rtv when
PugChamp
posted in
Projects
tsc-Phantom-One thing i think should be added is a timer that you need to be in the game and readied up by.
This is planned - most likely a five minute timer by which players have to join the game, and any players not joining will be penalized and the game canceled.
so the game gets cancelled if someone doesnt show up within 5 minutes? that seems odd.
[quote=tsc][quote=-Phantom-]One thing i think should be added is a timer that you need to be in the game and readied up by.[/quote]
This is planned - most likely a five minute timer by which players have to join the game, and any players not joining will be penalized and the game canceled.[/quote]
so the game gets cancelled if someone doesnt show up within 5 minutes? that seems odd.
This is planned - most likely a five minute timer by which players have to join the game, and any players not joining will be penalized and the game canceled.[/quote]
so the game gets cancelled if someone doesnt show up within 5 minutes? that seems odd.
Cant join because of vac ban from other game, Anyone how to solve it?
Cant join because of vac ban from other game, Anyone how to solve it?
can we stop doing this https://puu.sh/x9qoE/99f5dcd836.png
can we stop doing this https://puu.sh/x9qoE/99f5dcd836.png
_garCant join because of vac ban from other game, Anyone how to solve it?
I asked Jarrett and nursey and they both said only a dev could remove them, they said they messages erynn but it's been about 4 months and the auto ban still hasn't been removed
[quote=_gar]Cant join because of vac ban from other game, Anyone how to solve it?[/quote]
I asked Jarrett and nursey and they both said only a dev could remove them, they said they messages erynn but it's been about 4 months and the auto ban still hasn't been removed
I asked Jarrett and nursey and they both said only a dev could remove them, they said they messages erynn but it's been about 4 months and the auto ban still hasn't been removed
tsc-Phantom-One thing i think should be added is a timer that you need to be in the game and readied up by.
This is planned - most likely a five minute timer by which players have to join the game, and any players not joining will be penalized and the game canceled.
I don't think this is the way to go. Drafting, getting connect and mumble, and then finally the 5 minutes takes a while. If pugs would get cancelled often like they do on faceit with this feature it would be awful. I still think the correct approach is to punish after the pug not during it.
Also if it's not possible for it to be based on them readied up and not just in the server then there's no point in this feature anyway. People are just gonna join the server within the 5 then take forever to ready up anyway.
[quote=tsc][quote=-Phantom-]One thing i think should be added is a timer that you need to be in the game and readied up by.[/quote]
This is planned - most likely a five minute timer by which players have to join the game, and any players not joining will be penalized and the game canceled.[/quote]
I don't think this is the way to go. Drafting, getting connect and mumble, and then finally the 5 minutes takes a while. If pugs would get cancelled often like they do on faceit with this feature it would be awful. I still think the correct approach is to punish after the pug not during it.
Also if it's not possible for it to be based on them readied up and not just in the server then there's no point in this feature anyway. People are just gonna join the server within the 5 then take forever to ready up anyway.
This is planned - most likely a five minute timer by which players have to join the game, and any players not joining will be penalized and the game canceled.[/quote]
I don't think this is the way to go. Drafting, getting connect and mumble, and then finally the 5 minutes takes a while. If pugs would get cancelled often like they do on faceit with this feature it would be awful. I still think the correct approach is to punish after the pug not during it.
Also if it's not possible for it to be based on them readied up and not just in the server then there's no point in this feature anyway. People are just gonna join the server within the 5 then take forever to ready up anyway.
Well, the plan is to speed up the entire process of starting the game, and along with this would come draft process improvements and server initialization improvements that would hopefully make the whole pre-game process take significantly less time than they do now.
Cancelling the PUG is admittedly a very direct way to try and reduce PUG wait times, but it seems effective. If someone doesn't show up in the end, the game is not as optimal as the draft intended. In addition, waiting for the original player to join or for a substitute to arrive may take several more minutes and ultimately fail, wasting more time for all involved.
