Rules Properly Defined

[Unix]

Just wondering if we can get a clearer definition of what the rules are. I've been noticing more and more staff having tendencies to enforce certain rules that are not listed on the current F1.

 

Specifically the newer "rules" of .... Hopping and quickwinning.

 

Spidernl> Next time someone quickwins

Spidernl> I degrant their penis

 

Then also a proper definition of both so that way people who believe they are playing within the rules of Hyperspace do not feel they are being unjustly fined/abused upon.

 

From what I understand, hopping is the act of going from the losing team to the winning team and quickwinning is the act of having 2-3 flag droppers to win quickly so as to limit the amount of time a team has to attack.

 

Then also a proper definition of what staff can and cannot do in situations of flag games in terms of "balancing" or if that's even allowed since there doesnt seem to be a rule in regards to having staff balance games.

[spidernl]

That quickwin thing was more of a joke really, you can judge by the fact that I added male genitalia in the second sentence. If you didn't know, ?grantitem -c -1 penis does not work.

 

And Unix, your definition of hopping is fine. But when I see you sit in spec for a while, when teams are incredibly imbalanced and one team is almost winning a fairly high jackpot, and then within 2 seconds of that other player joining, you go in and 'happen to' get onto the team that's 80 seconds from winning and has all the 'veteran' players, it's good enough for me.

Also note that I first let you do your hop-from-spec magic, and then moved you over to the enemy team which was around 3 players smaller than the team you'd just gotten onto. This was done to at least try to get teams somewhat balanced, population doesn't gain anything from a 7v4 flaggame followed by 5 hours of HyperSpec. You then decided to spec and do the same thing you did before to get on the winning team AGAIN. Then I moved you back and degranted you.

 

Fact is also that you have a history of hopping. You've done it so many times it's not even funny. That automatically leads to staff like me treating everything you do that "slightly resembles" hopping as exactly that - hopping.

 

You're not going to convince me you weren't moving to the winning team on purpose. Be glad I only degranted a tiny fraction of your money, instead.

 

And you're correct, there are no rules about staff balancing flaggames. But i've found that doing so helps flaggames grow and be competitive. I do so whenever I feel it's necessary. Around 10 minutes ago I had been actively balancing a flaggame for around half an hour, and it grew from a measly 5v5 to 12v12 and bigger in that time. Now, I'm not claiming that was my epic balancing skill, but I'm sure it helped keep the game going.

 

As to how I do it, I generally just pick a random player or pick a player who would fit a hole in the enemy team. Like, move a lanc over (generally after talking to them to see if they agree) if the enemy team has no lanc at all.

Or, of course, if you're a known hopper, don't be surprised if you're 'favoured' to be moved over to the other team when balancing is needed.

 

Edit: And if you want it 'on paper', try the 'no bug exploitation' and 'no lame behavior as determined by staff' rules. Bug exploitation because you're trying to use the balancer's simplicity against it to stack teams in your own favour, and lame behavior because, well, it's pretty lame behavior, no?

Edited November 23, 2011 by spidernl

[Unix]

According to you then, a player must immediately go onto a flagging team when they enter the zone and cannot afk, and if they do and so happen to get onto the winning team, they are deemed to be hopping? Even according to your example, there were other players who often go onto winning teams when they have the chance, and never before have they been forcibly switched or degranted, simply because there is no rule against it since they were always playing within the rules of the game that were laid out.

 

You're simply starting a very slippery slope in which staff can simply dislike a certain player and choose to punish them whenever they have even close to a viable excuse. The lame rule is far too broad and rarely ever enforced since it is so ambiguous and easily abusable. We could consider player's that run in center and never stay and fight as lame behavior, players (and staff) who run into safe before dying to someone as lame behavior. However none of this is ever labeled under the lame rule even though this is clearly lame.

 

As far "exploiting" the balancer, if there really is such an obvious flaw and a simple one, fix it? What you are alleging I did, I am not the first nor will I be the last to what you call "exploitation". When was the last time someone was warned for that? If you're going to enforce these rules, at least enforce them for everyone in that case and make it more apparent that it is illegal.

 

When you balance a flag game, make it clear before the start of a game that you are. You were on a winning team earlier and it was unbalanced, you didnt even bother considering balancing the teams though. What will actually determine what games are balanced and who will balance them? Even if you balance out the players that often "hop" according to your biased opinion, is that even close to making them balanced then? Also if that is the case, wont players the same players be constantly balanced? All I'm seeing is you choosing when to use your powers against those you want to rather than being fair and just if that is the case.

