess.
In general it works like this: once you're out, you're out... there's no "grace period" to come back in.
Yeah, I saw I can't even join COL Anarchy Ladder.
Well, too bad for my team but good to know for the next time.
So, I had a team playing in an old Champion Ladder and wanted to give it a spin on Open Ladder XII only to get a message telling me experienced team can't join.
Is it because I registered the team in an Eternal League (without doing a single match against AI)?
Is there a new rule that says Open Ladder is not for experienced teams?
Team name: Bras Cassés de Nurgle
Coach name: Naissun
I thought it was said before that going AFK is not against any rules so therefore would not be punishable.
That would be interesting. Where did you see that?
Warning First would be in your Mind a lenient approach ?!
In comparison to what I propose for COL and what is already in place in CCL, it can be considered a lenient approach.
Let me explain:
Losing your network connection 5 times during a season is worth a ban in CCL.
The voluntary act of annoyance towards other coaches that is going AFK is a worse deed than losing your connection 5 times.
In CCL going AFK is more serious than in COL as if the victims concede they increase their chance of being banned for the season and lower their chances of qualifying for the play-off.
Considering this, ruling that the general punishment for going AFK is an immediate ban for the current season is fair.
I won't repeat what I already wrote about how a proper rule is to be interpreted by the judge (league administrators) and what would be the usefulness of it's institution.
I can tell you as a Manager I have already have to issue warning to some people and I can tell you they didn't feel it was something to take lightly, nor they felt it was lenient.
...Good? Why should they feel otherwise if one of the points of a warning is preventing a repetition of the offence?
A punishment is not lenient by itself, it's lenient if, among other examples, an harsher one could've been used in its place.
No disrespect but why should I?
If one day you receive one, you will understand what I am saying.
Do we know each other?
If you want to discuss which of a warning or a ban is more appropriate in our case, I'm glad to do so but your assumptions about my person are not a proper argument.
we're likely to see from people who get banned without having been warned first...
Of course, Focus/Cyanide would've to emendate the EULA to ensure everyone is, or at least should be, informed of the rule before enforcing it.
I'd rather we not run people out of town when our town's population is already pretty small.
Me too, but people going AFK could also piss off other coaches and causing them to play less or even stop.
And how can we know banning a player from CCL/COL for a season would stop him from playing BB2 altogether?
I'd be quite interested in knowing if banned coaches generally quit BB2. Do we have any data about that @dode74?
It would also be useful to know if going AFK is a common behavior (not from my experience but small sample and confirmation bias, yada yada...) so we'd know if those committing the act are numerous enough for us to be concerned if they were to quit the community.
I believe they are not but obviously can't prove it as I have no access to relevant data.
@Darkson By the way and about not being lenient with kids online, I just read that only adults are supposed to subscribe to BB2 online services, or at least one has to be responsible for all use of the service by a minor.
I just think we need to be 100% sure that people know that they're doing something that won't be tolerated in the environment before we censure them, and we need to allow for the fact that some people are either so stupid or so selfish that they don't really "get" that they're doing something worthy of being kicked out of the season.
No. I respectfully disagree.
Not understanding the gravity of an action does not absolve you of your full responsibility.
I agree this is trivial and just a video-game but it works both ways. Being banned from playing in one of the Cabalvision Official ladders for a season is a trivial punishment.
It doesn't prevent the offender from playing in other leagues or against the AI. It just protects other coaches in the league from the annoyance.
As I said, in Open Ladder I can understand the leniency (warning first), especially since the victim of the player going AFK can concede without much loss.
In CCL, conceding means a lot more.
I'm not saying we shouldn't explain to the AFKer the reason for the ban, I'm saying the explanation can happen at the same time or after.
Let's also not forget, an admin will always review the case before making a decision. I'm against automatic punishments as some rare but extreme circumstances can explain, excuse or justify someone going AFK.
So, when I'm advocating for a ban (for the current season) to all AFKers in CCL, I realize there would be people behind the decision, judging if the ban is the correct solution to the issue.
Taking a stance and ruling that the regular punishment for going AFK is a ban would serve as:
- A deterrent to the comportment
- A limit of punishment
- An appreciation of the seriousness of the offence
- An acceleration in proceeding obvious cases
I wouldn't be shocked if it led people to blowing off the game as a whole.