Of course, there are ways we can tweak this - for example, having players indicate they want to keep waiting and only cancelling if they don't or if too many players have not shown up - but the general idea of preventing players from waiting too long remains the same.
Well, the plan is to speed up the entire process of starting the game, and along with this would come draft process improvements and server initialization improvements that would hopefully make the whole pre-game process take significantly less time than they do now.
Cancelling the PUG is admittedly a very direct way to try and reduce PUG wait times, but it seems effective. If someone doesn't show up in the end, the game is not as optimal as the draft intended. In addition, waiting for the original player to join or for a substitute to arrive may take several more minutes and ultimately fail, wasting more time for all involved.
Of course, there are ways we can tweak this - for example, having players indicate they want to keep waiting and only cancelling if they don't or if too many players have not shown up - but the general idea of preventing players from waiting too long remains the same.
Cancelling the PUG is admittedly a very direct way to try and reduce PUG wait times, but it seems effective. If someone doesn't show up in the end, the game is not as optimal as the draft intended. In addition, waiting for the original player to join or for a substitute to arrive may take several more minutes and ultimately fail, wasting more time for all involved.
Of course, there are ways we can tweak this - for example, having players indicate they want to keep waiting and only cancelling if they don't or if too many players have not shown up - but the general idea of preventing players from waiting too long remains the same.
Instead of auto cancelling, give captains the option of forfeiting after 5 minutes, similar function to how captains currently can sub players if they are taking forever to connect
Instead of auto cancelling, give captains the option of forfeiting after 5 minutes, similar function to how captains currently can sub players if they are taking forever to connect
tscCancelling the PUG is admittedly a very direct way to try and reduce PUG wait times, but it seems effective. [...] In addition, waiting for the original player to join or for a substitute to arrive may take several more minutes and ultimately fail, wasting more time for all involved.
faceit is a perfect example why this system doesn't work. probably about half of all of the faceit pugs that i've queued up to have been canceled because one player forgot to show up or took to long. it ends up being dumb and frustrating and makes me never want to queue up to faceit until they get a sub system.
the way to do this is pretty simple: decide on a cutoff that you use to determine if it should be killed. for example, i would recommend that if 3 or more players don't show up within 5 minutes, kill the pug, otherwise just auto sub the other 1 or 2 people that didn't show. waiting a few minutes for a sub is nothing compared to having to readd, wait for another draft to finish, wait for the server to initialize, and wait for players to join the new pug (which itself may not even start for the same reason). no amount of streamlining the drafting/pug starting process will ever be faster/more convenient than just getting subs.
tscIf someone doesn't show up in the end, the game is not as optimal as the draft intended.
this does not matter. if we want to prevent rktman and discord from taking combat class subs in IM pugs then we should fix the root of the problem and let captains ultimately have a choice about which sub to get (even if it's a curated list of subs based on elo or whatever)
[quote=tsc]
Cancelling the PUG is admittedly a very direct way to try and reduce PUG wait times, but it seems effective. [...] In addition, waiting for the original player to join or for a substitute to arrive may take several more minutes and ultimately fail, wasting more time for all involved.
[/quote]
faceit is a perfect example why this system doesn't work. probably about half of all of the faceit pugs that i've queued up to have been canceled because one player forgot to show up or took to long. it ends up being dumb and frustrating and makes me never want to queue up to faceit until they get a sub system.
the way to do this is pretty simple: decide on a cutoff that you use to determine if it should be killed. for example, i would recommend that if 3 or more players don't show up within 5 minutes, kill the pug, otherwise just auto sub the other 1 or 2 people that didn't show. waiting a few minutes for a sub is nothing compared to having to readd, wait for another draft to finish, wait for the server to initialize, and wait for players to join the new pug (which itself may not even start for the same reason). no amount of streamlining the drafting/pug starting process will ever be faster/more convenient than just getting subs.
[quote=tsc]
If someone doesn't show up in the end, the game is not as optimal as the draft intended.
