Jump to content

Welcome to Forge - Pure Fun. Pure PvP
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

[Poll] Team Features


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
46 replies to this topic

Poll: Team Features Poll (22 member(s) have cast votes)

What type of Reward System should Teams use?

  1. An ELO Range system where a reward is given for each ELO range bracket. For example: 1600 - 1699 = Title saying "Arena Combatant" (14 votes [63.64%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 63.64%

  2. A Percentage system where a reward is given for participants within a certain percentage. For example: top 5% "Don't fuck with me"-Title + Team Ranked armor set variant + 8x ore (8 votes [36.36%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 36.36%

How should teams be created?

  1. Simple 3 person teams. Teams cannot be edited so ELO and rewards directly reflect its players. If you want to play with a different player you create a new team. Players can play on unlimited teams. (10 votes [45.45%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 45.45%

  2. Flexible 3 main and 2 sub teams. Teams can be edited and a team captain can boot players. Player can only be a main player in one team but can be unlimited subs. Rewards for participants are determined by a certain percent of wins from a team player. (12 votes [54.55%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 54.55%

Vote

#1
Remztan

Remztan

    Your Humble Servant

  • Developers
  • PipPip
  • 763 posts
  • LocationSan Diego
Here are the polls. Again, let me know if you disagree with the questions/answers or if you think another detail requires a poll.

As for how to vote, we have an acronym in game design and engineering. KISS - keep it simple silly. Meaning, you should chose the simplest design that will accomplish your goals. So, look at the feature and decide what will accomplish what you want out of the feature in the simplest form.

Feel free to continue debating on these topics here as well. I'm pretty excited as this seems to be all coming together :)
  • ekaWake and Teafunfaite like this

#2
Anebriate

Anebriate

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 473 posts
  • LocationMaine, US
I'm still torn on both topics. On one hand, I feel like subs can alleviate difficulties with getting your full team online. On the other hand, trying to define how much of a contribution merits how much of a team's rating sounds cumbersome and unnecessarily time-consuming to implement.

A sub earning the full rating is too easily abused, especially when there are rewards to be had. I think fixed teams are the smarter choice for now, allowing that some adjustments could be made in the future if some people have some really bright ideas.

Re. ELO vs. percentage... I think a percentage would be difficult at first with the low population we have. The third best team in the world would be in the bottom 33% margin if there are only 3 teams, haha. On the other hand, if the population fills out, it could work nicely as an alternative to the somewhat-arbitrary rating system of ELO.
  • Patience, Jroc, Denaszune and 1 other like this

#3
Trinica

Trinica

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 212 posts
I'm not sure I like either option for #2, what's the deal with only having the ability to be a "main player" on one team? I love the idea of having 4-5 players for a 3v3 team, but I'm not sure why anyone other than the captain needs to be designated as a "main player." That's a little bit of an unnecessarily complex road block when it comes to creating teams, so based on the choices I'd have to go with the first option even though I really prefer that we could have more than the minimum amount of team members on a team.
  • Ravenage likes this

#4
Reds

Reds

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • LocationDoobsville, USA
What type of Reward System should Teams use?

I would really prefer a percentage system for rewards .... however, like aneb stated, with the low population Forge currently has it probably wouldn't work as intended. I voted for that option anyways, but I really don't know how it would work out until and if Forge's population grows.

How should teams be created?

I love the idea of 3 players locked into a team. To me, it seems like a super simple and efficient way to organize it. And, you wouldn't have extra "sub" players in a team that could potentially be another full team in the queue .... but instead are just sitting in a team picking their ass until one of the main's can't make a match. I have seen allowing sub players work in certain games, but they have always had HUGE team sizes and it almost became necessary. With 3v3 to 5v5 there should really be no issues with setting a time schedule for matches.

#5
Remztan

Remztan

    Your Humble Servant

  • Developers
  • PipPip
  • 763 posts
  • LocationSan Diego

I think fixed teams are the smarter choice for now, allowing that some adjustments could be made in the future if some people have some really bright ideas.

Re. ELO vs. percentage... I think a percentage would be difficult at first with the low population we have.


