Lts

[TensaZangetsu]

@Seraphine, I'm pretty sure some GM's do it, aint saying any names but I mean come on you'll say anything that Genesis want's to hear to get the job am I right? =]

Edited March 14, 2011 by TensaZangetsu

[Groxy Drank]

It is just my opinion.

I find LTS fine the way it is, I am not saying that a script to automatically divide the teams is a bad idea, but I believe that we should be doing something that could be in some kind of case useless, and not focusing on the new updates or fixing some bugs.

I have to point out that most of the time the GMs take such a long time to pick a player because many of the players go AFK and the GM can't keep picking people until the player has not accepted the party invite.

Just to let you know how it works, the GMs take turns to pick the players, they just don't go in there and start picking people just because they want to and at the end just check if the number of people in each party is equal or similar.

When people say that picking the best players first is "favoritism" I disagree with that, and I have to support Nines on what he said, it is just human nature, you don't go pick the weakest first and climb to the good stuff, you go straight to the best and then at the end just pick the last "weaks" to fill the team. "I AM NOT SAYING HERE THAT NINES IS THE BEST OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT."

[nines]

Yah you are randy.

[Justice]

Keep it cool, guys. Don't go starting any fights. You're all here to talk about improving LTS, not about who's the best and what you think a GM does during LTS. That's a warning to everyone.

[Drax]

I dont think the auto picking teams think would work because even with that teams can still be unbalanced, i think it is fine the way it is now but you can't blame the gm's just for picking the best people first its like picking teams for dodgeball nobody wants to pick the worst people first, you save them for later.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Drax

[nines]

Yup. Pick the fat person last xD

[kuoch]

Lts is all for fun in my opinion. Good way to actually get the community in all doing something together, winning or losing. What does it matter.

[Adum*]

I believe it's possible to create a IP lock in a map, let's say for exemple, 192.123.456.2 logged on the map, then no other 192.123.456.2 would be permitted log on that map as long as the other one still remains, but then again this may be an issue for the Internet Cafe users which would be a minority in most cases, but that is, to what point are we really wanting this event to be a success, are people even willing to sophisticate such a script for the likes of an event? But then again, same script could be enforced in GvG and LMS

Would be a great idea to avoid players from dual clienting. I believe people who do dual client just takes up space for those who wanted to join -since LTS have a limit on the number of players. As for internet cafe users, don't individual computers have their own unique IP address?

As for the leadership and such, that would be more like GVG and I would agree that we will need a bigger map if we do that.

And also yes, more teams/party. So its more of like strategical than just run and rape.

About the players who AFK, they should be given ~5 secs to respond, else they'll be disconnected. You decided to join an event, you better make damn sure you got your ass stuck to your chair and your eyes glued to your monitor(lol?) But seriously, its not "that one person's event", its for the whole FRO community, why would the community(rather players who joined the event) suffer while someone is afk bating or some shit like that.

Lts is all for fun in my opinion. Good way to actually get the community in all doing something together, winning or losing. What does it matter.

But dont you think Kuoch dear that LTS would be a lot fun if it was random? Those LTS I joined were all complete ownage. I believe it didnt even last a minute til 90% of the opposing team/party are all dead. Just a though Kuoch dear.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Adum*

[Appie]

It'd also be fun if LTS lasted longer. But no, 20 minutes to pick the team, and usually about 5 minutes of battle before it's over. How is that fun?

[Centurion]

Well when I was a GM when we host LTS we used to pick by class. Yeah you guys complaining about not getting picked cause you gearless or something, but it's okay lol. I think most of GMs do this picking by class. Picking by class takes too much time but its the only way you can get a balanced team.

[Xtopher]

You know in Lts our alts only die like never? And having alts in there doesn't slow down the event. The you should know that chris. The only reason LTS takes a long time is because they have to write down the names of the people they party and since people who have alts only get one prize they don't have to write the name down. *kaboom shot down*

Physically making a list on note pad or writing it down is not necessary nines. You know who gets a prize because they are in the victors party... there's already the party list made for you once everyone has been recruited. LTS takes a long time because people afk (even though GMs pop off multiple broadcasts about AFKing). *Kaboom, backfire*

But my post wasn't really about the time it takes rather the balance and fairness of the event. When two people with three fully equipped characters join a team it loses its fairness. The point of LTS is working with a team of your fellow players to beat an opposing team. When one person comprises 15-20% of the entire team it starts to lose its purpose to me.