[/quote]
this does not matter. if we want to prevent rktman and discord from taking combat class subs in IM pugs then we should fix the root of the problem and let captains ultimately have a choice about which sub to get (even if it's a curated list of subs based on elo or whatever)
Cancelling the PUG is admittedly a very direct way to try and reduce PUG wait times, but it seems effective. [...] In addition, waiting for the original player to join or for a substitute to arrive may take several more minutes and ultimately fail, wasting more time for all involved.
[/quote]
faceit is a perfect example why this system doesn't work. probably about half of all of the faceit pugs that i've queued up to have been canceled because one player forgot to show up or took to long. it ends up being dumb and frustrating and makes me never want to queue up to faceit until they get a sub system.
the way to do this is pretty simple: decide on a cutoff that you use to determine if it should be killed. for example, i would recommend that if 3 or more players don't show up within 5 minutes, kill the pug, otherwise just auto sub the other 1 or 2 people that didn't show. waiting a few minutes for a sub is nothing compared to having to readd, wait for another draft to finish, wait for the server to initialize, and wait for players to join the new pug (which itself may not even start for the same reason). no amount of streamlining the drafting/pug starting process will ever be faster/more convenient than just getting subs.
[quote=tsc]
If someone doesn't show up in the end, the game is not as optimal as the draft intended.
[/quote]
this does not matter. if we want to prevent rktman and discord from taking combat class subs in IM pugs then we should fix the root of the problem and let captains ultimately have a choice about which sub to get (even if it's a curated list of subs based on elo or whatever)
lazif we want to prevent rktman and discord from taking combat class subs in IM pugs then we should fix the root of the problem and let captains ultimately have a choice about which sub to get (even if it's a curated list of subs based on elo or whatever)
[quote=laz]if we want to prevent rktman and discord from taking combat class subs in IM pugs then we should fix the root of the problem and let captains ultimately have a choice about which sub to get (even if it's a curated list of subs based on elo or whatever)[/quote]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/RiRCa4A.png[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/RiRCa4A.png[/img]
Vulcan_garCant join because of vac ban from other game, Anyone how to solve it?I asked Jarrett and nursey and they both said only a dev could remove them, they said they messages erynn but it's been about 4 months and the auto ban still hasn't been removed
Where can i contact nursey or jarret?
[quote=Vulcan][quote=_gar]Cant join because of vac ban from other game, Anyone how to solve it?[/quote]
I asked Jarrett and nursey and they both said only a dev could remove them, they said they messages erynn but it's been about 4 months and the auto ban still hasn't been removed[/quote]
Where can i contact nursey or jarret?
I asked Jarrett and nursey and they both said only a dev could remove them, they said they messages erynn but it's been about 4 months and the auto ban still hasn't been removed[/quote]
Where can i contact nursey or jarret?
_garVulcanWhere can i contact nursey or jarret?_garCant join because of vac ban from other game, Anyone how to solve it?I asked Jarrett and nursey and they both said only a dev could remove them, they said they messages erynn but it's been about 4 months and the auto ban still hasn't been removed
It's useless don't even try, and you would just add them on steam
[quote=_gar][quote=Vulcan][quote=_gar]Cant join because of vac ban from other game, Anyone how to solve it?[/quote]
I asked Jarrett and nursey and they both said only a dev could remove them, they said they messages erynn but it's been about 4 months and the auto ban still hasn't been removed[/quote]
Where can i contact nursey or jarret?[/quote]
It's useless don't even try, and you would just add them on steam
I asked Jarrett and nursey and they both said only a dev could remove them, they said they messages erynn but it's been about 4 months and the auto ban still hasn't been removed[/quote]
Where can i contact nursey or jarret?[/quote]
It's useless don't even try, and you would just add them on steam
i fully support the captain picking subs when people apply
i fully support the captain picking subs when people apply
Daggeri fully support the captain picking subs when people apply
theres nothing more frustrating than when some random player takes a sub in a pug WAY above his skill level and ruins it for everyone. I've had games where i've subbed dingo and got discord as a replacement(who went 2-18 on scout and ruined the pug). If you cant allow captains to choose their subs then at least allow them to sub players out if everyone agrees that they are far too below the skill level of the pug. I've tried doing this in the past but lucrative threatened to perma c-restrict me if I did so we just end up playing our mid-high IM pug with some random ugc player that doesnt have a mic.
