I know there's an existing PugChamp thread but I wanted to start a new discussion about some of the current issues with PugChamp and how the system can be made better. I think any existing pug system could be improved to get what we need but all systems right now have their flaws:
- Comp MM doesn't have a good ruleset and doesn't create quality games
- TF2Center/Stadium makes no attempt to balance Pugs
- FACEIT attempts to balance pugs but the actual player experience is awful since you can't pick your class
- PugChamp is great for high-level gameplay but doesn't allow for more than three pugs to be run at once
- MixChamp is great for medium-level gameplay but starts immediately when all 12 roles are filled, so it doesn't really suit high-level pugs
===========
The Problem: Imagine if 100 people are added to PugChamp. By the time you finish picking 3 pugs, B4nny and all of the invite players from the first pug are already added again. So at a certain point people aren't able to play as long as pugs are picked one at a time. If all pugs start at the same time you'd solve this problem and you can solve this by using a computer to pick teams based on skill rating.
If PugChamp or FACEIT are able to solve this problem, great. If not, then let's figure out next steps. Because until this issue is fixed, nobody is able to promote PugChamp. When new players ask "hey where do I play" we're forced to tell them to go to TF2Center which is not the right solution. We should figure out how to grow PugChamp and make it possible for 50+ people to play at the same time.
===========
The Solution: The proposed solution is to replace the human picking of PugChamp by returning ELO or some kind of skill rating system to PugChamp and then allowing a computer to choose the teams. We acknowledge the fact that as the system grows it won’t always be the most fun for all players at all times. Sometimes there’s toxicity, sometimes you don’t get to play with your friends or you end up on a team with someone you don’t like, and sometimes the games aren’t balanced properly. However, I think given a large enough sample size, a computer could pick really well or even pick better than a human to create evenly balanced games.
Once you have this automated picking system in place, you can run an infinite number of pugs at the same time provided you have enough servers and enough medics added. We'd synchronize the start time of all the games in waves, such that the system would wait for every single pug to finish before starting the next wave. By synchronizing the start times of the pugs, you maximize the potential for evenly matched games with each wave of pugs (and you can't dodge high-level players by queuing at the right times).
Example: Wave 1 starts at 7:00pm with 100 players added. 8 pugs would be started with 4 fat kids. You have three minutes to get into the server, and the matches end in 30 minutes with no overtime. After 33 minutes, all pugs should have completed. Add in 5 minutes of buffer time and start the next wave of pugs at 7:38pm.
In traditional nerd essay fashion, Micspam and I have drafted a document outlining some of the issues with PugChamp and how these can be resolved. I also made a companion video in case you don't want to read the document but either way it's a long ride.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11-p_dFw4urcZQ6Jxt2cCK_qcqDmxVyGb4d-s3x-jjDY/edit?usp=sharing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLCXro-EqrY
Would love to hear your feedback and if you're interested in working on this kind of project then hit me up.
I know there's an existing PugChamp thread but I wanted to start a new discussion about some of the current issues with PugChamp and how the system can be made better. I think any existing pug system could be improved to get what we need but all systems right now have their flaws:
[list]
[*] Comp MM doesn't have a good ruleset and doesn't create quality games
[*] TF2Center/Stadium makes no attempt to balance Pugs
[*] FACEIT attempts to balance pugs but the actual player experience is awful since you can't pick your class
[*] PugChamp is great for high-level gameplay but doesn't allow for more than three pugs to be run at once
[*] MixChamp is great for medium-level gameplay but starts immediately when all 12 roles are filled, so it doesn't really suit high-level pugs
[/list]
===========
[b]The Problem:[/b] Imagine if 100 people are added to PugChamp. By the time you finish picking 3 pugs, B4nny and all of the invite players from the first pug are already added again. So at a certain point people aren't able to play as long as pugs are picked one at a time. If all pugs start at the same time you'd solve this problem and you can solve this by using a computer to pick teams based on skill rating.
If PugChamp or FACEIT are able to solve this problem, great. If not, then let's figure out next steps. Because until this issue is fixed, nobody is able to promote PugChamp. When new players ask "hey where do I play" we're forced to tell them to go to TF2Center which is not the right solution. We should figure out how to grow PugChamp and make it possible for 50+ people to play at the same time.
