"Blacklisted" Team Game Rosters, and "Stacking"

Defining the ethical considerations.

from Sins Forums
Initially, when a game roster is forming up, one might expect the host, or an established "team" of players, to be discriminating  [based on in game record, or perceived personal reputation] of player "ability levels" or "Skills" in an effort to "balance" the competitive level of the game. 

However, in a recent "Join New Game" lobby dialogue, the 3v3 host [single large random] repeatedly opted to kick  players when trying to join.  This went on for sometime, longer than one might want to wait when the general game lobby is virtually unpopulated, but since this is a typical dynamic of getting a game together, there isn't much choice if you're hoping to get a game.  And although I think everyone understands why a good game host [one of an accomplished skill level] would want to manage the team structure, (especially if you are a veteran, and you place a premium on your time). 

Then a known player that was on my friends list joined, but was shortly thereafter kicked.  When I asked the host "...what was wrong with [that player]",  he said they were on a "Blacklist"  or "Blackboard" as "Known Team Stackers".

This intrigued me, as I've never heard of any blacklist for team stacking in SoSE, but I dismissed it as I wanted to get a game, and there wasn't any other team games at the time.  Eventually a couple of more unknown players filled out my team, and the game launched.

Long story short: Host overwhelms my semi-noob ally on my immediate flank early game with an illum spam rush, while the host's other two allies each proceed with protracted assualts on myself and my remaining ally after the semi-noob quits at the 25 - 35 minute mark even though he still had defensive depth, but nonetheless provided no benefit to the team whatsoever.   The AI presents no obstacle, and with a skilled cohesive team against you, the only fun to be had at this point is to fight a delaying action, to further challenge your opponents, and indeed yourself to see what degree of difficulty you can offer to the inevitable victors. 

This sort of outcome is not uncommon, and although it's frustrating to waste the time and effort one does on a losing side, my personal ethics preclude me from complaining or bemoaning.  But when, at the grim close of the final moments, I offer, in what I consider to be a conciliatory gesture; a "Good game!, too bad our ally quit.  He didn't know the counter to illum's".  The host says, "...he was dead from the start, I hate it when players like you start complaining and make excuses for their horrible play!"  

I have to say, at this point, this sort of floors me as uncalled for and generally in bad taste.  The host obviously had a chip on his shoulder, but then he starts proselytizing about how I'm "one of those players that has to rely on his allies to compensate for his lack of ability".  He then goes on to accuse me as being a "Blacklisted" player, on the "Black Board" that is a "Team Stacker".  He bloviates further on the immoral and unethical practice of essentially "ganging up" with highly skilled teammates against random player opponents. 

His tirade eventually devolves into character assassination, and the ever popular questioning of genetic backgrounds, but this sort of outburst is surprising because he did seem very articulate and convincing, at least in his conviction that he believes what he was stipulating about "moral and ethical considerations".  I actually have given much thought to this, and I would like to solicit input from y'all on the following viewpoints:

Now I have always considered the effort in multiplayer gaming to be goal oriented towards one major objective: Enjoyment.  

I for one, however, don't enjoy wasting my time, and it is experiences like this that reinforce that perspective.  By the same token, I endeavor to maximize my enjoyment by enhancing that experience, through elevating my skill sets, and by in large my online acquaintances.  This to me is a virtual peer group, and associations through clans, or guilds  is one of the most effective ways to do this.

What he denounced as "Team Stacking" many consider simply "Playing with your Friends".  I know some less developed psyches thrive on foolish pursuits where they derive some sick pleasure from unfair domination of inexperienced players.  But to further your experience by playing in random pick up games, anyone playing with your colleagues IMO is preferential to being in a roster of unknowns.  And to insinuate that anyone who does so is in some way engaging in predatory practices is to assume they don't enjoy a challenge, and enjoy defeating lesser skilled opponents.  To further insinuate that "Stacked" teams operate so that they can hide their deficiencies by relying on their teammates to compensate for them is ludicrous.