Also a note for both of these points is that what we choose now is not final. If/when Forge grows we will of course come back at another iteration of Teams and expand on it. So, maybe the simple team creation and ELO range system work better now but in the future we can come back and expand/change the feature. But yeah, I agree that if there are 3 teams in a season being rated the number 3 team is much better then rated in the bottom 33% :)
  • ekaWake likes this

#6
Ravenage

Ravenage

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • LocationAmurica
I think brackets work better because getting top x% of players at the low population we have is kinda pushing what you guys can realistically do expect while even in high populations the point brackets can be good for both high and low populations.

Also I actually hate both of the 2nd vote. Like Trinica said, theres no reason why we shouldn't be able to make a large group team and just choose 3 members to go in with while the others can go with their sub teams. The point is you want a hardcore playstyle (the game) with a casual feel, and making it this strict with your system makes it feel much less casual in this particular field.

#7
KeeblerElf

KeeblerElf

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 230 posts
A percentage-based reward system is ideal, IMHO, so long as it is understood that the percentages can and should be adjusted based on population.

If you do an ELO-type reward system, this is what I foresee: first, arbitrary cutoffs are selected, with the idea that these cutoffs will be adjusted later; when adjusting these cutoffs, the devs are most likely going to ask themselves, "How many teams do we want to be in the higher tiers? Well, that depends on how many total teams we have..." and so we're looking at a percentage-based decision in the end, anyway, as I think very few people have an intuition behind sensible ELO brackets (which, I'm sure, are sensitive to the particular scalings chosen by the devs anyway).

So one way involves an arbitrary ELO rating, with cutoffs based loosely and practically on percentages; the other way involves strict percentage-based cutoffs, with more transparency (that is, it would be both easiest and most informative to simply display, for example, "rank n of m (percentile) | wins / losses / ties"). Clearly the ranks will themselves have to be calculated in some way, but I'm not sure that the resulting numbers are informative, while practically everyone understands percentages.

As for the discussion about teams, I think flexibility for the team itself would be nice, but I also foresee issues with modeling personal and team rankings in a way that is fair and sensible (for the case of 3 mains + 2 subs). In my opinion, discussions about how to fairly calculate rankings will essentially degenerate into the realization that it is very difficult to give 3 mains + 2 subs a ranking that makes sense, unless we make the system overly complex.

Clearly, having 3 mains and 2 subs would give maximum flexibility per named team, but forcing simple teams of 3 players gives maximum flexibility per player. For example, under the 3 mains + 2 subs model, team KeebleRulez could play 3 matches with 3 completely different sets of players, if each main uses 2 different subs from each other main, thus giving a possibly-loosely-defined team identity (and hence more flexibility for the name KeebleRulez); but this depends on the main / sub composition rules, if there are any (eg, maybe each game played by KeebleRulez can utilize at most 1 sub, so that at least 2 mains must play in order for it to count towards the team's victories).

We might also consider whether we would like the individual's record or the team's record to be more meaningful: is it more impressive to be a part of the #1 team or to be the player with the #1 individual record? If team records are more important to us, then static teams are the best choice, as a win by KeebleRulez always means the same 3 players won. Hence by remaining on a high-ranking team, a good player could retain some Forge street cred while still experimenting with teams containing newer players (and possibly lowering his/her individual ranking). On the other hand, it may be possible to be a backseat player on several high-ranking teams and artificially boost one's individual ranking, so that a player who hasn't done much has both a high average team ranking and a high individual ranking under the 3 mains + 2 subs model.

IMHO, the bottom line is that 3 static players is the only team model (of the two proposed) that gives us immediately sensible and meaningful team rankings, while also giving maximum flexibility for each player (so long as the cost to form a team is not prohibitive) and minimum opportunity for abuse of the system. Perhaps a modified sub system would make more sense for a larger team size, though.
  • Patience, Trinica and ekaWake like this

#8
Anebriate

Anebriate

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 473 posts
  • LocationMaine, US
A limit on how many teams a player can create is also practical. I'm thinking 3 is the most you would realistically need.
  • Dollparts, Denaszune and ekaWake like this

#9
Patience

Patience

    Alpha Male

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 488 posts

Re. ELO vs. percentage... I think a percentage would be difficult at first with the low population we have. The third best team in the world would be in the bottom 33% margin if there are only 3 teams, haha. On the other hand, if the population fills out, it could work nicely as an alternative to the somewhat-arbitrary rating system of ELO.

