Completed Simulated Battle Commencement & Temporary Mutual Standstill

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

I'm bringing back an idea I had mentioned on joost's old XP format suggestion topic (which has recently made it to the game!) to see if anyone likes the idea. I've split it up into two mechanisms, for explanation purposes.

Simulated Battle Commencement (SBC)

Players join the battle (enabled with these capabilities) as normal. Once the battle is full, half of the players in the battle signal the okay to begin (for DM). In the case of team battles, about half of the players on each team must signal the okay to start. Once the correct amount is confirmed, everyone in the battle automatically self-destructs - without being scored as a death - respawns, and the battle begins.

Prior to the start of battle:
~Damaging the opponent is not possible
~Changing equipment is possible whether or not it is enabled for the battle.
~f bonus boxes are enabled, they will not fall
~If Supplies are enabled, they cannot be activated.

After the start of battle:
Players cannot change equipment (if enabled) or leave the battle until 5 minutes has passed.
Supplies, Bonus boxes, and Smart supplies go into effect (if enabled).
Fighting, like normal

Here is a table showing the amount of confirmed-ready-players required to start a battle.

Temporary Mutual Standstill (TMS)

When a player leaves, those remaining in battle can request that it be stopped. In order for this to happen, three quarters (slightly more than half) of the remaining players must signal for it to be stopped. If it is a team battle, three quarters of a team must signal. If 2 or more people leave, depending on the size of battle, the temporary standstill would be automatic.

If players have taken the enemy flag and have it in the event a TMS starts, the flag is dropped and rendered unobtainable. When battle resumes, it is dropped in a random drop zone in what would be fair territory in the particular map, called Reverse Flag Points (RFP). If both teams had each others flags, they both will be placed in the center of the map. Control points would revert to either team or neutral, without being claimable.

To keep the clock moving, if there is one, is the addition of time to the clock at the beginning of the standstill. Time is also added when a player enters in order to give them time to get their bearings. When a player leaves, some time is subtracted.

During the standstill, everything is like prior to the start of battle, plus the timer on the battle is stopped. Heres a table listing how many players have to leave for the stop to be automatic.

 

To complicate it more, here is the table showing how much time is added when a standstill starts, when a player joins, and when a player leaves. Note is applicable to teams and DMs and number of players column represents either.

Battle starts back up with confirmation (SBC).

 

Early Battle Finish (EBF)

 

Very much like the update for Non-PROs, the EBF acts as the cut off during a lengthy TMS when the popularity of the battle has stalled, when nobody is joining; the battle ends and the fund is distributed. The timer will be cut it down to 10% like normal. It can also be signaled by vote prior to the opposition leaving. Three fourths of the players in the battle must agree to signal the timer for the end.

 

However, its a bit different here:

~Only activated during a TMS 

~For team battles, only activated when all of the opposition has left

~If the battle does not feature a timer, a 3 minute clock will count down

~If a sufficient number of players do not join within that clock, battle will end

 

For those that play XP with proper etiquette, this should sound familar. Once the battle is full, one team asks if the battle can start (го?) and the other team confirms (го). When a player leaves, you stop (стоп). This idea would make this great system possible for any type of battle. It goes above and beyond what Autoballance does. Intended for PRO battles. Not only would it be good for the general playerbase, but this would be a nice system for clan battles as well.

 

Updates/Feedback:

Updates:

15/1/15 - Added Early Battle Finish (EBF)

10/3/15 - Added the Reverse Flag Point to TMS

19/4/15 - Added time extensions to TMS

 

Recognition worthy feedback:

EBF made possible by: Developers, @Ilia.ArchangeI's feedback,

RFP made possible with 's feedback, 

Addition of time within TMS made possible by @inkypen's feedback,

Let me know what you think by posting a comment.   
 

[blackopspaul 753]

Brilliant, Just brilliant, Count me in! Nice idea, Hope it goes on to get implemented!  

[Ilia.ArchangeI 6,785]

One problem is that if a team is losing badly, and half of the team leaves, which would result in an automatic standstill, they'll probably be waiting forever, as other players rarely joining a badly losing team. Also how would that incorporate with the new timer cutter, when one team is OPing the other.?

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

Joining a battle against an opposition that has an assured win is not unheard of. Say in a PRO Kungur match of 14 vs 14, and 4 players leave, causing a standstill, that battle will fill back up in just over a minute at most regardless of the score. The only event that may require a quick battle end and fund distribution would be if it became 14 vs 0 to 4 players, then at that point the timer would click down prematurely, like with this new update.