Here it comes:

THAT'S WHAT TEAM PLAY IS ALL ABOUT!  You are on a TEAM.  TEAMS support each other.  TEAMS cooperate with each other.  TEAMS are...TEAMS!

Therefore, I would offer that this brings about some very interesting questions:

  1. What are the ethics of team play in terms of...define them, what are the terms?
  2. Should game titles advertise they are "Clan" or "Stacked Opponents Only" or is it a given?
  3. Is it unethical to clan-group teams as long as those that want to compete understand they are playing against opponents who are familiar with each other?
  4. What are the implications of a "Blacklist" (and is there really one, if so where is it?)
I apologize for the long post, but I feel better now.  It's just that I have played far too long with many players that I have cultivated friendships with that as part of their play observe a great sense of decorum and fair play that this disturbs me so when exposed to the mindset that is so utterly retaliatory in nature, I feel it necessary flesh out the consensus within the community.

Protoplazm


multiplayer
13,735 views 21 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top

Since the host was so interested in blacklists, could you kindly post his name for the general public to see? Perhaps he himself will get blacklisted as a result of your allegations.
Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top
I don't know who was involved, but for what seems to have been an implied 'venting' post from you... well you seem very articulate and intelligent, and it didn't come across as venting. Just up for discussion, and valid points at that.

It sort of sounds like the host was the one team "stacking" actually, but again I don't know the details... so I would rather not assume anything.
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top
I would also like to see this supposed "blacklist". Even if this does exist somewhere, doesn't it stand to reason that it's mostly subjective to the opinion of whomever posted it?

I wouldn't put much weight into one whose criteria includes such popular thoughts as "player x didn't follow my buildlist exactly and didn't do exactly as I told him to" personally...
Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top
Protoplazm - don't think about what that guy said too hard, they're clearly full of shit (sorry, just callin' it like I see it).

As for discussion points (speaking about RTS in general really): I totally agree with you on how team-members should complement each other's abilities and deficiences. While it is frustrating to join a 2v2 RTS with a random on your team and find yourself playing against what soon transpires to be a pair that regular team-play together, that is pretty much par for the course I thought. I also agree that it's more fun to play with your friends. To call them Stacked Teams is patently ludicrous - is your favourite sporting team stacked? No, it's a team with different, complementary skills - that's the point. The alternative is simply getting a bunch of random people to play together. This player has it the wrong way round: rather than seeing pre-arranged teams as the norm, and random play as a mess; they are seeing random teams as the norm and pre-arranged as essentially cheating.

However, online ethics? Pfffff. An oxymoron if you ask me. The online space seems to me to be about getting as much of an advantage over your opponent as possible before you've even started eg FPS hacks, pre-arranged teams, exploits etc., and as there is no impartial arbiter to prevent any of this (i.e. a referee) it becomes a free-for-all in which you must play by the same rules or get thrashed. Regardless of ethics, if people started dubbing games as No Team Stacking or whatever then players would just start using smurf accounts (I assume you can do that in Sins too) and deny any knowledge of the other person, and you'd be back where you started.

The Blacklist they talked about is clearly utter garbage, a flimsy justification to rationalise (for himself) their desire to pick and choose who plays in the games they host. Likely it's just that they've seen certain names in lobby pretty often and chances are they've been beaten by them too. It's ridiculous to think that the hoster choosing who gets in the game will be fair as they will lean the balance in their favour, maybe without realising, maybe saying to themself "well, my friend and I haven't played together that much, so we're not stacked" - harsher judgement would be applied to the opposing team everytime. Maybe your opponent is used to FPS multiplayer where you simply drop into a team of randoms. The trouble with comparing that RTS is that online FPS is notoriously selfish and team-work is non-existant; game mechanics have to be created in order to force team-work, but even then it is mainly lip-service in order to points-whore for themselves.