Rating won't work much better with a very low amount of teams. If 1500 represents average skill and there are only a couple very good veteran teams, "very good veteran team" will be the average skill level of the ladder and they won't be able to gain much rating unless one of them is a lot better than the others.
  • ekaWake likes this
yay

#10
thatguywhosnameisY

thatguywhosnameisY

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 284 posts
  • LocationUS

A limit on how many teams a player can create is also practical. I'm thinking 3 is the most you would realistically need.


So a person can only be on 3 teams at any one time?

( Y )


#11
Trinica

Trinica

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 212 posts

A limit on how many teams a player can create is also practical. I'm thinking 3 is the most you would realistically need.


This I have to disagree with - I'd say we should at least be allowed 10. Perhaps 3 free slots and the rest you can purchase with ore or money (both should be accepted).
  • Razius likes this

#12
Anebriate

Anebriate

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 473 posts
  • LocationMaine, US
I don't understand why you would need to be on 10 teams. Imagine if athletes could be on 10 teams--that's 10 chances at winning the trophy. The person with the most teams has the highest chance of having the highest ranked team. Even if you only play each team up to 1700-1800 or something, if there's a stackable reward, it is going to turn to shitshow real fast. It sounds like another system that rewards a grind over skill, which I feel is antithesis to Forge.

Also, if you have did have subs, and you faced your own team without you on it, you could lose rating by beating "yourself."
  • Denaszune and ekaWake like this

#13
Trinica

Trinica

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 212 posts

I don't understand why you would need to be on 10 teams. Imagine if athletes could be on 10 teams--that's 10 chances at winning the trophy. The person with the most teams has the highest chance of having the highest ranked team. Even if you only play each team up to 1700-1800 or something, if there's a stackable reward, it is going to turn to shitshow real fast. It sounds like another system that rewards a grind over skill, which I feel is antithesis to Forge.

Also, if you have did have subs, and you faced your own team without you on it, you could lose rating by beating "yourself."


Flexibility? Promotion of activity? This isn't a game like WoW where you can be forced into having one team - arena is only a small part of that game. For Forge, this will be the only real competitive game mode in a game that is BUILT around PvP and competition. If you can only have a select few teams, that severely limits the amount of time that you can play. In turn, this limits the amount of teams in the queue. In a game where population will probably always be an issue, that could cause some serious problems. And I'm not sure why you would bring up "stackable rewards," why not just be rewarded for your highest-rated team? Then players will automatically choose their best team to go tryhard mode on, but will still be able to have fun and team up with their friends or randoms whenever they want. This will only apply to season-ending rewards of course, any rewards that can be earned DURING the season can still be stacked.

As far as facing a team that you're a sub on, in that case I guess you just have to decide which team is more important. I don't see this happening a lot even with a low population though, if matchmaking works as intended your "alternate" teams probably won't be in the same bracket as your main team that you care to have rating on.

#14
thatguywhosnameisY

thatguywhosnameisY

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 284 posts
  • LocationUS
Have you forgotten that there are large organized groups like OP? We can make way more than three teams. I'd really like to play with all my players without a strict restriction, you know what I mean? If we are limited to three teams, I'm going to have to start playing favorites in my guild, and nobody is going to be happy with that. What if I make a group with Me, JJ, Raz. Then Me, JJ, Vihs. Then Me, Vihs, Raz. To play with them when they are on, but then lets say one day those three aren't on, but I have Me, SunRed, and Abhorrent on. We all want to play ranked together, but we're shit out of luck. Or if only one of those guys from my original groups is on, and we want to play with someone like SunRed as a stand in, or one of our newer players to get them going.

Worst possible thing I can think of, is you could be in 3 top teams. But honestly, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, if you are in 3 top teams, you might be fucking good, and deserve it? Sounds like skill based to me man.

So, I know you can't fathom a large amount of organized people playing with each other. But in OP that is a reality. We all like to play with each other, and 3 teams is going to really fuck with who we can play with, but more importantly when we can play.
  • Trinica and ekaWake like this

( Y )


#15
Dollparts

Dollparts

    Zealot

  • The Zealous
  • PipPip
  • 1130 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

A limit on how many teams a player can create is also practical. I'm thinking 3 is the most you would realistically need.


