Team swapping -1 reply

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

apocalypse_kid

I would die without GF

50 XP

20th May 2002

0 Uploads

5,498 Posts

0 Threads

#1 15 years ago

Time for a rant, and it's about team swapping. Not about ppl swapping teams to be on the other side, that's their option (another rant on this another day maybe - but if I'm on a team I stay there till the end - winning or losing), it's about the automatic team swapping to balance sides.

OK, it may be necessary, I have spent many a night playing a frustrating games in rtcw cause the players refuse to balance the team of their own accord, but does it have to be so stupid doing it?

I have had a few games where I have been the top player on the Axis side, well ahead of all the other players, and guess what? Yep, I get automatically swapped teams and end up on allies side. So, top player on the axis gets swapped to the allies, what happens to the poor axis? they get creamed cause the two top players are now probably on the allies side, stupid!

If it's gonna do automatic swapping it should swap the lowest scoring team members first. If a player with a score of zero gets swapped from one side to the other it isn't going to make that much difference to the end result of the game (excepting say team players like scouts spotting for the artillery maybe), but swapping from the top of the list just doesn't make sense.

And as I said I like to stay with a team no matter what - even if we are getting the pants kicked off us. So I commit suicide a number of times until I can get back on my original side (no fair TK'ing killing allies though even if you are spritually OTOS). I hope EA does something about this in the patches cause it is so annoying.

Anybody agree?

:cya: :cya: :cya:




bLink71

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

26th October 2002

0 Uploads

21 Posts

0 Threads

#2 15 years ago

I agree, but don't come across too many servers that have the "team balance overkill" option. Actually, IMO that should not be a server option.




PoStRaUmAtiC

GF makes me horny

50 XP

21st June 2002

0 Uploads

85 Posts

0 Threads

#3 15 years ago

You know in my opinion if you were a real gaming man you would do like I do and basically change sides to the losing or undermanned team. Even if my team is winning or whatever, the game is no fun if the level is over to quick or if you dont even have enough enemies to shoot. I'm changing teams all the time especially to even the teams. Most gamers just want to be on the winning side and thats it. plus, I like getting hammered over and over in a tough spawn and keep plugging til we succeed.




apocalypse_kid

I would die without GF

50 XP

20th May 2002

0 Uploads

5,498 Posts

0 Threads

#4 15 years ago

Hi PoStRaUmAtiC,

Much a matter of preference I think. When the game starts I will join the team with the lowest number of players if the server doesn't pick it for me. Once there I will usually stick with the team in that game through thick and thin. Quite often I have found if we lose really badly in one game we win the next cause our team picks up play a bit, everybody tries a little bit harder, and it doesn't take that much more skillful play to make the difference between winning and getting your butt kicked. Usually just one or two more player out there capturing flags will do the trick. On public servers the general level of skill is fairly low, just a few players are always in the top 5 or ten, the rest tail off to zeros and minuses, so suddenly swapping a good player is problem.

Granted if the enemy team gets it's butt kicked really badly I will sometimes swap teams for the following game to level out the field, but I prefer not to swap mid-game. Oh yes, I always play allies in Omaha Beach, now that's what war is all about, a few hardy souls struggling to establish a beachhead against overwhelming odds. Many ppl don't like it cause they get frustrated, but I love trying to work out a strategy that will kick the axis butt off the cliff. A few times, with a really good team, we've managed to beat the axis, but it's damn hard and fun doing it.

I suppose my main gripe is when it swaps one of the top players from the losing team to the other side, the swapping could be done a little better.

Catch ya round

:cya: :cya: :cya:

and oh yes, about being a real gamer, I was probably gaming when you were still in diapers man :lol: :lol:




Asmodan

Slightly cooler than a n00b

50 XP

29th October 2002

0 Uploads

40 Posts

0 Threads

#5 15 years ago

Omaha wouldn't be nearly as frustrating if 75% of the allied team weren't friggin' snipers. Nothing like a 16 vs 16 game where you only get maybe three allies actually trying to take any flags.




apocalypse_kid

I would die without GF

50 XP

20th May 2002

0 Uploads

5,498 Posts

0 Threads

#6 15 years ago

Well said Asmodan,

I agree entirely. That also applies in other levels too, like stalingrad , there are so many sniper posies there and everyone wants to be a sniper. I played stalingrad in game the other night and guess what? I was the only player in the entire game to cap a flag - I don't think anyone else was even trying! Too many damn snipers camping the ruined buildings - of course we lost badly. You can't capture flags by hiding behind bricks.

But that goes for many maps, you've got to play the map according to the layout and rules. We even lost a game of Omaha Beach and we were the AXIS cause of damn snipers. The allies had all the flags, lucky them, and the only three players we had left were snipers - do you think we could get them to crawl out of their holes and cap a flag? - you guessed it, no!?!?!?! So we lost - ah well, that's public servers for you.

Is there any was on a server to set limits on the numbers of players in a certain class? That would be handy.

:cya: :cya: :cya:




Blitz Krieger

Veritas Vincit

50 XP

5th December 2002

0 Uploads

390 Posts

0 Threads

#7 15 years ago

I agree with Apocalypse,I always join the team with the lowest players and I like to stay with my team till the bitter end win or lose.Once, in the heat of battle I didn't even realize it had switched me until I had TKed one of my guys.VERY annoying:furious:




Fulgore243

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th September 2002

0 Uploads

10 Posts

0 Threads

#8 15 years ago

What frustrates me is when a team is clearly dominating, as we see in my attached picture, yet no one on the winning team switches, and they ALL ignore the calls of "can we fix the teams please?" "teams?" "come on, please fix teams"

I *hate* playing games on servers like that.

This game needs to *disallow* players to *switch* to a team with more players. I've played too many games that were off by a 50% ratio or more (I *always* join the one with fewer, but few 13 year old punks playing this are so honorable).

/rant




OpTikN3Rv

Dread pwns me!

50 XP

5th August 2002

0 Uploads

433 Posts

0 Threads

#9 15 years ago

Lol me i join the winning team ;) losing is for losers ;) I used to be the one always switching teams to even them up but why? I ended up with -3 or so as i would swap teams 10-15 times to try and balance the teams. Pointless all the wussys keep running to the winning team and u can never have a fair game..Also my pet hate is Spawn Campers. Man these ****s pi*s me off so much that now i will kill my own if i see them spawn camping.Whats the point of playing a game where the other team are dead before they even have time to turn around?.

Servers should be set to auto balance by numbers not score. Only allow u to swap to athe team with less players and not swap to team with most even if they are getting murderd...




derFuhrer

Don't feed the devil

50 XP

21st June 2002

0 Uploads

556 Posts

0 Threads

#10 15 years ago

BF servers SHOULD have the 1:1 balanche ratio enabled, sometimes while playing on a server, I get automatically switched to the other team due to balance- which gets annoying but is fair.

On a Day of Defeat server I administrate, I always post "even teams please" and sometimes I even force players with lowest scores to switch teams through an admin command.




  • 1
  • 2