Onslaught Onslaught Server Discussion

Go Back   Omnip)o(tentS Forums > SERVERS > Unreal Tournament > Onslaught
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-13-2019, 06:01 PM   #81
Rando
Just Registered
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 25
Default
Reply With Quote


Quote:
Originally Posted by Enyo View Post
Yeah, I don't care for this idea for the same reason Binger already pointed out. I don't think much else is necessary to change if we can get the score limit to 3 with 1 point round wins.
Just brainstorming here but what about 20 minutes, normal OT and a score limit of 1. I think that'd be pretty easy to setup without having to use mutators etc.
Rando is offline  
Old 03-14-2019, 03:35 PM   #82
Enyo
Getting there...

 
Enyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 470
Default
Reply With Quote


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rando View Post
Just brainstorming here but what about 20 minutes, normal OT and a score limit of 1. I think that'd be pretty easy to setup without having to use mutators etc.
This is pretty similar to CEONSS with the 1 point win, except I think they have a 15 minute time with a very slow core drain, so overtime matches seem to last around 20 minutes.

Caveat to the 1 point win is it can be over in a hurry with unbalanced teams, which means bringing the mulligan back, which CEONSS also uses. The mulligan was not well received in general here, but is well accepted at CEONSS... maybe it's a European vs. American mentality? I dunno, but most players at OMNI seem to feel ripped off if their team quickly wins and they're not rewarded with the points.
Enyo is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 04:22 PM   #83
EmanReleipS
The Pancake Fairy
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 25
Default
Reply With Quote


Quote:
Originally Posted by Enyo View Post
This is pretty similar to CEONSS with the 1 point win, except I think they have a 15 minute time with a very slow core drain, so overtime matches seem to last around 20 minutes.

Caveat to the 1 point win is it can be over in a hurry with unbalanced teams, which means bringing the mulligan back, which CEONSS also uses. The mulligan was not well received in general here, but is well accepted at CEONSS... maybe it's a European vs. American mentality?
CEONSS got the timer set to 20 mins. We get matches that will last around 30 minutes at max.

Looking at some map stats for CEONSS, most matches seem to last between 18 and 22 minutes, though, so your gut feeling is right on the money. Those maps that regularly end too quickly need an edit of their node layout...

Quote:
I dunno, but most players at OMNI seem to feel ripped off if their team quickly wins and they're not rewarded with the points.
Interesting. For me, when the mulligan kicks in, it feels more like "oops, oh well...this never happened, let's try again with better teams". Maybe having only 1 goal score helps here? It feels like another chance to gain victory after an embarrassing defeat (or for the winning team, a victory that was too easy). Also, you get a couple more minutes on a map that would otherwise be over already. I can see how this would feel different on a server with more rounds.
EmanReleipS is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 08:31 PM   #84
BoFox
Getting there...
 
BoFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 141
Default
Reply With Quote


Quote:
Originally Posted by Enyo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Goose- View Post
Just wanted to say I had an interesting idea for this a while back....

1) Set score limit to 3
2) Set round time limit to 1 min
3) Reduce OT damage considerably

This way every round is worth 1 point, and node control is actually meaningful to the outcome of the game again (one of the banes of the current meta is node control is practically meaningless especially in typical stalemate maps like Dria).

Only a handful of maps would need to be fixed for this (those with the low health cores).

Just a thought...
Yeah, I don't care for this idea for the same reason Binger already pointed out. I don't think much else is necessary to change if we can get the score limit to 3 with 1 point round wins.
BUT GUYS, let's consider the idea of 5 minutes - halving the current round time of 10 minutes because it seems to be more balanced that way (without mulligan in effect). If it were 1 minute rounds, then we'd be forced into 1-point rounds on pretty much every map no matter how unbalanced the teams are, having to endure 3 rounds and play out the OT each round.

With 5 minutes, if the teams are rather unbalanced, then let the team win 2 points as deserved and move on with just one more round (if the teams are still really unbalanced). That's it. 5 minutes is about indicative enough of the imbalance.

If it takes more than 5 minutes for a win, then there's more of a fighting chance and we'd probably enjoy more short-and-sweet 5-min+OT 1-point rounds on more maps that we vote for. It's a no-brainer.

Guys, let's give it a try please? Binger? Mailbox? Enyo? If we tried mulligan, why not try 5 minutes instead of 10 minutes and see? Just for 2 weeks? What's the harm in that? It's not like as if we're gonna quit ONS right away altogether just because of that.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enyo
she's so hot I'd let her pee on me.

Last edited by BoFox; 03-17-2019 at 09:44 PM..
BoFox is offline  
Old 03-17-2019, 07:47 PM   #85
BoFox
Getting there...
 
BoFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 141
Default
Reply With Quote


Well, how about bring back mulligan, but make it much shorter? I'd still like shorter rounds, though.


4-minute mulligan would be short enough that a lot less players feel like they wasted their time on a meaningless round, for 0 points ...


Let's just set the round time to 6 minutes then? We can keep the OT damage the same as it is now - so we won't be facing too many changes to the strategy. The overtime countdown rate seems to be pretty good as it is now.