So overall, I think that while questions of online ethics are not necessarily worthless or invalid, the conclusions you draw from it will inevitable be impossible to action. A game may be dubbed "randoms only", but do you trust it be so? I suppose to name your game for pre-arranged teams only would be good if you wanted to be sure of a good game, there's no harm in telling your opponents that you've played together plenty. But really, pre-arranged teams is what people should be aiming for as that is what is going to elevate the experience of the game and produce higher quality matches. Random teams will also be haphazard at best, with comparatively little.
Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top
It just comes down to good sportsmanship, something which you will struggle to find in all multiplayer games until you get a well established community of players.

I think sometime soon you'll see game developers cotton on to this and include features to promote and reward this kind of player.
Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top
Having only seen one side of the coin , I cant really comment on this hosys behaviour.

Also good that you dont name and shame.
Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top
[CenturionJixra]
Since the host was so interested in blacklists, could you kindly post his name for the general public to see? Perhaps he himself will get blacklisted as a result of your allegations.
End of quote

I will PM you his name, but I am not out to point fingers. My intention is to offer some talking points, and see if they resonate with the forums.

However, if there is a blacklist it would do to flesh it out I suppose. And if it is sponsored, or even supported by Ironclad, that is a big deal. Do you have personal knowledge of this blacklist, or perhaps you could provide a link?

[NomadWarriorSoul
I don't know who was involved, but for what seems to have been an implied 'venting' post from you... well you seem very articulate and intelligent, and it didn't come across as venting. Just up for discussion, and valid points at that.
End of quote

I must admit the post was cathartic for me, but thank you for inferring substantiation to the content.

[OctopusRex]
As for discussion points (speaking about RTS in general really): I totally agree with you on how team-members should complement each other's abilities and deficiences. While it is frustrating to join a 2v2 RTS with a random on your team and find yourself playing against what soon transpires to be a pair that regular team-play together, that is pretty much par for the course I thought. I also agree that it's more fun to play with your friends. To call them Stacked Teams is patently ludicrous - is your favourite sporting team stacked? No, it's a team with different, complementary skills - that's the point.
End of quote

I feel as though this is my main contention here. Without a generally accepted (and acknowledged) practice of team competition, the prevailing consensus among new players might find favor with those that preach "FOUL! Team Stackers!" and find it futile to further their game in order to compete at such a level.

Regardless of ethics, if people started dubbing games as No Team Stacking or whatever then players would just start using smurf accounts (I assume you can do that in Sins too) and deny any knowledge of the other person, and you'd be back where you started.
End of quote

I played HW2 for years (in what became a rather close knit community), and it was not uncommon to see games titled, "SMURFS vs 3" and the like. It was generally accepted that some might want to try new strat and not suffer the demoralization of getting called a noob or whatever. Point is; everyone eventually knew who the Smurfs were, and it's hard to fault those that had a target on their back for doing so. The AoD clan actually had a "Smurf Detector" applet that you could run (when one of them was in the lobby with it running) by entering a string with the target player in questions name, and it would return ALL of the names that player had played under, and not just for the current session, but over the life of the player. It was really sort of cool to whisper to a would be Smurf and ask them, "What's up [known player name]...". Again, the point is, when the community grows to a robust level (as I hope SoSE does), the development of accepted (and acknowledged) team play structure will be at the center of player development. Without it, newer players may buy-in to the cry of, "FOUL! Team Stackers!" and find it futile to further their game to a competitive level.

The Blacklist they talked about is clearly utter garbage, a flimsy justification to rationalize (for himself) their desire to pick and choose who plays in the games they host. Likely it's just that they've seen certain names in lobby pretty often and chances are they've been beaten by them too. It's ridiculous to think that the hoster choosing who gets in the game will be fair as they will lean the balance in their favour, maybe without realizing, maybe saying to themself "well, my friend and I haven't played together that much, so we're not stacked" - harsher judgment would be applied to the opposing team everytime.
End of quote

But really, pre-arranged teams is what people should be aiming for as that is what is going to elevate the experience of the game and produce higher quality matches. Random teams will also be haphazard at best, with comparatively little.
End of quote

This gets back to raising the competitive level. Teams are good for the game. Common strats develop uncommon counters, and so on and so forth. The uncommon becomes common, and the cycle perpetuates itself. When everyone starts to learn, the creative and exploratory nature of tactical diversions are augmented.