[quote=Dagger]i fully support the captain picking subs when people apply[/quote]
theres nothing more frustrating than when some random player takes a sub in a pug WAY above his skill level and ruins it for everyone. I've had games where i've subbed dingo and got discord as a replacement(who went 2-18 on scout and ruined the pug). If you cant allow captains to choose their subs then at least allow them to sub players out if everyone agrees that they are far too below the skill level of the pug. I've tried doing this in the past but lucrative threatened to perma c-restrict me if I did so we just end up playing our mid-high IM pug with some random ugc player that doesnt have a mic.
theres nothing more frustrating than when some random player takes a sub in a pug WAY above his skill level and ruins it for everyone. I've had games where i've subbed dingo and got discord as a replacement(who went 2-18 on scout and ruined the pug). If you cant allow captains to choose their subs then at least allow them to sub players out if everyone agrees that they are far too below the skill level of the pug. I've tried doing this in the past but lucrative threatened to perma c-restrict me if I did so we just end up playing our mid-high IM pug with some random ugc player that doesnt have a mic.
On the sub issue, as I've said before:
tscWe also hope to allow captains to choose from a pool of players narrowed down from those who apply to the sub spot rather than being assigned a sub automatically.
On the topic of waiting to start a game, I do see the benefit of flexibility and allowing players to wait for a sub if one doesn't show up. However, I also don't think it's ideal for someone to be forced to wait for a long time simply because a player didn't show up and other players in the game are willing to wait for a substitute for that long.
On the sub issue, [url=http://www.teamfortress.tv/post/762780/pugchamp]as I've said before[/url]:
[quote=tsc]We also hope to allow captains to choose from a pool of players narrowed down from those who apply to the sub spot rather than being assigned a sub automatically.[/quote]
On the topic of waiting to start a game, I do see the benefit of flexibility and allowing players to wait for a sub if one doesn't show up. However, I also don't think it's ideal for someone to be forced to wait for a long time simply because a player didn't show up and other players in the game are willing to wait for a substitute for that long.
[quote=tsc]We also hope to allow captains to choose from a pool of players narrowed down from those who apply to the sub spot rather than being assigned a sub automatically.[/quote]
On the topic of waiting to start a game, I do see the benefit of flexibility and allowing players to wait for a sub if one doesn't show up. However, I also don't think it's ideal for someone to be forced to wait for a long time simply because a player didn't show up and other players in the game are willing to wait for a substitute for that long.
tscOn the sub issue, as I've said before:
tscWe also hope to allow captains to choose from a pool of players narrowed down from those who apply to the sub spot rather than being assigned a sub automatically.
We've been asking for this for literally like a year now, you can't just keep saying 'yeah we're hoping to fix it eventually' but then never do anything about it.
As dirtymort said, with the current state of affairs, captains are put in a really shitty spot because people can take sub spots in pugs where everyone is way better than them and ruin the game, but if as a captain you sub out a sub (because everyone agrees, rktman subbing scout in a pug full of invite players is not a good idea) you can get banned even if it is for the greater good of the pug to do so. Until this is changed, I'm going to continue instasubbing rktman whenever he slithers his way into my pug on a fragging class (sorry bub, maybe one day you'll learn...)
tscOn the topic of waiting to start a game, I do see the benefit of flexibility and allowing players to wait for a sub if one doesn't show up. However, I also don't think it's ideal for someone to be forced to wait for a long time simply because a player didn't show up and other players in the game are willing to wait for a substitute for that long.
As laz said earlier this just doesn't make any sense practically. Because there will inevitably be people who take a long time to show up or don't show at all, it makes no sense to kill the pug and force EVERYONE to wait for a redraft (not to mention the possibility of not being picked in the redraft, for example if another pug ends right at the same time, causing them to wait for yet another draft process and still have the possibility of not playing).