===========
[b]The Solution:[/b] The proposed solution is to replace the human picking of PugChamp by returning ELO or some kind of skill rating system to PugChamp and then allowing a computer to choose the teams. We acknowledge the fact that as the system grows it won’t always be the most fun for all players at all times. Sometimes there’s toxicity, sometimes you don’t get to play with your friends or you end up on a team with someone you don’t like, and sometimes the games aren’t balanced properly. However, I think given a large enough sample size, a computer could pick really well or even pick better than a human to create evenly balanced games.
Once you have this automated picking system in place, you can run an infinite number of pugs at the same time provided you have enough servers and enough medics added. We'd synchronize the start time of all the games in waves, such that the system would wait for every single pug to finish before starting the next wave. By synchronizing the start times of the pugs, you maximize the potential for evenly matched games with each wave of pugs (and you can't dodge high-level players by queuing at the right times).
[b]Example: [/b]Wave 1 starts at 7:00pm with 100 players added. 8 pugs would be started with 4 fat kids. You have three minutes to get into the server, and the matches end in 30 minutes with no overtime. After 33 minutes, all pugs should have completed. Add in 5 minutes of buffer time and start the next wave of pugs at 7:38pm.
In traditional nerd essay fashion, Micspam and I have drafted a document outlining some of the issues with PugChamp and how these can be resolved. I also made a companion video in case you don't want to read the document but either way it's a long ride.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11-p_dFw4urcZQ6Jxt2cCK_qcqDmxVyGb4d-s3x-jjDY/edit?usp=sharing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLCXro-EqrY
Would love to hear your feedback and if you're interested in working on this kind of project then hit me up.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Fq7tDT4.png[/img]
Specifically looking for people who know how to write code and stuff cause those kinds of people are useful.
Erynn told me she could use developers, but if you guys feel like this idea needs work and don't want to mess up a good thing then let's talk about it. I'm happy to talk about it privately too.
Specifically looking for people who know how to write code and stuff cause those kinds of people are useful.
Erynn told me she could use developers, but if you guys feel like this idea needs work and don't want to mess up a good thing then let's talk about it. I'm happy to talk about it privately too.
Show Content
going as well as expected
[spoiler][img]https://i.gyazo.com/f7281dc319bcb8f2e2ea279725c794d2.png[/img]
[img]https://i.gyazo.com/cd32808686ba0e4dcb54cb576776fe36.png[/img][/spoiler]
going as well as expected
haha woops... this is why we can't have nice things.
haha woops... this is why we can't have nice things.
revive http://tf2pickup.net/
[b]JARATE![/b]
http://imgur.com/a/gpMMQ
unban jarate
[img]http://i.imgur.com/BL8O6Rx.png[/img]
Before this thread gets derailed too much, the problem I'm trying to address is this:
Imagine if 100 people are added to PugChamp. By the time you finish picking 3 pugs, B4nny and all of the invite players from the first pug are already added again. So at a certain point people aren't able to play as long as pugs are picked one at a time. If all pugs start at the same time you'd solve this problem and you can solve this by using a computer to pick teams based on skill rating.
If PugChamp or FACEIT are able to solve this problem, great. If not, then let's figure out next steps. Because until this issue is fixed, nobody is able to promote PugChamp. When new players ask "hey where do I play" we're forced to tell them to go to TF2Center which is not the right solution. We should figure out how to grow PugChamp and make it possible for 50+ people to play at the same time.
Before this thread gets derailed too much, the problem I'm trying to address is this:
Imagine if 100 people are added to PugChamp. By the time you finish picking 3 pugs, B4nny and all of the invite players from the first pug are already added again. So at a certain point people aren't able to play as long as pugs are picked one at a time. If all pugs start at the same time you'd solve this problem and you can solve this by using a computer to pick teams based on skill rating.
