1. Want to get our most recent announcements - and XP codes - in your email?

    Sign up for our mailing list!

Suggestion Fixing Teamstacking

Discussion in 'Annihilation' started by squallythewally, Jun 5, 2022.

Suggestion - Fixing Teamstacking | Page 2
  1. ChillWarrior2005 Gold

    I think maybe they should add something like players get 50-100 xp every 3-5 mins for players staying in game after phase 3 so players will be more likely to stay in the game if their team is loosing. :)

  2. SnowVi1liers Annihilation Mini Admin

    The solutions are definitely something that could work I personally think, apart from the first one because people could just join a team to start the game then /team leave immediately after, unless we bring restrictions on that which then I wouldn't be too sure about.

    Making two team games is something that I think could happen, we have some of the 1v1 maps already created and with some work it could be made into something great, but I worry overtime it could turn bland without the level of ambiguity that 4 teams has in a game but of course I could be wrong.

    Reducing the number of players maximum in a game is also a thought as we could also modify when a new game rolls out so more games can run at the same time, reducing waiting times. I am not sure what you mean by weights though...

    On your last point Seven, it's definitely an idea and would definitely slow things down though I am not sure whether or not the game would get dragged out because of it... Some people might find holding mid more favourable until they all have enough which can prevent other teams from catching up but again I could be wrong.

    Definitely some interesting thoughts though.
  3. Cupu Platinum

    I think the ideas you listed are really solid. While of course you have clans or groups that play together, a lot of players join teams based upon seeing familiar names and/or nexus health. I also don't think premiums should be able to see the game stats/players either until they join a team.

    I'd still like to able to talk to people in the lobby though.
    squallythewally likes this.
  4. squallythewally Obsidian

    Say when a game starts with less than 25 people, it has a 50% chance of being a 1v1 map. Btw thanks for your continued engagement in the thread, it's a rarity to have considered staff interaction/presence these days!

    This is a great idea too - positive reinforcement in contrast to a lot of the suggestions/fixes which have been punishment - something we all agree is bad!

    Maybe XP for every 5 mins of play time and it increases per phase.

    Phase 1: 10XP every 5
    Phase 2: 20XP every 5
    Phase 3: 30XP every 5
    Phase 4: 40XP every 5
    Phase 5: 50XP every 5

    In an hour long game this would be 400XP. Perhaps it's too much but the incentive does need to be good if it's to have any effect.
    Hingey likes this.
  5. SnowVi1liers Annihilation Mini Admin

    I could imagine the logic behind it at least from a developer perspective. I've never developed anything but I could imagine when a map is selected the coding (whatever that might be) might also be able to decide whether it is a 2 team or 4 team game, though I wouldn't know what this would mean if there are players in 4 different teams and the map becomes a 1v1.

    I personally like the idea, we have idle timers to prevent players from farming this xp as well so I could see this work. It would take a little work to develop but I think this could be something to help new players and players who struggle to get xp by other means (eg. nexus dmg or kills).

    No problem! The discussion here I think is constructive and is in the good interest of annihilation :)
    Hingey likes this.
  6. squallythewally Obsidian

    Definitely possible, also possible to write it so that it would automatically pick a two team game.

    I think your final point here is important. I've been playing about an hour or two a day for the last month and gained about 40k XP. This is enough for 2 classes... To get the entire catalogue it could take a year of consistent playtime which is highly discouraging. I think, therefore, more opportunity for XP rewards would be good. It would also go some way in balancing with clans/friends often having the full repertoire of classes at their disposal for every player. When I solo play, it would be great if I could tell a new player to pick a specific class so they can help in a specific situation and thus have a higher chance of winning
  7. Mysterious_Seven Platinum

    True. That idea's a wash.
    Depends what you mean by ambiguity. Having less players in each team would cause there to be fewer strategies that each team can use. Having less teams (and thus more players on your team) would increase the amount of strategies each team could execute.
    Map weight classes are the surface area of the map. Terrig is huge, Cronos is small. You can put more players on a big map than on a small map. You might have to do some basic arithmetic to scale up the amount of ores / mines for each team there is. Right now the maps aren't decided based on how many players are in the lobby, but that would be cool to see.
    Having fortune give extra ores instead of extra diamonds (or the straight nerf to fortune, which is probably easier to code) was more so to stop gearing up immediately after getting diamonds. It adds more strategic angles for enemies to attack your base. To protect them from invisible players you need a bit of extra infrastructure back at base, mabye some extraction via scout, teleporter or riftwalker. Basically it just adds depth to the game that otherwise isn't there. I don't think it'd drag out games, people already farm for too long to get gapples and don't contribute to winning.