[TFLBigBANGtheory]
It just comes down to good sportsmanship, something which you will struggle to find in all multiplayer games until you get a well established community of players.

I think sometime soon you'll see game developers cotton on to this and include features to promote and reward this kind of player.
End of quote

With the "TFL" You are probably no stranger to the Relic/THQ HW conflicts. The "well established community" you refer to will, I think, be dictated by how the prevailing sentiment of issues like this are received, and indeed, promoted. Let's hope this takes a foothold, and we can see some traction develop.

Protoplazm

Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top
There's a guy "King of Kings", he does crap like this and also quits everytime he's about to lose. I suggest that everybody look at people's records, "King of Kings" has played like 120 games, with 20 wins and 0 losses... I'd rethink playing people with similar records.
Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top

What's wrong with quitting when you're about to lose--when the game has already been decided? Is it really necessary to fight it out to the last ship and last planet?
Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top
What's wrong with quitting when you're about to lose--when the game has already been decided? Is it really necessary to fight it out to the last ship and last planet?
End of quote


I usually think this okay , aslong as the player who quits asks his team if its okay to quit.

Tho im all for the Fight to the end mentality , it just isnt appropriate for a game of sins size , where a hopelessly losing player can still drag a game for hours before hes finally dead.

Reply #11 from Sins Forums Top

[mathias3787]
There's a guy "King of Kings", he does crap like this and also quits everytime he's about to lose. I suggest that everybody look at people's records, "King of Kings" has played like 120 games, with 20 wins and 0 losses... I'd rethink playing people with similar records.
End of quote

Although I wasn't quite looking for this sort of "resonance", I will point out that players that unintentionally disconnect, have mini-dumped games, and in general don't get to finish games because of certain issues will result in 'non-score' game. As with games played prior to the first patch which were notorious for this kind of thing.

[CenturionJixra]
What's wrong with quitting when you're about to lose--when the game has already been decided? Is it really necessary to fight it out to the last ship and last planet?
End of quote


[P5yy]
I usually think this okay , aslong as the player who quits asks his team if its okay to quit.

Tho im all for the Fight to the end mentality , it just isnt appropriate for a game of sins size , where a hopelessly losing player can still drag a game for hours before hes finally dead.
End of quote


Again, this is not what I was looking for on a discussion of the ethics of "Teamplay" however, I think the real contention is that players should have the courtesy to 'SURRENDER' if they opt to leave the game in a losing effort. This is kind of the reward for being the victor, and if challenges were well met, then that is the sporting thing to do.

Protoplazm
Reply #12 from Sins Forums Top
I think this comes down to the need for a good ladder or tournament system for Sins, which in turn comes down to the size of the community, which in turn comes down to the current technical issues that make all that difficult.

I personally find that it's hard for me to find a good game online. For every good mature player I come across, I go through 5 or so games with either people who don't understand the game, don't really like to make an effort to be good and win, or have an attitude problem (or a combination of the above).

In the context of team games the problem is now multiplied. It is very frustrating to make an effort to try and play good for 2 hours just to get whooped because the team's aren't balanced. I don't mind helping out newbies as long as they have the right attitude of wanting to learn and improve and as long as I now that before hand so I don't put too much expectations on the game. But the bottom line is still that playing with random team members is very likely to cause grief.

The natural outcome of all of this is the desire to play with and against good players and mature people. There are only two ways to raise the ratio of bad games to good games in this context: either pick carefully the people you play with, or play on "professional" ladders on tournaments with team members that you know well.

For the second to happen we need a ladder or tournament system and from what I've seen so far (correct me if I'm wrong) that's still a long way away. And before people will agree to taking the effort to play this way a lot of technical issues need to be resolved first. Because of this I think we are going to see more of this for now.