If PugChamp or FACEIT are able to solve this problem, great. If not, then let's figure out next steps. Because until this issue is fixed, nobody is able to promote PugChamp. When new players ask "hey where do I play" we're forced to tell them to go to TF2Center which is not the right solution. We should figure out how to grow PugChamp and make it possible for 50+ people to play at the same time.
the reason there are only 3 servers at a time is that we only have 3 servers. Player numbers are not the main problem, it's the lack of servers.Also, the problem with an elo based system is that elo is determined solely from win-rate. If you only play pugs that are at your level or above, you will lose more pugs than someone who plays pugs which are at their level and below. I really don't see any problem with human picking for this reason, as elo doesn't tell the whole story. I agree that pugchamp has issues, but captained teams are not one of them in my opinion. Look at mixchamp for example. THAT is entirely elo based, and that results in rolls just as frequently as pugchamp rolls, and not just in the cases where there are only 12 players. I agree that there should be time limit to join the server, but i also don't think an auto-report should be the method. Just having captain discretion should be enough there. But that's up for discussion, others will probably see differently.
the reason there are only 3 servers at a time is that we only have 3 servers. Player numbers are not the main problem, it's the lack of servers.Also, the problem with an elo based system is that elo is determined solely from win-rate. If you only play pugs that are at your level or above, you will lose more pugs than someone who plays pugs which are at their level and below. I really don't see any problem with human picking for this reason, as elo doesn't tell the whole story. I agree that pugchamp has issues, but captained teams are not one of them in my opinion. Look at mixchamp for example. THAT is entirely elo based, and that results in rolls just as frequently as pugchamp rolls, and not just in the cases where there are only 12 players. I agree that there should be time limit to join the server, but i also don't think an auto-report should be the method. Just having captain discretion should be enough there. But that's up for discussion, others will probably see differently.
isnt this just mixchamp but you have to wait for the computer to start working? I feel like people wouldn't be patient enough to wait for a pug "wave" and just go somewhere else and miss it.
isnt this just mixchamp but you have to wait for the computer to start working? I feel like people wouldn't be patient enough to wait for a pug "wave" and just go somewhere else and miss it.
this seems like the wrong way to go about making people want to inhouse again
this seems like the wrong way to go about making people want to inhouse again
I feel like waiting for picks isn't the biggest time sink. Whenever I'm waiting for a second pug to start after a first it feels like the system takes forever to start up the first game and then move onto the second. If the system could start drafting/readying for a second pug quickly after a first pug and not 5 minutes later that could cut down on time between games at peak times
I feel like waiting for picks isn't the biggest time sink. Whenever I'm waiting for a second pug to start after a first it feels like the system takes forever to start up the first game and then move onto the second. If the system could start drafting/readying for a second pug quickly after a first pug and not 5 minutes later that could cut down on time between games at peak times
Are you not scared that building such an algorithm and infrastructure might be harder than what you're able to perceive? (No offense meant, I don't know how much you know about computer science and statistics)
From what I can tell, ELO does not work in FACEIT, it was removed from a previous version of PugChamp because players were getting riled up over it, are you really sure that bringing it back is the best idea?
EDIT: You also hold this dear image that, with time, the competitive playerbase will grow bigger. I have bad news for you.
Are you not scared that building such an algorithm and infrastructure might be harder than what you're able to perceive? (No offense meant, I don't know how much you know about computer science and statistics)
From what I can tell, ELO does not work in FACEIT, it was removed from a previous version of PugChamp because players were getting riled up over it, are you really sure that bringing it back is the best idea?
EDIT: You also hold this dear image that, with time, the competitive playerbase will grow bigger. I have bad news for you.
So this is just a wishlist from two people who have no ability to contribute or deliver beyond that right?
So this is just a wishlist from two people who have no ability to contribute or deliver beyond that right?
TwiiKuuAre you not scared that building such an algorithm and infrastructure might be harder than what you're able to perceive?
GentlemanJonSo this is just a wishlist from two people who have no ability to contribute or deliver beyond that right?
It's a forum where people talk about things, and this is just another discussion topic. Since we're in the ideation phase I think this discussion is the most important place to start since the community is group that is using it. Once the idea is solid then we go talk to PugChamp or FACEIT or whoever can support such a thing and figure out implementation later.