 

Your sequence of events are wrong btw.. I was in spec, and got onto the team. Without notice or any mention of "balancing" you forcibly put me on the other team. I go into spec and am confused since this happened. I go back on the original team and I'm once again switched onto the other team. I go back in spec and there I receive a warning and then while still in specced am degranted 23k.

[spidernl]

If this was all a terrible coincidence, consider it bad karma. You can't deny you actively hopped very often. The fact that it came back for you doesn't really worry me much. And you know just as well as everyone that this isn't out of a grudge towards you, I have no grudge against all that many people, and you're not on the list.

 

I've actually made a post on the staff forums relating to balancing and hopping so we can make some rules for all staff to follow. If we deem it necessary I'm sure these will be added to f1.

 

Edit: Also see my to-do list in the development sub-forum for a possible solution to hopping.

Edited November 23, 2011 by spidernl

[Dr Brain]

If you didn't know, ?grantitem -c -1 penis does not work.

 

That's because it needs to have a -f when it's not PMed to someone, for safety reasons. I don't want you degranting the entire arena's... ahem... item.

[spidernl]

If you didn't know, ?grantitem -c -1 penis does not work.

 

That's because it needs to have a -f when it's not PMed to someone, for safety reasons. I don't want you degranting the entire arena's... ahem... item.

 

Ah yes, I forgot about that. I'll keep that in mind next time I castrate the population.

Edited November 23, 2011 by spidernl

[NuB KiNG]

I wont read the posts because it's clear how stupid you are for thinking your constant freq hopping is not illegal.

Never the less i agree with the thread title rules should be properly defined.

[Avast]

"And Unix, your definition of hopping is fine. But when I see you sit in spec for a while, when teams are incredibly imbalanced and one team is almost winning a fairly high jackpot, and then within 2 seconds of that other player joining, you go in and 'happen to' get onto the team that's 80 seconds from winning and has all the 'veteran' players, it's good enough for me."

 

By your own admission, and Unix. He was in spec. Spidernl even stated he was in spec for awhile. This is not hopping. Do you know what hopping is? Use the proper term if your going to enforce a rule at least. Hopping is when you go from one team to another, pretty much directly, because your team is losing. All those factors need to be present. If he was in spec for awhile there was no HOPPING involved. He was in spec, and joined a team. Your rule should be that people in spec should not join winning teams. This is called OPPORTUNISM.

[Unix]

Rather than arbitrarily deciding when and when not to enforce rules, if a module is in place, wouldnt that preclude any potential bias?

 

Example, an IP lock for teams so that way you must stay on the same flagging team. That way even when there is no staff on, the rules can be enforced.

[spidernl]

"And Unix, your definition of hopping is fine. But when I see you sit in spec for a while, when teams are incredibly imbalanced and one team is almost winning a fairly high jackpot, and then within 2 seconds of that other player joining, you go in and 'happen to' get onto the team that's 80 seconds from winning and has all the 'veteran' players, it's good enough for me."

 

By your own admission, and Unix. He was in spec. Spidernl even stated he was in spec for awhile. This is not hopping. Do you know what hopping is? Use the proper term if your going to enforce a rule at least. Hopping is when you go from one team to another, pretty much directly, because your team is losing. All those factors need to be present. If he was in spec for awhile there was no HOPPING involved. He was in spec, and joined a team. Your rule should be that people in spec should not join winning teams. This is called OPPORTUNISM.

 

Opportunism, meh. More like selective entering in order to stack freqs. Also, quite often, players doing this from spec will accidentally join the team they don't want to be on, spec, and retry later. That's hopping in my book.

 

Rather than arbitrarily deciding when and when not to enforce rules, if a module is in place, wouldnt that preclude any potential bias?

 

Example, an IP lock for teams so that way you must stay on the same flagging team. That way even when there is no staff on, the rules can be enforced.

 

Except you know just as well as I do that things will go very badly if we use such an IP lock. It'd be stupidly easy for a number of players to completely wreck a flaggame by entering a freq and then spectating for the rest of the game. The evener would place fewer players on that team (if any) and thus you'd get situations like 10v3.

 

And no, fixing that by making it temporary, for example, is not a solution. People would then just wait until they can hop. If it's not temporary, the above applies. If it turns off in "extreme cases", that still means it'd be easy to create extreme imbalances with it on demand.

 

And since HS' population has quite some players in it who would gladly abuse this system, it's not going to be a possible solution.

If it were, don't you think someone would have already made it?

