Beginning of Battle (Controlled Start)

[Smoker-1 11]

Thx

[robelll 12]

bad ... totally noob idea -99999.99

[canadarules 1,938]

again, you missed the point but still... its very good for you if you see any but i play a lot more than you and every day i saw few. those idios dont use PAUSE. they just respawn and after that they block path (usually tunnel) for you teammate. 

 

omg, look again my topic. dull noob just take flag immediatelly when they join battle. in most cases some noob take flag even HE alone in battle! this is so wrong from many reason and one CODE SCRIPT can easy solve this. but they want important thing to do. MU, for example....  :angry:

 

p.s. sorry, now back on topic

hmm even more funny because you said you do not play anymore. :lol:  don't think i forgot that. i actually play you don't play alot anymore. if they are lone in the battle at start there should be a pause i already said that. but if there is a fund over 1000 than no time shouldn't freeze. the reason this won't happen is because it is way to complex to do. Believe me i use to make game and know how hard it is to develop new things....things i created were

 

 

Ones i created my own levels for

Pac-Man

Donkey-Kong

Mario

and many more games that i made off the top of my head

 

 

Now back to topic as i would like to say and as you said

Edited September 17, 2013 by canadarules

[Daslec 82]

Vikingsrail

 

I agree with your idea. 

 

Lt Me said that an button is unnecessary. I agree in this point. An button to say "ready" will not work. Mults will join and they will not push the buttom. So, in the game, they are "not ready" and nobody will can do nothing.

 

This situation is annoying. Everyday I join in the game and the first thing the enemy do is cap one flag when we are minotiry. 

 

I think that your idea will have no sucess (i hope im wrong).

 

99% of the players are little kids and they dont know yet how to play a fair game. If you change this system, they will get mad.

 

It is interesting for the game an majority unhappy? If they do this new idea, in the next day you will see a lot of topics with "The game is bored".

 

And about canadarules, ignore him. He is troll. Dont feed the trolls.

[canadarules 1,938]

 

Vikingsrail

 

I agree with your idea. 

 

Lt Me said that an button is unnecessary. I agree in this point. An button to say "ready" will not work. Mults will join and they will not push the buttom. So, in the game, they are "not ready" and nobody will can do nothing.

 

This situation is annoying. Everyday I join in the game and the first thing the enemy do is cap one flag when we are minotiry. 

 

I think that your idea will have no sucess (i hope im wrong).

 

99% of the players are little kids and they dont know yet how to play a fair game. If you change this system, they will get mad.

 

It is interesting for the game an majority unhappy? If they do this new idea, in the next day you will see a lot of topics with "The game is bored".

 

And about canadarules, ignore him. He is troll. Dont feed the trolls.

 

i am not a troll i just give honest opinion and if that makes me a troll in your eyes well so be it. but i am not trying to troll.

 

 

 

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

Lt Me said that an button is unnecessary. I agree in this point. An button to say "ready" will not work. Mults will join and they will not push the buttom. So, in the game, they are "not ready" and nobody will can do nothing.

This situation is annoying. Everyday I join in the game and the first thing the enemy do is cap one flag when we are minotiry. 

99% of the players are little kids and they dont know yet how to play a fair game. If you change this system, they will get mad.

It is interesting for the game an majority unhappy? If they do this new idea, in the next day you will see a lot of topics with "The game is bored".

What else is there to do to prevent multing? If it can't be a button or a command, what can it be?

This idea could prevent one from joining a battle and immediately going for flag, depending on the amount of players and if battle has begun.

This would be an option in battle creation. Not all battles have to have a controlled start, so it can please the people that are sick of poor etiquette and keep freelancers at bay. 

[Daslec 82]

What else is there to do to prevent multing? If it can't be a button or a command, what can it be?

This idea could prevent one from joining a battle and immediately going for flag, depending on the amount of players and if battle has begun.

This would be an option in battle creation. Not all battles have to have a controlled start, so it can please the people that are sick of poor etiquette and keep freelancers at bay. 

The game knows when a player join in the game and when he is loading. When youy finally join in the map, the game can know when this happens. As Lt Me said in another topic, is a question about script. In another online games, this is default.

[Afro_Samurai 240]

Good idea.  +1 vote.

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

The game knows when a player join in the game and when he is loading. When youy finally join in the map, the game can know when this happens. As Lt Me said in another topic, is a question about script. In another online games, this is default.