[quote=TwiiKuu]Are you not scared that building such an algorithm and infrastructure might be harder than what you're able to perceive? [/quote]
[quote=GentlemanJon]So this is just a wishlist from two people who have no ability to contribute or deliver beyond that right?[/quote]
It's a forum where people talk about things, and this is just another discussion topic. Since we're in the ideation phase I think this discussion is the most important place to start since the community is group that is using it. Once the idea is solid then we go talk to PugChamp or FACEIT or whoever can support such a thing and figure out implementation later.
You can still have captain based picking, we just need more servers. If theres like 100 people added it will start like around 8 pugs, theres no way the first pug will be over before all the other ones have finished picking.
You can still have captain based picking, we just need more servers. If theres like 100 people added it will start like around 8 pugs, theres no way the first pug will be over before all the other ones have finished picking.
I would likely not play Pugchamp without captaining, there are too many factors that ELO doesn't take into account. Personality, playstyle, maincalling ability, etc. - captain discretion is what can make teams work.
A long time ago, it was discussed about having an Invite/IM and Open Pugchamp. Could we start that? It would enable more pugs to begin and Open players wouldn't continually be fatkidded by b4nny pug cycles.
I would likely not play Pugchamp without captaining, there are too many factors that ELO doesn't take into account. Personality, playstyle, maincalling ability, etc. - captain discretion is what can make teams work.
A long time ago, it was discussed about having an Invite/IM and Open Pugchamp. Could we start that? It would enable more pugs to begin and Open players wouldn't continually be fatkidded by b4nny pug cycles.
Amarokrevive http://tf2pickup.net/
This.
Also, why is MixChamp dead in Europe? It seems the perfect solution for people who want experience better than mumble-required lobbies and don't want to play at 2am in order to be picked on PugChamp.
[quote=Amarok]revive http://tf2pickup.net/[/quote]
This.
Also, why is MixChamp dead in Europe? It seems the perfect solution for people who want experience better than mumble-required lobbies and don't want to play at 2am in order to be picked on PugChamp.
damneasyYou can still have captain based picking, we just need more servers. If theres like 100 people added it will start like around 8 pugs, theres no way the first pug will be over before all the other ones have finished picking.
I don't know why but it always feels like picking takes 5-10 minutes, but I think it's worth sitting down one night and timing an average team drafting session. I'm pretty sure the pick timer is like 20 seconds but I'm trying to be fair in the calculation so let's say on average it takes 10 seconds to pick.
With 10 players to pick that's 90 seconds (10th player is automatically picked). Then map bans is another 60 seconds so that's 2.5 minutes or so. Then you've got the "ready up" time between games of like 30 seconds so let's just say the time to pick a pug is 3 minutes. So to get through 8 pugs that'd be 24 minutes, but you're assuming people are picking pretty quickly and nobody is intentionally killing pugs by forgetting to pick. I've definitely seen people kill pugs on purpose because they don't like the way picks are going or maybe they just AFK.
This also assumes that the first pug doesn't end in less than 24 minutes.
Either way I think that given this calculation you can make some minor optimizations to PugChamp to speed things up for sure! But I also think it's a bit annoying for the 100th person added to wait 24 minutes to ~maybe~ get picked for a pug. It's not a very good experience and if this happens enough times to you then you might just choose not to play anymore. Thoughts?
Examples:
- 94th player adds and waits patiently for 24 minutes. Pug #1 ends in 15 minutes, so 94th player doesn't get to play for 50 minutes. Maybe gets a chance to play after 50 minutes? Again not sure because if pug group #1 ends that pug again in 20 minutes you're out of luck.
- 94th player adds and waits patiently for 24 minutes. Pug #2 ends in 20 minutes, and assuming 3 minute picking then the 94th player doesn't get to play for 50 minutes. Maybe gets a chance to play after 50 minutes? Again not sure because if pug group #2 ends that pug again in 20 minutes you're out of luck.
I think more servers is a good idea but you've gotta remember that Erynn pays for the servers out of pocket too.
[Edit] I also made the assumption that people join the servers instantly so maybe there is some wiggle room there I didn't account for.