That's a serious concern.
Losing coaches/customers is something Cyanide & Focus surely don't want.
Although, when I see many companies permanently banning cheaters, griefers, and such naggers, I wonder if the loss of these players isn't beneficial to games in general.
A ban for a season in a specific league in BB2 doesn't seem so severe in comparison, especially when it's already a punishment one can suffer from 5 network connection issues in CCL.
Therefore, I think the ban rule would be a good solution to players going AFK.
You'll make a lovely parent someday, naissun.
I'm more lenient with kids, don't worry
It's a video game... I think we can err on the side of cutting people some slack rather than treating the community like The Hunger Games or something. I'm a laissez-faire kind'v guy, though.
Going AFK in a 1 to 2 hours long game is being a dick. I'm not saying we should burn coaches doing so at the stake but it's a comportment we need not to let proliferate, even in Open Ladder.
The only metric the BBRC used was "lifetime win percentage" which includes all TVs.
That's what I thought.
I think a successful challenge/MM hybrid can work, though, not requiring a split to the playerbase. There are a number of ways of achieving this, but it could ultimately result in fewer viable matches. If those matches are more desirable, though, we'd be achieving quality over quantity. I think that's a good thing in an environment like the Open Ladder (non-competitive, perpetual etc) or in a rez version of it. We'd still want "play whoever you get" MM for competitive ladders like CCL, I think, but there's no reason those two environments couldn't coexist.
Yeah, obviously Challenge would be for Open Ladder only.
Your idea is, for Open Ladder, to have both Challenge and MM.
I am curious. How would you implement Challenge in BB2?
For a quick match you'd run MM and for a specific game against a friend or as a way to avoid some teams you'd challenge someone, right?
eviction from the current season might be a better way to go.
Yes, it's a douchey thing to do, but it's always best to let people know that they're doing something wrong on the chance they don't realize it (they had to put warning on dish soap that it wasn't for drinking, after all). By "wrong" I mean "against the rules" not "being a dick" because really, the latter is just modern society.
No, it's not always best to let people know they're doing something wrong before punishing them for their wrongdoing.
In the present case, banning the offender from CCL for the current season seems fair to me as it doesn't prevent them from learning from their errors and also let them continue playing in COL.
I'd be more lenient in COL. There I'd advocate for a warning first.
What is the actual problem we want to solve?
Attrition rates being allegedly too high/uneven?
Isn't it already the point of AV to make attrition uneven? The balance lies in many elements such as cost, team roster, starting skills, role, etc.
And, as Mike said, Claw is also a method to equalize attrition rates at higher levels of development.
@dode74 You have better information about this than I can find, are all teams designed to be almost equally efficient at high TV?
Because, if they are not designed to be, why should balance of efficiency (which would be a consequence of lower attrition rates) exist at high TV and not at low TV?
Considering this, lowering the rates could unbalance the game even more on a different level. It might balance attritions at high TV but to the detriment of teams which are meant to shine there as they struggle at low TV.
Ultimately, lowering attrition rates could change the equilibrium we have as far as general Race's winning % are concerned.
Lack of race's diversity at high TV?
Are all races supposed to be equally represented at high TV?
That's related to teams' efficiency at high TV. If all teams are meant to be played in a sort of balanced environment at high TV, then there is an issue or representation, otherwise there is none.
Some races being forced to trim down their team and keep their TV low may be a core element of BB. If so, seeing mainly bash/claw at high TV is fine.
People having strong feelings about a non-existent issue (according to data)?
I believe this is the real consideration and I understand why you recommend Challenge, dode.
If people believe there is a balancing issue, even if there is none, why not alleviate their concerns by letting them avoid what they don't want to face?
But I'm afraid Challenge could split the community and increase the time one would have to wait to find a game, depending on the race used (allegedly, poor dwarves' players). I believe you had some data proving it wasn't problematic on fumbbl or something akin but do you believe it would apply for BB2? I see it as a risk.
Would it be possible within the game engine to implement a variety setting for MM?
I imagine it as such:
- If you select "variety" you wouldn't be able to play against the same race twice in a row but you'd have to wait a longer time to be paired with an adequate team as it would take one based on the race, not the closest TV (but still within the 500k difference).
- If you select "classic" you use the usual MM.
Of course, rez is still the better solution IMO.