    Well, you could just have their team changed. There's already code for this for admins to use, it would probably kick everyone from every team.
    1v1 could also just be voted on before map is. Obviously there isn't many 1v1 maps, or even a 1v1 map rotation so it's a bit underdeveloped but it should all work out. Especially if the devs start coming out with an update and hand the torch to the builders to convert 4v4 maps to 1v1 maps.

    Doh. I didn't touch on this in my AFK timer post. x_x

    Give the man all the likes. This could see the return of civbreak nexus hackers, but you could just only apply it to people after they get to Novice II. It's a bit annoying but it fixed the problem for the entire game.
  8. Mysterious_Seven Platinum

    I was saying all of this three years ago :(
  9. Hingey Platinum

    Yes lets punish players for leaving a non-competitive game, that worked great the last time the Anni team tried something like that... I love how this community has turned from pointing fingers at the Anni team to pointing fingers at themselves. Its quite clear the internal view on the game's failures must be because of the players not the game itself, hence the "well if players didn't quit" comments. Which has lead to this ass backwards approach of trying to force players to act a certain way. Which as we know has gone over fantastically in the past. Removing the ability to say def. I could stay on my soapbox longer and state the obvious that exciting and entertaining content should be what devs try and create to grow the player base back to a healthy size. Which in their credit they have been improving on over the past few years but, the game is in and has been in a terminal state. It is outdated in the current landscape. It needs a healthy 80 plus people to function as it is intended. Without that certain classes and strategies just become obsolete or over powered. Band-aid fixes to classes and balancing team stacking don't solve the overarching problem which is why I think these updates haven't really moved the needle.
    A 1v1 mode would be a solution to many problems although I don't think it could or should be considered the Annihilation game mode. The entire game mode should be reengineered to fit a 1v1 team game taking inspiration again from the mobas it was based on. My warning to the anni team would be not to treat this as another band aid fix to the game or you will risk losing more players that you cannot spare.

    -a general take on the entire thread it just started off with what squally mentioned
    ScorpioHook and Cupu like this.
  10. Ringowhs Regular Member

    I think what would be best is a fully fledged matchmaking system.
    Abolish the player queue system.
    The system will distribute players to the teams based on stats such as KD, win ratio.
    ...and maybe, MAYBE also based on nexus health and gear. (People can intentionally lower their health or undergear to inflate their team size so this might be a bad idea)
    You can still join as a group (unless it's a huge group, then it's likely that they won't be able to match with anyone), but as a clan you likely have better stats so probably you'll match against teams with more players but worse stats

    Then you don't need to hide anything about who and how many players are in each team, because it doesn't matter

    Side note with the stacked admin teams. While I understand that they also want to play, the nature that general players want to play with the admins and immediately stack on their team makes them look really bad. And it doesn't help when they clearly know this is an issue but choose to ignore it for now.
    Cupu likes this.
  11. Cupu Platinum


    I don't think nexus health/gear should be modified, but maybe the ores per mine maybe? That way if a bunch of random players are going up against a clan, they have more access to the items to help them fight.

    I don't mind when the admins play, I think what you said also works inversely as well. But I do believe it would be better if there was a /nick option available to them. That way people wouldn't be worried about having every join the admins team, or vice versa.
  12. Mysterious_Seven Platinum

    Lobby: Make a minimum amount of players that have to be queued into a team for it to become active, this is X. Teams that are inactive cannot be joined, besides queuing up. All players will be kicked from the queue of inactive teams when the game starts. Have a requirement of at least two active teams and 20 players in the lobby before the game will start. If one of the last two teams falls under X players in the starting lobby then the timer resets. After the game hits Phase 2, you can only use the "random team join button".
    • Optional back door that stops people from queueing for certain teams if an admin wishes to host an exclusive two team game.
    Midgame: If a team is below X players it gets automatically dissolved during the game, if it gets under X+Y the players can vote. If there is a 80% majority to do so the team is dissolved. If a team is dissolved then the players are 'randomly' assigned to other teams and teleported to their respective new teams with all of their carried possessions (this can also reuse the code for being teleported to the boss arena at the end of the game), allowing some players to grab as many resources as they can before teleporting. This would actively remove the majority problem for teammates leaving the game and give people more viable teams. There's some obvious drawbacks, but I theorize that it's just individual players problems instead of the entire team balance of the game.
  13. Ringowhs Regular Member

    Perhaps I worded this badly. I meant the distribution of players would also take account in nexus health and gear, but given that this can be very easy to exploit this would be a bad idea.

    /nick should be a must for staffs and YouTubers in my opinion. Both to prevent team stacking and stream sniping.
    Cupu and Hingey like this.
  14. LegendaryAlex Platinum

    Yeah... idk if there really is a solution
  15. Cupu Platinum

    Ah ok I see, seems we're on the same side :lmao:
    Mysterious_Seven likes this.

Share This Page