[quote=damneasy]You can still have captain based picking, we just need more servers. If theres like 100 people added it will start like around 8 pugs, theres no way the first pug will be over before all the other ones have finished picking.[/quote]
I don't know why but it always feels like picking takes 5-10 minutes, but I think it's worth sitting down one night and timing an average team drafting session. I'm pretty sure the pick timer is like 20 seconds but I'm trying to be fair in the calculation so let's say on average it takes 10 seconds to pick.
With 10 players to pick that's 90 seconds (10th player is automatically picked). Then map bans is another 60 seconds so that's 2.5 minutes or so. Then you've got the "ready up" time between games of like 30 seconds so let's just say the time to pick a pug is 3 minutes. So to get through 8 pugs that'd be 24 minutes, but you're assuming people are picking pretty quickly and nobody is intentionally killing pugs by forgetting to pick. I've definitely seen people kill pugs on purpose because they don't like the way picks are going or maybe they just AFK.
This also assumes that the first pug doesn't end in less than 24 minutes.
Either way I think that given this calculation you can make some minor optimizations to PugChamp to speed things up for sure! But I also think it's a bit annoying for the 100th person added to wait 24 minutes to ~maybe~ get picked for a pug. It's not a very good experience and if this happens enough times to you then you might just choose not to play anymore. Thoughts?
Examples:
[list]
[*] 94th player adds and waits patiently for 24 minutes. Pug #1 ends in 15 minutes, so 94th player doesn't get to play for 50 minutes. Maybe gets a chance to play after 50 minutes? Again not sure because if pug group #1 ends that pug again in 20 minutes you're out of luck.
[*] 94th player adds and waits patiently for 24 minutes. Pug #2 ends in 20 minutes, and assuming 3 minute picking then the 94th player doesn't get to play for 50 minutes. Maybe gets a chance to play after 50 minutes? Again not sure because if pug group #2 ends that pug again in 20 minutes you're out of luck.
[/list]
I think more servers is a good idea but you've gotta remember that Erynn pays for the servers out of pocket too.
[Edit] I also made the assumption that people join the servers instantly so maybe there is some wiggle room there I didn't account for.
femmebruleeI would likely not play Pugchamp without captaining, there are too many factors that ELO doesn't take into account. Personality, playstyle, maincalling ability, etc. - captain discretion is what can make teams work.
A long time ago, it was discussed about having an Invite/IM and Open Pugchamp. Could we start that? It would enable more pugs to begin and Open players wouldn't continually be fatkidded by b4nny pug cycles.
I agree with this, there was an invite pugchamp and an open pugchamp before but there werent enough prem players to use the invite one so we all used the open one anyway. Which lead to invite pugchamp dying
[quote=femmebrulee]I would likely not play Pugchamp without captaining, there are too many factors that ELO doesn't take into account. Personality, playstyle, maincalling ability, etc. - captain discretion is what can make teams work.
A long time ago, it was discussed about having an Invite/IM and Open Pugchamp. Could we start that? It would enable more pugs to begin and Open players wouldn't continually be fatkidded by b4nny pug cycles.[/quote]
I agree with this, there was an invite pugchamp and an open pugchamp before but there werent enough prem players to use the invite one so we all used the open one anyway. Which lead to invite pugchamp dying
MR_SLINletters
Idk about NA, but in EU there is no need for more than 3 servers, at least for now. Hardly ever are there more than 36 players added and the cause of it is that it is awfully hard to get picked for the first couple of times, so new players don't come. The only way to play PugChamp if you never played it is to add up when there're 11/12 gamers (at like 2am) or play medic as there is always a shortage of these on pugs. Right now EU PugChamp is just a closed circle of high/prem players with a few exceptions of mid/low players being picked. I have a couple of friends who tried to get to play pugs, but despite of being added the whole weekend they didn't get picked once. I understand captains would rather choose high or prem players than open ones, especially if they know them, there is no solution to that. But being more open to new players would be definitely a benefit.