Just 4-minute mulligan, with round time set to 6 minutes before OT kicks in... mulligan happening far less often than we used to get mulligans - instead, we'd be getting 2 points and not be bitching about mulligan most of the time. If the teams are more balanced, then we'd be getting more 1-point rounds - with more chances to regroup or work out different strategies, while the 5-round marathons would be far shorter in total.

Last edited by BoFox; 03-17-2019 at 10:26 PM..
BoFox is offline  
Old Yesterday, 09:13 AM   #86
{glr}pooty
Mostly a target...

 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 262
Default
Reply With Quote


After playing a few days with the old rules.


I am liking the idea of a mulligan, but on a shorter time frame as BoFox suggested, this would at least give a reshuffle (maybe with Balancer?) a shot at evening up the teams.



I also like the idea of shorter rounds...the mulligan might alleviate that, but having to endure 3 rounds of ass beating because the teams aren't even, but not enough for 2pts (really more map dependent), is not fun.



I think shorter rounds with longer OT (as mentioned in the thread) making comebacks during OT possible. I realize the net here might be same amount of time overall, but OT puts the pressure on to do node control..even building and holding a node for 20seconds might be the difference. We've had some pretty good comebacks lately and they are at least as much fun and satisfying as a 2pt victory..maybe more so.
{glr}pooty is offline  
Old Yesterday, 11:12 AM   #87
Enyo
Getting there...

 
Enyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 470
Default
Reply With Quote


Quote:
Originally Posted by {glr}pooty View Post
After playing a few days with the old rules.

I am liking the idea of a mulligan, but on a shorter time frame as BoFox suggested, this would at least give a reshuffle (maybe with Balancer?) a shot at evening up the teams.

I also like the idea of shorter rounds...the mulligan might alleviate that, but having to endure 3 rounds of ass beating because the teams aren't even, but not enough for 2pts (really more map dependent), is not fun.

I think shorter rounds with longer OT (as mentioned in the thread) making comebacks during OT possible. I realize the net here might be same amount of time overall, but OT puts the pressure on to do node control..even building and holding a node for 20seconds might be the difference. We've had some pretty good comebacks lately and they are at least as much fun and satisfying as a 2pt victory..maybe more so.
Keep in mind the mulligan is pointless without a balancer to reshuffle teams. Does the balancer in fact balance teams any better than random teams? I don't really think so, but we only have anecdotal evidence since we really have no way to effectively track stats long term. And if there's no way to effectively track stats over a long period, then the balancer is more or less just shuffling based on previous round PPH. Maybe that's a little better than random, but no way to positively affirm that.

But how many times did you see this scenario with the mulligan/balancer: Round 1, red team slaughters blue team in under 5 minutes; teams reshuffle with almost the exact same players from red now on blue; now blue team slaughters red in about the same amount of time, 2 point win, match over. The real point is, with ONS you'll NEVER have balanced teams for a multitude of reasons short of players self-balancing, i.e. offering to switch to the losing team to help balance things. I know I've done that several times over the last couple weeks and have seen several other players, including Army and Sarge, offer to do so. Remember it's OK to switch to the losing team to help, just give a courtesy text of, "hey, should I switch to help them?" especially if an admin is present... sometimes the balance isn't really all that out of whack and a strong player switching can sometimes actually make things worse.

I don't mind experimenting with the round/OT clock to see if we can get more competitive end of round fights.
Enyo is offline  
Old Yesterday, 07:22 PM   #88
Binger
.

 
Binger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,459
Default
Reply With Quote


Quote:
Originally Posted by Enyo View Post
...
But how many times did you see this scenario with the mulligan/balancer: Round 1, red team slaughters blue team in under 5 minutes; teams reshuffle with almost the exact same players from red now on blue; now blue team slaughters red in about the same amount of time, 2 point win, match over.
The most frustrating for me was when teams were fairly balanced but one team managed to get a core destroy at 7:30 minutes, then mulligan/shuffle and a 2 minute victory. Just because a team gets a core destroy doesn't mean the teams are unbalanced. Where to draw the line is always going to be a matter of opinion which is why I opt for playing the cards you are dealt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enyo View Post
The real point is, with ONS you'll NEVER have balanced teams for a multitude of reasons short of players self-balancing, i.e. offering to switch to the losing team to help balance things. I know I've done that several times over the last couple weeks and have seen several other players, including Army and Sarge, offer to do so. Remember it's OK to switch to the losing team to help, just give a courtesy text of, "hey, should I switch to help them?" especially if an admin is present... sometimes the balance isn't really all that out of whack and a strong player switching can sometimes actually make things worse.
A few years back, before the balancer, I was playing a lot of late night games and I would often switch teams to try to even things up. What would often happen is I would switch teams and then the team I switched to would win and I would feel bad for the team I was on. The whole point of switching is to give the other team a chance but if someone switches and then that team wins how is that fair? There were some matches with very few players where I would literally switch every round for five rounds. Some times I would even switch mid-round or go to spectate for a while. No one ever got mad at me for doing this but it just felt wrong even though I was trying to do the right thing. Eventually I gave up and decided to never switch teams again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enyo View Post
I don't mind experimenting with the round/OT clock to see if we can get more competitive end of round fights.
The only argument I've heard against shorter rounds is that sometimes is takes almost 10 minutes of slow momentum to unlock and destroy a core. Well, sure. I can see it taking 20 minutes, or 30. Maybe there is a sweet spot but that is probably also a matter of opinion.