 

Edit: if you'd read my to-do list, you would've seen that the planned solution to this problem is to simply make it less rewarding to spend time in spec for a while and then join at the right time, than entering right away and letting the balancer do its job. Now, I'm sure there'll still be idiots who want to ruin flaggames in the population who will wait a while in order to stack flaggames, but I'll figure something out for them. Like making it incredibly difficult for players with a high flaggame win:lose ratio to join a freq with fellow high win:lose ratios on it.

Edited November 24, 2011 by spidernl

[Avast]

Well the less interaction between player and staff the better imo for the zone. If a bot specs me for something it was programmed to spec me for, then I would not rage at the bot, and tell it that its treating me unfairly. Or say that it has a personal bias towards me etc. The same is not true for a staffer, and it is sometimes the case where the staff member actually does abuse. I say take staff out of the picture. We should not know who staffers even are. They should be involved in development only. Anything that involves rule enforcing should be done by bots or modules. Bans should be restricted to cheaters only.

[Unix]

"And Unix, your definition of hopping is fine. But when I see you sit in spec for a while, when teams are incredibly imbalanced and one team is almost winning a fairly high jackpot, and then within 2 seconds of that other player joining, you go in and 'happen to' get onto the team that's 80 seconds from winning and has all the 'veteran' players, it's good enough for me."

 

By your own admission, and Unix. He was in spec. Spidernl even stated he was in spec for awhile. This is not hopping. Do you know what hopping is? Use the proper term if your going to enforce a rule at least. Hopping is when you go from one team to another, pretty much directly, because your team is losing. All those factors need to be present. If he was in spec for awhile there was no HOPPING involved. He was in spec, and joined a team. Your rule should be that people in spec should not join winning teams. This is called OPPORTUNISM.

 

Opportunism, meh. More like selective entering in order to stack freqs. Also, quite often, players doing this from spec will accidentally join the team they don't want to be on, spec, and retry later. That's hopping in my book.

Yes I agree, if those people were to do that, it is hopping. However, I wasnt on the other team until someone used their powers to force me on that team. Without warning might I add.

 

If you are going to moderate hopping, then make it more consistent and unbiased.

 

Even if you were to use IP locking, you could use fail safes to prevent some abuse. Such as if you are re-entering, you cannot enter the team you were on if there is a +2 difference unless you are coming back within 45 secs (for people who lagged out). An IP lock would also benefit people who are lagging out, since they can go back on their team, if it was just a spike. The time frame could be about 15 minutes before the IP lock resets.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Unix

[Avast]

It's not hopping. Even when he put you on one team, and you switched to the other. The reason is because you were trying to switch to the team you were ORIGINALLY on. Thats not hopping. You were going against what Spidernl wanted, so maybe it follows under a rule of disobeying staff or something. But even then if there was no warning you both at fault, so it's a none issue. If he did warn you, then all you did was not listen. However it's still not hopping, at least by definition.

[»Ceiu]

IPs aren't unique.

[Unix]

There must be something that can be easily used to identify different users that can be used for a team lock module.

[spidernl]

Feel free to let us know.

 

You're forgetting that even if there is/was something that'd be effective for this without issues, my post above applies. It'd be abused because the evener would count players in spec/players who have left the zone as part of a specific team, because they could come back and join their old freq. In other words, enter one team over a few minutes with say 5 players, spec, and teams are off by at least 5 for that flaggame. I.e. 10v5, 6v1, etc.

Edited November 26, 2011 by spidernl

[Unix]

I stated though that after a certain amount of time, the lock would be reset and also the teams could only get a two player difference before the lock puts you on that team, along with a 45 sec safety so that if you lag out, you still have a chance to get on your team. In other words, teams could never get out of balance to the extreme of 1v6

 

There have been zones in the past who have used a lock mechanism, I dont see why Hyperspace wouldnt be able to.

[spidernl]

Haha. A two player difference? Have you even thought this through before posting it? A two player difference is pretty much the average required to hop right now, although there are exceptions.

So other than those exceptions (which are a small minority of all 'hopping cases') this wouldn't even fix anything. And no, a three player difference isn't a solution either.

 

To me it just seems like you're trying to get us to develop an anti-hopping system that you yourself already know is broken so that you can continue to hop.

This is even more obvious when you consider the fact that something that would hurt your hopping, as in my 'plans' for time-based rewards, do not seem to interest you.

 

Anyways way, this topic is off-topic now. It started with a complaint about staff which shouldn't even really be posted here, and is now about team balancing systems. If you wish to continue that discussion, post it somewhere else. Topic = closed.

Edited November 26, 2011 by spidernl