 

This feature would most likely be applied to PRO battles (unfortunately) as all the basic battle specs like autobalance and setting a private battle have been made exclusive to the PRO battle. This would exclude the fast end and fund distribution update from affecting this. But if not, the timer to cut the battle short would start at a certain point during the standstill, if the team has not gained a substantial amount of players in a short time.

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

Now that XP has formally been introduced to the player base, more and more people are getting to play it and its once normal etiquette is being lost.

[BlitzPanzer12345 241]

Didnot understand a single word of that

[trombone_ftw 734]

Didnot understand a single word of that

It was perfectly understandable English, it's not Viking's fault that you can't understand it.

 

Neat idea, it would be nice to see this implemented, and somehow, I feel like this would somewhat lessen the amount of noobs in the game.

[BlitzPanzer12345 241]

It was perfectly understandable English, it's not Viking's fault that you can't understand it.

 

Neat idea, it would be nice to see this implemented, and somehow, I feel like this would somewhat lessen the amount of noobs in the game.

i never said his English waz bad

i said i didnot understand the idea at all

:P

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

 

Can you specify exactly what wasn't comprehensible? I doubt you didn't understand any one single word, you just didn't piece it together.

[XXgamercool_TURBO 14]

would it be only in pro battles?
 

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

As brought up in discussion above, it would be a PRO battle feature, most likely.

[lordmostafa 3,821]

If this gets implemented, I believe only do it in CTF, CP and TDM games as it has no use in DM. However, I find the idea very nice and new.

[mdit108 121]

As ilia already said, about the TMS, even I have the same doubt, no one likes joining battles on the side of badly losing teams... so the standstill would keep on going if a team has a good lead over the other team... some people are involved in doing takeovers but for people like me, I dont think we'll like to join losing teams.

[vazulbojthy2002 3]

Nah, this isn't a good idea.

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

I believe only do it in CTF, CP and TDM games as it has no use in DM.

The SBC would fix such things that could be construed as unfair/advantage; such as fighting and capturing a flag in CTF or a point in CP, For TDMs and DMs, it prevents anyone from getting a high score prior to the joining of other people. Take a Desert DM for example, as of now, the fighting would start when there is any number of people. Now imagine that battle with 6 people, one of which is a sniping rail gun who has racked up a good 25 kills (in 1st) ahead of the 2nd place player. The short ranged guys have trouble with him and the battle may have been going on for a while, so people have come and gone. He's got a greater chance of getting a big hand of the fund. Sure someone could try to surpass him, but what if someone doesn't? Did that make sense? I think its useful in DM.

 

As ilia already said, about the TMS, even I have the same doubt, no one likes joining battles on the side of badly losing teams... so the standstill would keep on going if a team has a good lead over the other team... some people are involved in doing takeovers but for people like me, I dont think we'll like to join losing teams.

A premature battle ending feature may be required, though I'd like to see what the upcoming update for the Non-PRO battles does and if such mechanism can be applied to this.

 

Nah, this isn't a good idea.

Can you explain why you think so?

[EAU 233]

Good idea :D

[Lucifer 2,944]

Nice Idea I like SBC :D

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

^Thanks guys

 

So, any suggestions for improvement?

[BackSeatDriver 29]

Didnot understand a single word of that

I'm not the only one...

I got the idea, upvoted!!!

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

upvoted!!!

I don't see where, but okay.

[7919zola 252]

The self destruct quality of it, sounds awfully familiar... as we have seen in broadcast CS clan battles. That would give the game a formal and meaningful beginning with a useful purpose for fairness itself, kinda like the saying "kill two birds with one stone".

 

 

 

The SBC would fix such things that could be construed as unfair/advantage; such as fighting and capturing a flag in CTF or a point in CP, For TDMs and DMs, it prevents anyone from getting a high score prior to the joining of other people. Take a Desert DM for example, as of now, the fighting would start when there is any number of people. Now imagine that battle with 6 people, one of which is a sniping rail gun who has racked up a good 25 kills (in 1st) ahead of the 2nd place player. The short ranged guys have trouble with him and the battle may have been going on for a while, so people have come and gone. He's got a greater chance of getting a big hand of the fund. Sure someone could try to surpass him, but what if someone doesn't? Did that make sense? I think its useful in DM.