Doesn't that sort of thing happen to detect if you are inactive (what kicks you eventually after 5 minutes)? I mean that has to go off of something, and it seems to be default. But as you know, it doesn't do a thing against mults that do something every two/three minutes and are useless. I don't know much about scripts so I wouldn't know if that would be a way to go so reduce the mult problem, but I think it would involve a lot more than keeping track of when one enters the map.

[canadarules 1,938]

Doesn't that sort of thing happen to detect if you are inactive (what kicks you eventually after 5 minutes)? I mean that has to go off of something, and it seems to be default. But as you know, it doesn't do a thing against mults that do something every two/three minutes and are useless. I don't know much about scripts so I wouldn't know if that would be a way to go so reduce the mult problem, but I think it would involve a lot more than keeping track of when one enters the map.

There really should chat command sort of like /multiple account_offender name

This would allow mods to enter the battle and boot the mult as well as ban them.

don't you think this is easier than creating a hole system against mults.(although it should have one)

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

There is the /vote_offender name command... Making a new command on what the violator specifically doing wont help mods. When you vote a player, it can be for a number of reasons: foul language, multing, sabotaging, hacking.

[canadarules 1,938]

There is the /vote_offender name command... Making a new command on what the violator specifically doing wont help mods. When you vote a player, it can be for a number of reasons: foul language, multing, sabotaging, hacking.

yes but it would be easier for mods to detect and if they get a message saying there is a mult in the place than i am pretty sure they will ban it sending in vote rarely works no offense but when i send in report it has never worked. maybe if there s a new command it will helpthe mod out in deciding

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

They don't need to decide anything. A report of something is going to be as important to the people that voted and the moderator, and that goes for every situation. This could be a whole other idea, something you could get a moderators opinion on.

 

I think we're veering off topic. Lets get back on topic.

[canadarules 1,938]

They don't need to decide anything. A report of something is going to be as important to the people that voted and the moderator, and that goes for every situation. This could be a whole other idea, something you could get a moderators opinion on.

 

I think we're veering off topic. Lets get back on topic.

Yup agreedets get back to topic not sure how we got to that..

[wild001 786]

just turn on auto balance,

 

1 player start difference is not that much

[ExtremeKiller26 443]

just turn on auto balance,

 

1 player start difference is not that much

It is, especially in small maps. Like island, 2 players can't fight 3 mammoth freezes.

[LiquidGold 1,370]

there may be one issue arising that once the battle is started, your opponent may have power loaded your team, so misteriously one or more players from your team suddenly vanish and you are left with unbalanced teams again just another way to abuse the battle and it will happen just as power loading and take overs happen now when  skype users get together. In princple a good idea but in practice open to corruption

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

just turn on auto balance,

 

1 player start difference is not that much

Even with autobalance you will end up with teams that are 1 or more players short, and of course does not keep the enemy team from still playing. Autobalance itself wont solve exactly what is wanted.

 

there may be one issue arising that once the battle is started, your opponent may have power loaded your team, so misteriously one or more players from your team suddenly vanish and you are left with unbalanced teams again just another way to abuse the battle and it will happen just as power loading and take overs happen now when  skype users get together. In princple a good idea but in practice open to corruption

That sounds like a situational thing, more derived from a normal battle. A strong team losing members to abuse the battle by taking over? That's not very likely for a group to join one team to make it even just to start and leave. This system would make it hard to "take over" but Skype users can get together in any battle, so that's not preventable. 

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

Bump

[meronnatu 151]

Even with autobalance you will end up with teams that are 1 or more players short, and of course does not keep the enemy team from still playing. Autobalance itself wont solve exactly what is wanted.

agreed .

[Playep 355]

Very good idea. I liked it.

However,there are some points that you need to mention

First,noob wouldn't know this or even type and the battle will start five minutes later.

Second,what if somebody join half way?

third, What if somebody make a battle and only him in it?

Fourth.........(too much i think)

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

Very good idea. I liked it.

However,there are some points that you need to mention

First,noob wouldn't know this or even type and the battle will start five minutes later.

Second,what if somebody join half way?

third, What if somebody make a battle and only him in it?

Fourth.........(too much i think)

"Noob's are noobs" - They'll find out how it works. For the battle to start, everyone would have to signal. So if he doesn't signal, the battle doesn't start. The second question is the best out of all of yours; It would depend on the situation. If the battle is going and someone joins, it just keeps going. If the players in the battle for some reason find the player that joined a disturbance, they can signal the reset. For the third question; then that person is alone waiting for people.

You gotta consider everything when it comes to an idea. :)

[echoi555 3]

Seems cool.