[quote=MR_SLIN]letters[/quote]
Idk about NA, but in EU there is no need for more than 3 servers, at least for now. Hardly ever are there more than 36 players added and the cause of it is that it is awfully hard to get picked for the first couple of times, so new players don't come. The only way to play PugChamp if you never played it is to add up when there're 11/12 gamers (at like 2am) or play medic as there is always a shortage of these on pugs. Right now EU PugChamp is just a closed circle of high/prem players with a few exceptions of mid/low players being picked. I have a couple of friends who tried to get to play pugs, but despite of being added the whole weekend they didn't get picked once. I understand captains would rather choose high or prem players than open ones, especially if they know them, there is no solution to that. But being more open to new players would be definitely a benefit.
femmebruleeI would likely not play Pugchamp without captaining, there are too many factors that ELO doesn't take into account. Personality, playstyle, maincalling ability, etc. - captain discretion is what can make teams work.
A long time ago, it was discussed about having an Invite/IM and Open Pugchamp. Could we start that? It would enable more pugs to begin and Open players wouldn't continually be fatkidded by b4nny pug cycles.
It was made, at least for invite players, but no one used it
[quote=femmebrulee]I would likely not play Pugchamp without captaining, there are too many factors that ELO doesn't take into account. Personality, playstyle, maincalling ability, etc. - captain discretion is what can make teams work.
A long time ago, it was discussed about having an Invite/IM and Open Pugchamp. Could we start that? It would enable more pugs to begin and Open players wouldn't continually be fatkidded by b4nny pug cycles.[/quote]
It was made, at least for invite players, but no one used it
MR_SLINIt's a forum where people talk about things, and this is just another discussion topic.
Thanks I hadn't noticed
MR_SLINSince we're in the ideation phase I think this discussion is the most important place to start since the community is group that is using it. Once the idea is solid then we go talk to PugChamp or FACEIT or whoever can support such a thing and figure out implementation later.
Well... I don't work at Faceit so obviously this isn't based on first hand knowledge but unless their TF2 queueing and ranking system is completely separate to their other systems for their other games then you will be asking them to rewrite something that has very wide ranging effects for their entire service. And assuming their software development isn't arranged in a totally chaotic manner (and that their public pronouncements on their ranking algos, etc, don't give a totally misleading impression) then TF2 queueing and ranking won't be separate to their other systems. I wouldn't fancy your chances with them unless your suggestions miraculously match what they're doing anyway.
And it seems like PugChamp already listen to community feedback and their sites and services have been moulded at least in part by that community feedback. The community that is of existing competitive players.
I feel like the requirements being put forward addresses being able to point new players to something other than TF2 Center, and you're going to be asking people to put in a lot of time and effort to service a group that may still prefer Center anyway. And if the hope is to change PugChamp, you'll be asking everyone in the community that likes it to have that service moved away from how their feedback has formed it into something that might be less optimal for them.
I understand the desire for something better integrated into the wider community to recommend to new players than the pariah Center has apparently become, but at the same time PugChamp serves a highly specialised set of requirements that don't apply to newer players.
tldr you need something new, not to mess around with pugchamp
[quote=MR_SLIN]It's a forum where people talk about things, and this is just another discussion topic. [/quote]
Thanks I hadn't noticed
[quote=MR_SLIN]Since we're in the ideation phase I think this discussion is the most important place to start since the community is group that is using it. Once the idea is solid then we go talk to PugChamp or FACEIT or whoever can support such a thing and figure out implementation later.[/quote]
Well... I don't work at Faceit so obviously this isn't based on first hand knowledge but unless their TF2 queueing and ranking system is completely separate to their other systems for their other games then you will be asking them to rewrite something that has very wide ranging effects for their entire service. And assuming their software development isn't arranged in a totally chaotic manner (and that their public pronouncements on their ranking algos, etc, don't give a totally misleading impression) then TF2 queueing and ranking won't be separate to their other systems. I wouldn't fancy your chances with them unless your suggestions miraculously match what they're doing anyway.
And it seems like PugChamp already listen to community feedback and their sites and services have been moulded at least in part by that community feedback. The community that is of existing competitive players.
I feel like the requirements being put forward addresses being able to point new players to something other than TF2 Center, and you're going to be asking people to put in a lot of time and effort to service a group that may still prefer Center anyway. And if the hope is to change PugChamp, you'll be asking everyone in the community that likes it to have that service moved away from how their feedback has formed it into something that might be less optimal for them.