 

 

Overall, the SBC/TMS sounds comprehensive and includes many details, a clear sign of a well thought out idea. ;)

 

However, I only have one issue with the DM portion, as you described above. So I follow how you are attempting to make everything in the game more balanced and fair for every one, but how is that the case for the described 'first place' player in the following DM. Currently in a normal DM, the player that has @Remained the longest in the match, tends to receive the largest pay out in the end, thanks to their devotion and patience (applicable in 999 kill DM) in the match. If the TMS were to be implemented, wouldn't that make it more difficult for that same person to earn as much crystal in the same time frame, since there would now be multiple 'standstills' in one game alone that would hinder their performance/score? While this is obviously fair for new arriving players to that one match; in my opinion, it doesn't quite appeal nor appear fair to the player that has been in the match since the beginning, or at least the longest. 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

You are correct in many ways. You took the opposite side of my description, which I appreciate. I was trying to describe the patient and devoted DM player, exactly as you've described, much clearer than I.

 

Currently in a normal DM, the player that has remained the longest in the match, tends to receive the largest pay out in the end, thanks to their devotion and patience (applicable in 999 kill DM) in the match.

Just to argue against that player in one more instance, such as the one I tried to describe. A Desert DM set to be a full 20 player match and only has half a dozen or so people at one time; wouldn't that player enjoy the battle more, for all that time and effort, if it was full? Am sure you would like more than a handful of targets after a few hours in battle. Wouldn't it be a little too easy if you can dominate those few the whole time? With a full battle, it not only comes down to devotion and patients, but skill.

 

If the TMS were to be implemented, wouldn't that make it more difficult for that same person to earn as much crystal in the same time frame, since there would now be multiple 'standstills' in one game alone that would hinder their performance/score? While this is obviously fair for new arriving players to that one match; in my opinion, it doesn't quite appeal nor appear fair to the player that has been in the match since the beginning, or at least the longest.

I do see how several stops could damper the players spirits. TMS, along with SBC (intended to go hand in hand), will hopefully, influence the thought process of playing in a battle. Having such a mechanism to create a fair platform to start from should make the contingency of people leaving battle less likely. That being said, the player may only have to endure maybe 2 or 3 standstills within an hours worth of time. Yes, it is prolonging the battle to let more people in, it sounds worse than it really is. Then you see your score is a good 100 higher than them from the SBC restart, and you're fine. :lol:

 

You're not wrong, you're exactly right. Though this system aims to "kill two birds in with one stone"; ensure you have an action packed battle for most of the time you are in the battle with equal opportunities for others to enjoy as well.

 

And when that player is deemed too good to go up against, the point when the standstill is never ending, some sort of mechanism to cut the battle short may be necessary; after it is implemented for the Non-PRO battles, we will explore ideas for the possibilities that it be used here. I invite you to take part in that ;)

[Lord-of-the-Snipers 1,620]

Yes, I like the SBC. It gives both teams plenty of time to get fully ready and

if both teams are, the majority of players gives the go ahead.

A nice self-destruct: and everyone knows it 's on and starts with full health.

 

 

 

No, I don 't think the TMS will work that well in reality.

Here the human vote factor will cause problems because not everyone will

always be alert on the actual situation on the battlefield.

 

My idea would be an automated system that triggers a TMS.

It will be already triggered when just one player leaves,

only in battles with huge numbers two leavers would be needed to trigger it.

 

When a player leaves immediately a message pops up that damage will be off

within 10 seconds (maybe accomplished with a small countdown timer from 10 to zero)

 

This timeframe (just a guess) of ten seconds before damage goes off should be

about the same time when players are aware (in an ideal situation) of a player leaving,

chat cton and both teams lay down their weapons and stop making a possible cap.

 

(a sudden damage stop wouldn 't work at all IMO and would be a pain to deal with)

 

Within this ten seconds timeframe till TMS there is a good chance that

another player replaces the just left player.

In that case again immediately a message will pop up that damage is on again.

And the battle will automatically continue: without any keyboard typing interruptions.

 

When the unbalanced number of teams remains, than the TMS goes in after

those ten seconds.

 

There are very likely (big) flaws in this idea: didn 't think it over and over again.

Still, maybe it can be a part of this brainstorm.

 

What should happen when the TMS is actually on I leave that for later (or for others)

That 's a real tough issue.

Just look at all the battles that end up completely unbalanced and with

hugely different battleresult for both respective teams. LotS (really a lot)

[7919zola 252]

You are correct in many ways. You took the opposite side of my description, which I appreciate. I was trying to describe the patient and devoted DM player, exactly as you've described, much clearer than I.

