We've tried to solve the team balance problem with the pug match system, where team captains draft-pick the other players.  It works pretty well most of the time.  At least the 5 best players won't be on one team against the 5 weakest ones.  <Edit>  Well, as long as no one smurfs it.  I got smurfed in one last night where, had I known a 2nd to last pick's real identity, the draft would have been different.

I had a similar experience to the OP.  Personally I think calling these people out publicly who boot you for waiting 45 minutes will help tremendously.  At least I'll know who to look for in the future.  I've already got a couple of people on my 'assholes' list.

That's what ICO needs to add is an "Asshole" list right under the friends list

There was an attempt of that on the forums.  It was unfortunately locked and discouraged from attempting another.  Considering it is so easy to make another name and cover up their jackass-ery, it had little bite to it anyways.

[_]-Greyfox

My kid brother got pwned last night on a 2v2 n00bs only game; the other three were smurfs. I watched the replay and could only cringe. So glad he didn't use my account.

Some people out there are just jerks.  Some people are well-meaning and simply don't want to jeopardize the game on account of some unestablished player names.   I can understand that excuse, but joining newbie only games, kicking people after letting them wait in lobby for nearly an hour, and all this other crap is another matter entirely.  Makes me angry when people act this way, because it's just ruining the game for everyone else.

Another reason why I avoid multiplayer strategy and tactics games.

Experienced it in Demigod. During the Beta, it was a blast. For a while after release, it was still great fun. As more and more 'pro' gamers started appearing though, the game just became less and less fun.

I stopped playing a while ago after I played a match and went, "Hey, that one was actually fun." Especially as the next match had a supposed 'pro' ally go 3v1, die, and get pissed off at me for not helping them. Despite me being right there next them.

Really sucks, as playing with friends is extremely fun. Easily beats playing against an AI.

For my part, I'm willing to put up with the bad behavior and take my fair share of lumps for the multiplayer experience.  It's not perfect, but when it works it's awesome.

LANLANALANLIDLANLANLAN

That nice and all, but it's not really about taking 'lumps' as you put it.  For most people, it's about having to deal with the constant asshattery, smurfing and/or ego-stroking that plagues online gaming.  Why should they have to put up with any of this to have fun?  I'll take a comp stomp over the off chance of not dealing with this online BS anyday.  I play games to escape the idiocy of the real world, not to have it rudely thrown back in my face.

my $0.02

well spoken. Erm, typed.

You know, I was just online and people were hosting "n00b mauling" games. A bunch of smurfs take on a noob on FFA (of course they only attack the noob). The only reason I know that is cause they did the whisper wrong so I could read what they were typing. Kinda makes me sad that peoples dicks are so small nowadays.

I've seen some crap pulled by players at ICO. It would be fine if there were 100+ players online. You could just move on. But there's not so when players pull crap it really sucks.

Solutions

1. Players should only have 2 accounts max. That's right... 2 because the smurfing is so ridiculous and spoiling the game, making people stop playing. Why so extreme? Because the ICO community seems to be slowly dying, with newcomers being chased away.

2. There should be two main chat lobbies -- for Beginners and Veterans

3. Anyone with 25+ wins (or something like that) on their record would be unable to enter the Beginner lobby.

4. You should have the ability to change the map while in the setup lobby

5. And download third party maps

6. Maybe something has to be done about feeding. I'm not decided yet. It's fine to be able to throw some credits and resources to allies. But not gobs and gobs the whole game.

I have 25+ wins and they are all against AI....:-p and I suck at this game.

This is why I hate having stats tied to my player name. There should be some system where your online player name and stats profile are different.

I'm not fond of complaints about the host, especially one prepared to wait 45 mins to set up a big game.  Chat gets busy with ten players.   Why would a beginner start with a 5v5 match anyway, don't?  One problem with the large 'pick-up' style is with the games lasting so long there's rarely the opportunity to play again, with reorganised teams.  Single system 2v2 or 3v3 is often over quickly enough to play at least once more- and start to establish an online record. 

Smaller games might be optimal, but there might not be enough 1v1 on ICO for new players to become established- however they need to understand the basics and the best method is to watch a replay of a skilled player in 1v1.  It is fairly easy to become a reasonably skilled player with a little effort, new players might not get there by playing each other.  If you just can't handle defeat on your own, play 2v2 with a regular partner, unlike one-off teams proper teams don't get discouraged as easily. 

Perhaps rather than a separate 'Beginner' lobby, a separate 'Elite' lobby might be an improvement.  That might remove some of the temptation to smurf, by allowing the honest players some status.  The extra ICO lobbies don't seem have any function, I'm not sure what the original intended purpose was- to discuss faction-specific tactics?  And after all, would you expect beginners who want to start with 5v5s to be able to locate a 'Beginner' lobby?      

ICO could certainly use an auto-match system. Perferably one that would penalize people for dropping... sort of like the AFK/Exit penalty in WoW (yes, I said the name of the Beast) - where you are disallowed from queuing for 15 minutes if you drop out of a battleground.

-Itharus

real...you mean like the smurfs who lie their ases off about how inexperienced they are?

i thought that money given to allies is affected by the receivers upkeep. maybe im wrong

Yes, it's affected by the receiver's upkeep, but this (relatively speaking) makes a feeder all the more powerful.

If two players at 25% income try to feed each other, the feed is effectively taxed twice for a net loss of 44%.  So a feeder who stays at 0% upkeep can ensure the money he gives was taxed much less than two players of relatively equal fleets.  As well, any money he spends on himself (more income, starbases, etc) isn't taxed by upkeep.

Personally, I think the upkeep penalty on feed should be the difference in upkeep levels.  Two players both at 25% upkeep wouldn't pay a cent on the transfer, whereas a player staying at 0% pays the maximum amount for transfer.  This properly punishes the guy whose sole purpose it is to transfer wealth without heavily hitting two allies who both have active fleets.

nope. Nothing is lost in the transfer.

I can guarantee you that money is lost in the transfer.

Why does it always say stuff like "player x has given you 500 crystal," does the message reflect only what they tribute and not what you gain? Or is that only for crd. and not for metal and crystal?Which persons fleet supply defines how much is lost? nvm, read your post.

You are "given" 500 crystal, which is then taxed at your income rate, so you end up with maybe only 400 or so actually adding to the tally.