Also given how long it currently takes for pugs to start with servers initializing and with the bullshit 'you are not authorized to join this server' glitches, 5 minutes to join is definitely too short. If y'all can get your shit together and make everything much smoother it would be fine (e.g, in freakpugs the info comes up almost instantly with no issue), but as is the timer should probably be more like 10 minutes.
Just make sure to allow the people in the pug to actually choose weather or not they want it to be killed, because as surprising as this may seem to a fascist who literally doesn't play the game ever not to mention pugs, some people enjoy playing tf2 with their friends and are willing to wait for them instead of having an automated system 'fix' the problem by aborting the game.
[quote=tsc]On the sub issue, [url=http://www.teamfortress.tv/post/762780/pugchamp]as I've said before[/url]:
[quote=tsc]We also hope to allow captains to choose from a pool of players narrowed down from those who apply to the sub spot rather than being assigned a sub automatically.[/quote][/quote]
We've been asking for this for literally like a year now, you can't just keep saying 'yeah we're hoping to fix it eventually' but then never do anything about it.
As dirtymort said, with the current state of affairs, captains are put in a really shitty spot because people can take sub spots in pugs where everyone is way better than them and ruin the game, but if as a captain you sub out a sub (because everyone agrees, rktman subbing scout in a pug full of invite players is not a good idea) you can get banned even if it is for the greater good of the pug to do so. Until this is changed, I'm going to continue instasubbing rktman whenever he slithers his way into my pug on a fragging class (sorry bub, maybe one day you'll learn...)
[quote=tsc]On the topic of waiting to start a game, I do see the benefit of flexibility and allowing players to wait for a sub if one doesn't show up. However, I also don't think it's ideal for someone to be forced to wait for a long time simply because a player didn't show up and other players in the game are willing to wait for a substitute for that long.[/quote]
As laz said earlier this just doesn't make any sense practically. Because there will inevitably be people who take a long time to show up or don't show at all, it makes no sense to kill the pug and force EVERYONE to wait for a redraft (not to mention the possibility of not being picked in the redraft, for example if another pug ends right at the same time, causing them to wait for yet another draft process and still have the possibility of not playing).
Also given how long it currently takes for pugs to start with servers initializing and with the bullshit 'you are not authorized to join this server' glitches, 5 minutes to join is definitely too short. If y'all can get your shit together and make everything much smoother it would be fine (e.g, in freakpugs the info comes up almost instantly with no issue), but as is the timer should probably be more like 10 minutes.
Just make sure to allow the people in the pug to actually choose weather or not they want it to be killed, because as surprising as this may seem to a fascist who literally doesn't play the game ever not to mention pugs, some people enjoy playing tf2 with their friends and are willing to wait for them instead of having an automated system 'fix' the problem by aborting the game.
[quote=tsc]We also hope to allow captains to choose from a pool of players narrowed down from those who apply to the sub spot rather than being assigned a sub automatically.[/quote][/quote]
We've been asking for this for literally like a year now, you can't just keep saying 'yeah we're hoping to fix it eventually' but then never do anything about it.
As dirtymort said, with the current state of affairs, captains are put in a really shitty spot because people can take sub spots in pugs where everyone is way better than them and ruin the game, but if as a captain you sub out a sub (because everyone agrees, rktman subbing scout in a pug full of invite players is not a good idea) you can get banned even if it is for the greater good of the pug to do so. Until this is changed, I'm going to continue instasubbing rktman whenever he slithers his way into my pug on a fragging class (sorry bub, maybe one day you'll learn...)
[quote=tsc]On the topic of waiting to start a game, I do see the benefit of flexibility and allowing players to wait for a sub if one doesn't show up. However, I also don't think it's ideal for someone to be forced to wait for a long time simply because a player didn't show up and other players in the game are willing to wait for a substitute for that long.[/quote]
As laz said earlier this just doesn't make any sense practically. Because there will inevitably be people who take a long time to show up or don't show at all, it makes no sense to kill the pug and force EVERYONE to wait for a redraft (not to mention the possibility of not being picked in the redraft, for example if another pug ends right at the same time, causing them to wait for yet another draft process and still have the possibility of not playing).