Thats perfect in my opinion :3 !

It ain't a Wish concert. Just saying your point is Valid with playing all your Guildies. But thats what Guild Matches are for just saying :3 !

133548374692.png


#16
Remztan

Remztan

    Your Humble Servant

  • Developers
  • PipPip
  • 763 posts
  • LocationSan Diego
We can have an additional poll to define more details such as team membership limits. Also of note, the number (as long as it's more than 1) of teams you can join would just be a configuration variable on our backend that we could easily change as needed.

Someone also brought up a good point and maybe this is a compromise, but allowing a player to join 3 teams at a time and able to purchase additional slots. While the idea of needing to purchase additional slots might leave a bad taste please remember that we are F2P and we do need to survive :)
  • Trinica likes this

#17
thatguywhosnameisY

thatguywhosnameisY

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 284 posts
  • LocationUS

Thats perfect in my opinion :3 !

It ain't a Wish concert. Just saying your point is Valid with playing all your Guildies. But thats what Guild Matches are for just saying :3 !


Your guild might be around for fun. But mine was founded and is run for strictly competitive play.

And team ranked is that competitive play.

Guild CTR is dull, and has little to no point beyond xp for the guild. (Also a side note: you and others are no longer willing to face us. So who are we supposed to play CTR with? Just saying =3)

So we will be looking towards team ranked, because it is a competitive setting. As well as more public results, and worth while rewards. I think it is a good idea to be able to create many teams, or have a good sub system. Otherwise, we won't be able to que up as often. And you want Forge to have people playing as often as possible, right? So why not encourage that? Unless you don't want OP qued up regularly. Which, after the whole CTR thing, I understand ^_^.
  • Trinica, Dollparts and ekaWake like this

( Y )


#18
Denaszune

Denaszune

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 81 posts

Have you forgotten that there are large organized groups like OP? We can make way more than three teams. I'd really like to play with all my players without a strict restriction, you know what I mean? If we are limited to three teams, I'm going to have to start playing favorites in my guild, and nobody is going to be happy with that. What if I make a group with Me, JJ, Raz. Then Me, JJ, Vihs. Then Me, Vihs, Raz. To play with them when they are on, but then lets say one day those three aren't on, but I have Me, SunRed, and Abhorrent on. We all want to play ranked together, but we're shit out of luck. Or if only one of those guys from my original groups is on, and we want to play with someone like SunRed as a stand in, or one of our newer players to get them going.

Worst possible thing I can think of, is you could be in 3 top teams. But honestly, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, if you are in 3 top teams, you might be fucking good, and deserve it? Sounds like skill based to me man.

So, I know you can't fathom a large amount of organized people playing with each other. But in OP that is a reality. We all like to play with each other, and 3 teams is going to really fuck with who we can play with, but more importantly when we can play.


This is why I voted for the more flexible option when it came to team creation. If it's too hard to implement, we will most likely have to settle for a less advanced system. The main problem I have is if a set of people or a particular person completely dominates the top 10, it doesn't look very good from an outside perspective. I personally would be very confused if I saw the same players name in every single team in the top 10...

How would you know which team is actually better. You wouldn't. Maybe one team played a ton more games then another, and that is why they are higher rated. You can't have the two teams face off because they consist of the same players. It just doesn't make sense. In other pvp games like WoW, you CAN'T have more than one team per team size, and if you want to change your 3v3 squad, good luck, have fun starting over.

In my opinion if we can't have flexible team creation then we need to stick to the lowest number of teams possible that is also relatively comfortable for the players. I find 3 teams to be a reasonable number if we have to stick to 3 players on a team.

#19
Remztan

Remztan

    Your Humble Servant

  • Developers
  • PipPip
  • 763 posts
  • LocationSan Diego
Another option (and we can vote on this later) is we could start with a limit of say 3 and then after the first season vote to either increase, decrease, or keep the same. And just see how it works out.

Speaking of Seasons, I think we forgot to discuss the length of a season. Either that, or we just all agree on monthly seasons. Does anyone disagree with a monthly season/leaderboard?

#20
Denaszune

Denaszune

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 81 posts
I like the thought of seasonal seasons / leaderboards. So around 3 months. I believe 1 month is too short.
  • Dollparts and ekaWake like this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users