Thanks, I appreciate your appreciation.  ;)

 

 

 

Just to argue against that player in one more instance, such as the one I tried to describe. A Desert DM set to be a full 20 player match and only has half a dozen or so people at one time; wouldn't that player enjoy the battle more, for all that time and effort, if it was full? Am sure you would like more than a handful of targets after a few hours in battle. Wouldn't it be a little too easy if you can dominate those few the whole time? With a full battle, it not only comes down to devotion and patients, but skill.

 

I do see how several stops could damper the players spirits. TMS, along with SBC (intended to go hand in hand), will hopefully, influence the thought process of playing in a battle. Having such a mechanism to create a fair platform to start from should make the contingency of people leaving battle less likely. That being said, the player may only have to endure maybe 2 or 3 standstills within an hours worth of time. Yes, it is prolonging the battle to let more people in, it sounds worse than it really is. Then you see your score is a good 100 higher than them from the SBC restart, and you're fine. :lol:

 

 

Valid point. In a normal DM, just after 30 minutes or so I'm already bored with the lack of fresh players to own... unless I'm the one getting 'owned' by them. :blink: It makes perfect sense that as the number of players would increase in a DM, there would also need to be an increase in skill to maintain your 'first place' in the match, since you now have greater opposition.

 

The more players in a lengthy DM = The more fun you are likely to have

 

Total domination would not be as easy in a TMS oriented match, but I'm sure the enjoyment you feel would more than compensate for it. 

 

And when that player is deemed too good to go up against, the point when the standstill is never ending, some sort of mechanism to cut the battle short may be necessary; after it is implemented for the Non-PRO battles, we will explore ideas for the possibilities that it be used here. I invite you to take part in that ;)

I was about to refer you back to this, when I remembered that it only pertains to team matches. Nonetheless, I like your enthusiasm, and hope to bring in new ideas or contrasting points to the next 'issue at bay' once TMS/SBC is implemented. 

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

No, I don 't think the TMS will work that well in reality.

Here the human vote factor will cause problems because not everyone will

always be alert on the actual situation on the battlefield.

Again, the system will hopefully influence way battle is conducted. I think you're trying to say the # of players situation, well when you're potentially down several players, you're going to want to take note. That, or you're trying to say mults prohibit accurate voting. It takes just over half of the team to call for a standstill. One mult affect much of the vote if its a large battle.

 

My idea would be an automated system that triggers a TMS.

It will be already triggered when just one player leaves,

only in battles with huge numbers two leavers would be needed to trigger it.

Already got that in place. On the first post, under the 2nd spoiler is a table showing how many players have to leave for it to be automatic. It is designed so that a fair amount of people have to leave, the point where the opposing team would have the advantage. I think a team in a large battle can go without one or two players for a minute, as the places would be filled in less time than that. So just one single player is unnecessary for some battles.

 

message pops up that damage will be off within 10 seconds (maybe accomplished with a small countdown timer from 10 to zero). This timeframe (just a guess) of ten seconds before damage goes off should be about the same time when players are aware (in an ideal situation) of a player leaving, chat cton and both teams lay down their weapons and stop making a possible cap.

 

(a sudden damage stop wouldn 't work at all IMO and would be a pain to deal with)

 

Within this ten seconds timeframe till TMS there is a good chance that another player replaces the just left player. In that case again immediately a message will pop up that damage is on again. And the battle will automatically continue: without any keyboard typing interruptions. When the unbalanced number of teams remains, than the TMS goes in after those ten seconds.

Now here is a decent suggestion. A short time of calming to the actual stop. I can see how it would be nice to finish destroying someone, a sudden stop would prevent you from getting the kill you deserve. I like it, though I think 10 seconds is a little too long. Lets make it lucky number 7, just have something.

Now that I think of it, what happens if someone joins in that 7 second time frame? Does the TMS get canceled?

the point when the standstill is never ending, some sort of mechanism to cut the battle short may be necessary; after it is implemented for the Non-PRO battles, we will explore ideas for the possibilities that it be used here.

Was referencing the upcoming system hinted in the last video blog, mentioned at 1:40. Though I am staying quite optimistic, surprisingly. Am just confident that such a system would fit, help, and improve the comfort of gameplay. And hope that discussion, like the one we just had, would solve any potential problems and improve the system prior to it being 'passed to those higher up.'