Also given how long it currently takes for pugs to start with servers initializing and with the bullshit 'you are not authorized to join this server' glitches, 5 minutes to join is definitely too short. If y'all can get your shit together and make everything much smoother it would be fine (e.g, in freakpugs the info comes up almost instantly with no issue), but as is the timer should probably be more like 10 minutes.
Just make sure to allow the people in the pug to actually choose weather or not they want it to be killed, because as surprising as this may seem to a fascist who literally doesn't play the game ever not to mention pugs, some people enjoy playing tf2 with their friends and are willing to wait for them instead of having an automated system 'fix' the problem by aborting the game.
Ok so what, balls have been dropped and shit isn't implemented yet. If people hate it so much why are you still playing? Go back to inhouse pugs, set up IRC/discord bots (its not hard at all) faceit, people literally have so many options yet they continue to stick with a service that does not meet their needs. I don't understand at all, if the product or service sucks you are able to leave and do your own thing.
As for this
Bearbecause as surprising as this may seem to a fascist
After all the shit that has happened recently this is uncalled for and not funny in the slightest. So please stop with these shitty memes, you just look like an idiot.
Ok so what, balls have been dropped and shit isn't implemented yet. If people hate it so much why are you still playing? Go back to inhouse pugs, set up IRC/discord bots (its not hard at all) faceit, people literally have so many options yet they continue to stick with a service that does not meet their needs. I don't understand at all, if the product or service sucks you are able to leave and do your own thing.
As for this
[quote=Bear]because as surprising as this may seem to a fascist [/quote]
After all the shit that has happened recently this is uncalled for and not funny in the slightest. So please stop with these shitty memes, you just look like an idiot.
As for this
[quote=Bear]because as surprising as this may seem to a fascist [/quote]
After all the shit that has happened recently this is uncalled for and not funny in the slightest. So please stop with these shitty memes, you just look like an idiot.
bearodactyltscOn the sub issue, as I've said before:We've been asking for this for literally like a year now, you can't just keep saying 'yeah we're hoping to fix it eventually' but then never do anything about it.
tscWe also hope to allow captains to choose from a pool of players narrowed down from those who apply to the sub spot rather than being assigned a sub automatically.
As dirtymort said, with the current state of affairs, captains are put in a really shitty spot because people can take sub spots in pugs where everyone is way better than them and ruin the game, but if as a captain you sub out a sub (because everyone agrees, rktman subbing scout in a pug full of invite players is not a good idea) you can get banned even if it is for the greater good of the pug to do so. Until this is changed, I'm going to continue instasubbing rktman whenever he slithers his way into my pug on a fragging class (sorry bub, maybe one day you'll learn...)
tscOn the topic of waiting to start a game, I do see the benefit of flexibility and allowing players to wait for a sub if one doesn't show up. However, I also don't think it's ideal for someone to be forced to wait for a long time simply because a player didn't show up and other players in the game are willing to wait for a substitute for that long.As laz said earlier this just doesn't make any sense practically. Because there will inevitably be people who take a long time to show up or don't show at all, it makes no sense to kill the pug and force EVERYONE to wait for a redraft (not to mention the possibility of not being picked in the redraft, for example if another pug ends right at the same time, causing them to wait for yet another draft process and still have the possibility of not playing).
Also given how long it currently takes for pugs to start with servers initializing and with the bullshit 'you are not authorized to join this server' glitches, 5 minutes to join is definitely too short. If y'all can get your shit together and make everything much smoother it would be fine (e.g, in freakpugs the info comes up almost instantly with no issue), but as is the timer should probably be more like 10 minutes.
Just make sure to allow the people in the pug to actually choose weather or not they want it to be killed, because as surprising as this may seem to a fascist who literally doesn't play the game ever not to mention pugs, some people enjoy playing tf2 with their friends and are willing to wait for them instead of having an automated system 'fix' the problem by aborting the game.