I think I would prefer shorter rounds and longer OT but then that might cause more OT rounds which means that shortening rounds could actually lead to longer matches on average, which is what I think most of us are wanting to avoid.

I encourage experimenting. It's really the only way to know how something will turn out. We just need to make sure experiments are followed up and reversed if needed. Mailbox has been good about this so as long as you and he are around and active to follow up on things then I would like to see different things being tried. Like BoFox said, "It's not like as if we're gonna quit ONS right away altogether just because of that."


Btw, I have really been trying to understand how to make a server mut so we can try that simple code change for DW style scoring but I just can't figure it out. Maybe Crusha can help. It seems like (but I'm prob wrong) simply extending Onslaught and changing that one number in that function would work but how to make a server mut out of it Idk...




//-----------------------------------------------------------
//
//-----------------------------------------------------------

class xONSOnslaughtGame extends ONSOnslaughtGame;


function MainCoreDestroyed(byte T)
{
local Controller C;
local PlayerController PC;
local int Score;

if (bOverTime)
Score = 1;
else
Score = 1;

if (T == 1)
{
BroadcastLocalizedMessage( class'ONSOnslaughtMessage', 0);
TeamScoreEvent(0, Score, "enemy_core_destroyed");
Teams[0].Score += Score;
Teams[0].NetUpdateTime = Level.TimeSeconds - 1;
CheckScore(PowerCores[FinalCore[1]].LastDamagedBy);
}
else
{
BroadcastLocalizedMessage( class'ONSOnslaughtMessage', 1);
TeamScoreEvent(1, Score, "enemy_core_destroyed");
Teams[1].Score += Score;
Teams[1].NetUpdateTime = Level.TimeSeconds - 1;
CheckScore(PowerCores[FinalCore[0]].LastDamagedBy);
}

//round has ended
for (C = Level.ControllerList; C != None; C = C.NextController)
{
PC = PlayerController(C);
if (PC != None)
{
PC.ClientSetBehindView(true);
PC.ClientSetViewTarget(PowerCores[FinalCore[T]]);
PC.SetViewTarget(PowerCores[FinalCore[T]]);
if (!bGameEnded)
PC.ClientRoundEnded();
}
if (!bGameEnded)
C.RoundHasEnded();
}

ResetCountDown = ResetTimeDelay;
}
__________________
Binger is offline  
Old Yesterday, 08:53 PM   #89
BoFox
Getting there...
 
BoFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 141
Default
Reply With Quote


Quote:
Originally Posted by Enyo View Post
Keep in mind the mulligan is pointless without a balancer to reshuffle teams. Does the balancer in fact balance teams any better than random teams? I don't really think so, but we only have anecdotal evidence since we really have no way to effectively track stats long term. And if there's no way to effectively track stats over a long period, then the balancer is more or less just shuffling based on previous round PPH. Maybe that's a little better than random, but no way to positively affirm that.

But how many times did you see this scenario with the mulligan/balancer: Round 1, red team slaughters blue team in under 5 minutes; teams reshuffle with almost the exact same players from red now on blue; now blue team slaughters red in about the same amount of time, 2 point win, match over. The real point is, with ONS you'll NEVER have balanced teams for a multitude of reasons short of players self-balancing, i.e. offering to switch to the losing team to help balance things. I know I've done that several times over the last couple weeks and have seen several other players, including Army and Sarge, offer to do so. Remember it's OK to switch to the losing team to help, just give a courtesy text of, "hey, should I switch to help them?" especially if an admin is present... sometimes the balance isn't really all that out of whack and a strong player switching can sometimes actually make things worse.

I don't mind experimenting with the round/OT clock to see if we can get more competitive end of round fights.
No need for a balancer at all, then.. just let it be a random reshuffle with mulligan - just another random deck of cards to be dealt. Mulligan just reduces the likelihood of extreme bad/good luck with the randomness, but the randomness will still be there regardless. I don't even care about much shorter (and therefore more scarce) mulligans - I just don't want to play 1-hour marathon with my crappy Logitech G502 that is front-heavy and too damn narrow - if my wrists are tired from doing yard work, weight lifting, etc, then I can't aim for shit. It's pretty hopeless for me to fix my broken Logitech G9x, unless I can find another one to salvage the parts?? Oh well.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enyo
she's so hot I'd let her pee on me.
BoFox is offline  
Reply


Go Back   Omnip)o(tentS Forums > SERVERS > Unreal Tournament > Onslaught

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rounds Mr.Crow Onslaught 10 08-30-2013 08:36 PM
Left out between rounds Evillusion Onslaught 3 10-28-2008 05:06 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:44 PM.