I understand the desire for something better integrated into the wider community to recommend to new players than the pariah Center has apparently become, but at the same time PugChamp serves a highly specialised set of requirements that don't apply to newer players.
tldr you need something new, not to mess around with pugchamp
If you want a good option to point new players towards then organize newbie mixes. You can do this without programming knowledge.
PugChamp was never meant to attract newbies and teach them 6s.
Also: I can only speak for eu but anywhere near 100 players being added up at the same time is utopian dreaming here
If you want a good option to point new players towards then organize newbie mixes. You can do this without programming knowledge.
PugChamp was never meant to attract newbies and teach them 6s.
Also: I can only speak for eu but anywhere near 100 players being added up at the same time is utopian dreaming here
It seems like this is overcomplicating issues that are kind of trivial. The solution is dependent on way too many factors that can't really be accounted for without creating an overly complex system. If the goal is to make pugchamp (or some other pug system) the dominant competitive system, it's most likely not going to work unless Valve takes it upon themselves to implement it.
It seems like this is overcomplicating issues that are kind of trivial. The solution is dependent on way too many factors that can't really be accounted for without creating an overly complex system. If the goal is to make pugchamp (or some other pug system) the dominant competitive system, it's most likely not going to work unless Valve takes it upon themselves to implement it.
the problem is there are 40 people playing and 2 medics, so ofc we come to the problem Mr Slin adresses because if one pug starts the next won't until that game finishes and those 2 same medics are available.
Also, ban captains who bait the system or kill it just because their friend just arrived and couldn't add up in time, that's so bullshit.
the problem is there are 40 people playing and 2 medics, so ofc we come to the problem Mr Slin adresses because if one pug starts the next won't until that game finishes and those 2 same medics are available.
Also, ban captains who bait the system or kill it just because their friend just arrived and couldn't add up in time, that's so bullshit.
So this is supposed to solve the problem of 100 people being added up? When do we solve the problem of too much money in TF2?
So this is supposed to solve the problem of 100 people being added up? When do we solve the problem of too much money in TF2?
MR_SLIN[*] MixChamp is great for medium-level gameplay but starts immediately when all 12 roles are filled, so it doesn't really suit high-level pugs
I have to disagree with this point. The main reason I don't regularly play on Pugchamp is because of the idiotic picking done by captains. These so called "high level pugs" mean if you are popular enough or have the right friends, you will get picked on any class you add-up for even if there are better players on the list who added on their mains.
It happens in almost every single pugchamp match and it is also impossible to stop so instead of wasting my time, I just decided to stop playing there.
I realize this will not be popular but the way mixchamp does the picking is superior IMO.
-- Players can actually get picked using the automated system (Removes fat kid BS)
-- Players can get on their main or the class and role they want to play more often (for practice)
-- Players don't have to hope they get lucky and all the invite rejects leave because its a "D level pug" or an "Aids Pug" during the picking process
-- Additionally, those same players will usually throw and play like morons if they feel the pug is below their high standards. Yet another reality that can't be fixed but unfortunate for players who manage to finally get picked after waiting 45+ minutes only to have their experience ruined.
[quote=MR_SLIN]
[*] MixChamp is great for medium-level gameplay but starts immediately when all 12 roles are filled, [b]so it doesn't really suit high-level pugs[/b][/quote]
I have to disagree with this point. The main reason I don't regularly play on Pugchamp is because of the idiotic picking done by captains. These so called "high level pugs" mean if you are popular enough or have the right friends, you will get picked on any class you add-up for even if there are better players on the list who added on their mains.
It happens in almost every single pugchamp match and it is also impossible to stop so instead of wasting my time, I just decided to stop playing there.
I realize this will not be popular but the way mixchamp does the picking is superior IMO.
-- Players can actually get picked using the automated system (Removes fat kid BS)
-- Players can get on their main or the class and role they want to play more often (for practice)
-- Players don't have to hope they get lucky and all the invite rejects leave because its a "D level pug" or an "Aids Pug" during the picking process
-- Additionally, those same players will usually throw and play like morons if they feel the pug is below their high standards. Yet another reality that can't be fixed but unfortunate for players who manage to finally get picked after waiting 45+ minutes only to have their experience ruined.