On the topic of not fixing things, another pug is broken and no one can connect, and there are no moderators to help.
[quote=bearodactyl][quote=tsc]On the sub issue, [url=http://www.teamfortress.tv/post/762780/pugchamp]as I've said before[/url]:
[quote=tsc]We also hope to allow captains to choose from a pool of players narrowed down from those who apply to the sub spot rather than being assigned a sub automatically.[/quote][/quote]
We've been asking for this for literally like a year now, you can't just keep saying 'yeah we're hoping to fix it eventually' but then never do anything about it.
As dirtymort said, with the current state of affairs, captains are put in a really shitty spot because people can take sub spots in pugs where everyone is way better than them and ruin the game, but if as a captain you sub out a sub (because everyone agrees, rktman subbing scout in a pug full of invite players is not a good idea) you can get banned even if it is for the greater good of the pug to do so. Until this is changed, I'm going to continue instasubbing rktman whenever he slithers his way into my pug on a fragging class (sorry bub, maybe one day you'll learn...)
[quote=tsc]On the topic of waiting to start a game, I do see the benefit of flexibility and allowing players to wait for a sub if one doesn't show up. However, I also don't think it's ideal for someone to be forced to wait for a long time simply because a player didn't show up and other players in the game are willing to wait for a substitute for that long.[/quote]
As laz said earlier this just doesn't make any sense practically. Because there will inevitably be people who take a long time to show up or don't show at all, it makes no sense to kill the pug and force EVERYONE to wait for a redraft (not to mention the possibility of not being picked in the redraft, for example if another pug ends right at the same time, causing them to wait for yet another draft process and still have the possibility of not playing).
Also given how long it currently takes for pugs to start with servers initializing and with the bullshit 'you are not authorized to join this server' glitches, 5 minutes to join is definitely too short. If y'all can get your shit together and make everything much smoother it would be fine (e.g, in freakpugs the info comes up almost instantly with no issue), but as is the timer should probably be more like 10 minutes.
Just make sure to allow the people in the pug to actually choose weather or not they want it to be killed, because as surprising as this may seem to a fascist who literally doesn't play the game ever not to mention pugs, some people enjoy playing tf2 with their friends and are willing to wait for them instead of having an automated system 'fix' the problem by aborting the game.[/quote]
On the topic of not fixing things, another pug is broken and no one can connect, and there are no moderators to help.
[quote=tsc]We also hope to allow captains to choose from a pool of players narrowed down from those who apply to the sub spot rather than being assigned a sub automatically.[/quote][/quote]
We've been asking for this for literally like a year now, you can't just keep saying 'yeah we're hoping to fix it eventually' but then never do anything about it.
As dirtymort said, with the current state of affairs, captains are put in a really shitty spot because people can take sub spots in pugs where everyone is way better than them and ruin the game, but if as a captain you sub out a sub (because everyone agrees, rktman subbing scout in a pug full of invite players is not a good idea) you can get banned even if it is for the greater good of the pug to do so. Until this is changed, I'm going to continue instasubbing rktman whenever he slithers his way into my pug on a fragging class (sorry bub, maybe one day you'll learn...)
[quote=tsc]On the topic of waiting to start a game, I do see the benefit of flexibility and allowing players to wait for a sub if one doesn't show up. However, I also don't think it's ideal for someone to be forced to wait for a long time simply because a player didn't show up and other players in the game are willing to wait for a substitute for that long.[/quote]
As laz said earlier this just doesn't make any sense practically. Because there will inevitably be people who take a long time to show up or don't show at all, it makes no sense to kill the pug and force EVERYONE to wait for a redraft (not to mention the possibility of not being picked in the redraft, for example if another pug ends right at the same time, causing them to wait for yet another draft process and still have the possibility of not playing).
Also given how long it currently takes for pugs to start with servers initializing and with the bullshit 'you are not authorized to join this server' glitches, 5 minutes to join is definitely too short. If y'all can get your shit together and make everything much smoother it would be fine (e.g, in freakpugs the info comes up almost instantly with no issue), but as is the timer should probably be more like 10 minutes.