Lets use Drax as an example of another point: When a GM chooses D r a x ` (stalker) he also has obtained Fper (creator) and Abobo (champion). All of which are effectively geared. So by choosing only one player he has obtained 3 fully geared and effective classes.

Would be a great idea to avoid players from dual clienting. I believe people who do dual client just takes up space for those who wanted to join -since LTS have a limit on the number of players. As for internet cafe users, don't individual computers have their own unique IP address?

I like the idea of the IP system, but it would be really unfair to those people who legitimately share an IP. Like Apo mentioned in an internet cafe multiple players have the same IP address. I also like the point that it is true that multi-clienters take up slots for other players to participate in the event.

[nines]

Except for the fact that we hardly ever hit the cap of full amount of people needed in the event. Which is 75 depending on how many gms hosting on in.

\

And before when people brought alts in they didn't have to be in the same party which was nice because you have a chance to win either way and well when I did it I didn't just let the other team win if I died on that team. Also went to kill them full out also if the gms could enforce that I actually enjoyed pvp a lot more also. But then again those were 3 - 4 team lts also.

[kuoch]

How about a best of 2 out of 3 rounds of Lts. Like a rematch of the same team, you know? Cause' Appie is right about it being to short. That's the only thing I agree on right about now.

[nines]

I agree on that. More rounds would be pretty fun :P.

I bet after first loss a lot of ragequiters though.

Also. Maybe add a npc infront of the tree so when you click on it it will randomize

Char name : Go left. Go top. Go Bottom, Bo Right.

If two gms host one could take top and left people and their in that party. Other gets right and bottom.

Could also set it up so you enter how many people are on the map and it will calculate how to properly distribute the players.

Edited March 14, 2011 by nines

[Kayleigh]

More teams and more rounds sounds much more entertaining than it is now. But then again more GMs have to be online at the same time which could be a problem. Tho, new ones were recruited!

Nines npc idea ^ seems like it can work. LTS is my favourite pvp event but recently it's been lacking sense like Appie pointed out.

[Seraphine]

Except for the fact that we hardly ever hit the cap of full amount of people needed in the event. Which is 75 depending on how many gms hosting on in.

\

And before when people brought alts in they didn't have to be in the same party which was nice because you have a chance to win either way and well when I did it I didn't just let the other team win if I died on that team. Also went to kill them full out also if the gms could enforce that I actually enjoyed pvp a lot more also. But then again those were 3 - 4 team lts also.

Yes but that's unfair to those who can't gear 2 characters and you get a prize no matter what.

[TensaZangetsu]

So much problem for a simple event, lmfao Perfection is the key?

[Justice]

How about a best of 2 out of 3 rounds of Lts. Like a rematch of the same team, you know? Cause' Appie is right about it being to short. That's the only thing I agree on right about now.

I think that sounds like a descent idea, but if we wanted to do that, the overall winning team of the best 2 out of 3 matches would only get 1 prize. Not a prize for each round you won. Though this might be difficult as some people might log off as soon as they die or something similar to that. It's an interesting idea to do best 2 out of 3 in LTS.

[Drax]

Well if you made it clear it would be best 2 out of 3 i dont think they would log off, i really do enjoy LTS but it does last for a short amount of time because one team just runs the rage train on the other side and its over in less than 5 mins of pvp being activated but yet u wait close to an hour for just 5 mins of pvp :/

[Xtopher]

Letting one player join multiple teams through multiple clients creates huge conflicts of interest nines. If the guy knows hes going to get a prize either way he'll most likely help out his buddies on x team while being negligent on team y.

I like the multiple rounds idea.

[Veracity]

We're working on a better alternative to this currently. Thanks for your suggestion, though.

- Rejected -