Personally I love 1v1s mostly because of this and that's also the best way to meet new good nice players. I then only join big games that are either arranged by or where most of the participants are players I know.

Anyway that's my 6p.
Reply #13 from Sins Forums Top
Again, this is not what I was looking for on a discussion of the ethics of "Teamplay" however, I think the real contention is that players should have the courtesy to 'SURRENDER' if they opt to leave the game in a losing effort. This is kind of the reward for being the victor, and if challenges were well met, then that is the sporting thing to do.
End of quote


The problem isnt ethical , its logistical.

If a player quits..the AI takes over. For his teammates this is good , as it means atleast the cpu is using the most of the players resources

For surrendering.... players on his team will be thinking WTF YOU DICKHEAD!. The homewworld can be producing +15 credits a second , and other planets producing more, yet when u surrender...those credits go to waste.

Once there was a guyh who surendered ..but it was at the slightest moment of trouble. He thought he was being corageous accepting the lost. Wrong..hes a complete prick. 2 Ice planets , 1 desert + 1 full homeworld ....producing economy that was wasted because he surredened..

its bullshit , and IC need to look into this big time..

Surrendering is the the "gay" option of being a pussy. As if you think that by surrending and taking a loss , that it makes up for letting your team play one man down , and denying your team the FULL +11-15 resources of your Homeworld and other planets.

Seriously aslong as a team is man enought to say "gg" and ask can we quit together..so that the game is finished , ill be like yea sure ,we are all fucking bored of this 2 hour game and using nerfed sieges to slowly wittle down planets that we know is wasting our lives.

Reply #14 from Sins Forums Top
Funny you said that about King - he is a good player but will blame people on his team when he looses.
There is also another guys who I will call "chocolate coloured USA crocodile" (people will know who he is if they have met him) - he has got a seriously bad rep with people - I was hosting a 5v5 game and certain people on the opposite team did not want him on their team as they have seen him quit at the first sign of trouble.
Of course he then goes on to quit when I start attacking his homeworld and he only has one other planet and I had an ally the other side of him whom he was attacking.... He was about 5-10 minutes from being eliminated since I had a good fleet at his homeworld while he was mixing it up with my ally - but he did manage to reinforce the "quitter" tag he has earned...
Reply #15 from Sins Forums Top
For the record, I'll only quit a team game once it's obvious that my team cannot win and that the game has already been decided. Why waste time with a foregone conclusion? That's different than quitting when your own empire is on the ropes but your team is winning overall or is still very much in the game.

Anyone who's played the game online enough knows when it's really "over". What I find kinda annoying is when someone on the losing team, normally just one guy since everyone else has taken off, insists on fighting it out to the end which could add another hour to a game that's basically over, increasing the chances of a minidump and your not getting the victory and preventing you from playing a new, competitive match.
Reply #16 from Sins Forums Top
Protoplazm, you've highlighted a lot of the reasons why I completely avoid online play with people I don't know. The host of that match likely does not have a blacklist and used that as an innovative excuse to avoid having to deal with competent opponents. It seems to me that your experience played out as the typical beating up of other people for fun and then rubbing it in excessively at the end. It's something that's all too common online today and one of the top reasons I stick to single player and arranged matches with friends.