Just make sure to allow the people in the pug to actually choose weather or not they want it to be killed, because as surprising as this may seem to a fascist who literally doesn't play the game ever not to mention pugs, some people enjoy playing tf2 with their friends and are willing to wait for them instead of having an automated system 'fix' the problem by aborting the game.[/quote]
On the topic of not fixing things, another pug is broken and no one can connect, and there are no moderators to help.
I've had a few times now where my pugchamp server died and there were no admins to kill it for 1-2 hours, can we please just give admin to another person who pugs a lot in NA?
I've had a few times now where my pugchamp server died and there were no admins to kill it for 1-2 hours, can we please just give admin to another person who pugs a lot in NA?
Dyl4NI've had a few times now where my pugchamp server died and there were no admins to kill it for 1-2 hours, can we please just give admin to another person who pugs a lot in NA?
Dyl4n and n3 for moderator
[quote=Dyl4N]I've had a few times now where my pugchamp server died and there were no admins to kill it for 1-2 hours, can we please just give admin to another person who pugs a lot in NA?[/quote]
Dyl4n and n3 for moderator
Dyl4n and n3 for moderator
What are the odds we can get a 4th server? I understand it's 6pm on a Saturday but there is 33 people added up with 1 server left. Someone mentioned using the last mixchamp server since mixchamp is dead.
What are the odds we can get a 4th server? I understand it's 6pm on a Saturday but there is 33 people added up with 1 server left. Someone mentioned using the last mixchamp server since mixchamp is dead.
last mixchamp game was july 8 and before that june 27
last mixchamp game was july 8 and before that june 27
Honestly, as someone who used to play mixchamp, its server should really be moved to pugchamp. The mixes have been dead for months since other pug services have come about.
Honestly, as someone who used to play mixchamp, its server should really be moved to pugchamp. The mixes have been dead for months since other pug services have come about.
why cant mixchamp and pugchamp take servers from the same list? it would be optimal
why cant mixchamp and pugchamp take servers from the same list? it would be optimal
Dyl4Ncan we please just give admin to another person who pugs a lot in NA?
The issue is people abuse their admin/moderator powers...
AccordDyl4n and n3 for moderator
didn't n3 already get moderator but lost it because he did some stupid shit like changing someones name to eatbabiesmmmg00d or something dumb. Further reinforces my point from before. just because someone pugs allot doesn't mean they should be given moderator.
[quote=Dyl4N]can we please just give admin to another person who pugs a lot in NA?[/quote]
The issue is people abuse their admin/moderator powers...
[quote=Accord]Dyl4n and n3 for moderator[/quote]
didn't n3 already get moderator but lost it because he did some stupid shit like changing someones name to eatbabiesmmmg00d or something dumb. Further reinforces my point from before. just because someone pugs allot doesn't mean they should be given moderator.
The issue is people abuse their admin/moderator powers...
[quote=Accord]Dyl4n and n3 for moderator[/quote]
didn't n3 already get moderator but lost it because he did some stupid shit like changing someones name to eatbabiesmmmg00d or something dumb. Further reinforces my point from before. just because someone pugs allot doesn't mean they should be given moderator.
Why does it still say on eu pugchamp that it's MapChamp sunday on mixchamp?
Why does it still say on eu pugchamp that it's MapChamp sunday on mixchamp?
bleghfarecHonestly, as someone who used to play mixchamp, its server should really be moved to pugchamp. The mixes have been dead for months since other pug services have come about.
Apparently the FreakPugs! site just died for good and they're going back to in-house Discord pugs, so this could change soon.
[quote=bleghfarec]Honestly, as someone who used to play mixchamp, its server should really be moved to pugchamp. The mixes have been dead for months since other pug services have come about.[/quote]
Apparently the FreakPugs! site just died for good and they're going back to in-house Discord pugs, so this could change soon.
Apparently the FreakPugs! site just died for good and they're going back to in-house Discord pugs, so this could change soon.
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.