Now I haven't played Sins in weeks if not months, and I had considered signing in online to try a random online match (something I've only done a couple of times before I had had enough). However, this post has reminded me, again, of all the issues with multiplayer in which produce an experience that could be good, but is more than likely going to ruin an evening.
Reply #18 from Sins Forums Top
[P5yy]
The problem isnt ethical , its logistical.If a player quits..the AI takes over. For his teammates this is good,...as it means atleast the cpu is using the most of the players resourcesFor surrendering.... players on his team will be thinking WTF YOU DICKHEAD!. The homewworld can be producing +15 credits a second , and other planets producing more, yet when u surrender...those credits go to waste.Once there was a guyh who surendered ..but it was at the slightest moment of trouble. He thought he was being corageous accepting the lost. Wrong..hes a complete prick. 2 Ice planets , 1 desert + 1 full homeworld ....producing economy that was wasted because he surredened..its bullshit , and IC need to look into this big time..Surrendering is the the "gay" option of being a pussy. As if you think that by surrending and taking a loss , that it makes up for letting your team play one man down , and denying your team the FULL +11-15 resources of your Homeworld and other planets.Seriously aslong as a team is man enought to say "gg" and ask can we quit together..so that the game is finished , ill be like yea sure ,we are all fucking bored of this 2 hour game and using nerfed sieges to slowly wittle down planets that we know is wasting our lives.
End of quote

The notion that AI is necessarily a good thing for a team is arguable. I have seen AI's take over at the start of a game from some wet noodle who opts to bail for whatever reason, and the AI literally just sits there on the same 2 or 3 planets they have, and absolutely does nothing. But I was referring, more to the point of the end of the game, where the outcome is obvious, and at that point the losing team acknowledges the defeat, and rewards the victors with their just due.

It's obnoxious, loudmouth, and insufferably arrogant Cheesedicks who play an otherwise good game, but at the bitter end decide their last act of defiance is to simply quit without surrendering that are the gayest of gay pussy's, and should be shot at first light, drawn and quartered, and then killed. And then killed again. This is when you must fight the retarded AI to the end if you want a victory. I would almost rather play a stubborn diehard that has some brazen idea that he is fighting to the death, than put up with defective and predictable AI's that will suck the life out of you by extending the game even longer.

But this thread has deviated far off the path on which it started. Please stay on topic as to:

Is there a "Blacklist"? If so where? & What are the ramifications of playing with "Known" players only in so-called "Team Games"

Thanks!
Protoplazm
Reply #19 from Sins Forums Top
I think you will find that the list is a piece of paper on the person's computer desk - I played a 3v3 game (think the map was Krosac's cross (is that right?? - at work so can't lok it up) that was competitive but we lost - I got told the host would never play with me again and that I sucked.
I just shrugged and figured we were outplayed by a better team...
Reply #20 from Sins Forums Top
What's wrong with quitting when you're about to lose--when the game has already been decided? Is it really necessary to fight it out to the last ship and last planet?
End of quote



I agree that ppl should be able to get out, but there is a difference between them surrendering and them flat out dropping.

I think the honorable thing for them to do si surrender, admit defeate, and then move on.
Reply #21 from Sins Forums Top
I think this comes down to the need for a good ladder or tournament system for Sins, which in turn comes down to the size of the community, which in turn comes down to the current technical issues that make all that difficult.I personally find that it's hard for me to find a good game online. For every good mature player I come across, I go through 5 or so games with either people who don't understand the game, don't really like to make an effort to be good and win, or have an attitude problem (or a combination of the above).In the context of team games the problem is now multiplied. It is very frustrating to make an effort to try and play good for 2 hours just to get whooped because the team's aren't balanced. I don't mind helping out newbies as long as they have the right attitude of wanting to learn and improve and as long as I now that before hand so I don't put too much expectations on the game. But the bottom line is still that playing with random team members is very likely to cause grief.The natural outcome of all of this is the desire to play with and against good players and mature people. There are only two ways to raise the ratio of bad games to good games in this context: either pick carefully the people you play with, or play on "professional" ladders on tournaments with team members that you know well.For the second to happen we need a ladder or tournament system and from what I've seen so far (correct me if I'm wrong) that's still a long way away. And before people will agree to taking the effort to play this way a lot of technical issues need to be resolved first. Because of this I think we are going to see more of this for now.Personally I love 1v1s mostly because of this and that's also the best way to meet new good nice players. I then only join big games that are either arranged by or where most of the participants are players I know.Anyway that's my 6p.
End of quote



try sinsladder.com or something similar, I haven't looked at it much, but its a competitive ladder for sins.