Upvote Upvoted 225 Downvote Downvoted
1 ⋅⋅ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ⋅⋅ 43
PugChamp
posted in Projects
211
#211
3 Frags +
DishSoapFootPenisits fine i have no problem looking retarded i go by the handle footpenis just trying to make a point about the elitism and restrictiveness in the community and the parallels between this problem and the attitude of ESEA tf2 players as a whole.how does having a captain restriction of 5 games, something that keeps super stupid players from creating dead pugs by restricting them from doing so, show elitism and restrictiveness...
if anything its just the devs saying "hey, were trying to make fun pugs by keeping certain newer players from ruining them with blatant ignorance". which is an overall good and the only bad side effect being only good players really captaining because they know people.
some people will be ousted, it sucks to not play, but what you are saying has literally the hugest risk, and can easily kill this pug website.

deflection

tscI am acutely aware of the problems that come as part of having captain restrictions - it's a delicate balancing act between trying to ensure the best games and making the site as accessible as possible.

We have tried to ease the requirements for captaining by various methods, like giving added weight to captains shown to be more successful and showing stats on the draft page to assist captains, but there just hasn't been any substitute yet for ensuring a captain knows the community by requiring them to play a few games before they captain.

However, we are working towards a new system that will automatically draft games when enough players are available as an alternative to the current system requiring captains. I hope to have something to announce about that soon.

It is a catch 22 I understand. Just please give consideration to the fact that you consistently have 15-20 people not playing because no one can captain.

[quote=DishSoap][quote=FootPenis]its fine i have no problem looking retarded i go by the handle footpenis just trying to make a point about the elitism and restrictiveness in the community and the parallels between this problem and the attitude of ESEA tf2 players as a whole.[/quote]
how does having a captain restriction of 5 games, something that keeps super stupid players from creating dead pugs by restricting them from doing so, show elitism and restrictiveness...
if anything its just the devs saying "hey, were trying to make fun pugs by keeping certain newer players from ruining them with blatant ignorance". which is an overall good and the only bad side effect being only good players really captaining because they know people.
some people will be ousted, it sucks to not play, but what you are saying has literally the hugest risk, and can easily kill this pug website.[/quote]

deflection

[quote=tsc]I am acutely aware of the problems that come as part of having captain restrictions - it's a delicate balancing act between trying to ensure the best games and making the site as accessible as possible.

We have tried to ease the requirements for captaining by various methods, like giving added weight to captains shown to be more successful and showing stats on the draft page to assist captains, but there just hasn't been any substitute yet for ensuring a captain knows the community by requiring them to play a few games before they captain.

However, we are working towards a new system that will automatically draft games when enough players are available as an alternative to the current system requiring captains. I hope to have something to announce about that soon.[/quote]

It is a catch 22 I understand. Just please give consideration to the fact that you consistently have 15-20 people not playing because no one can captain.
212
#212
0 Frags +

site crashed right as a pug was starting and there's no connect info

won't let anyone in the pug add up tho

http://i.imgur.com/ISSUchy.png

site crashed right as a pug was starting and there's no connect info

won't let anyone in the pug add up tho

[img]http://i.imgur.com/ISSUchy.png[/img]
213
#213
11 Frags +

Hey all, we've been making a few changes over the past few days and feel now is a good time to share them. This is in addition to the minor fixes and adjustments we're constantly making.

First of all, we performed a soft reset of player rating deviations yesterday, and plan to do so at the beginning of each month. This will make ratings more volatile and allow them to settle into a different position over the month.

Second, and more importantly, we've performed a limited alpha test of our new mix system MixChamp. With that test seeming to work well, we're ready to bring it into a full public alpha. This system, contrasted with PugChamp, uses a balancing algorithm based on a hidden rating system to select teams instead of the draft by captains in the normal system. It will have bugs and issues as it's fairly new and untested, but it uses the same software base so hopefully the troubles will be limited to the new functionality added. We're excited to be making this available as an option going forward and hope that you all will find it useful.

Hey all, we've been making a few changes over the past few days and feel now is a good time to share them. This is in addition to the minor fixes and adjustments we're constantly making.

First of all, we performed a soft reset of player rating deviations yesterday, and plan to do so at the beginning of each month. This will make ratings more volatile and allow them to settle into a different position over the month.

Second, and more importantly, we've performed a limited alpha test of our new mix system [url=http://na.mix.champ.gg/]MixChamp[/url]. With that test seeming to work well, we're ready to bring it into a full public alpha. This system, contrasted with PugChamp, uses a balancing algorithm based on a hidden rating system to select teams instead of the draft by captains in the normal system. It will have bugs and issues as it's fairly new and untested, but it uses the same software base so hopefully the troubles will be limited to the new functionality added. We're excited to be making this available as an option going forward and hope that you all will find it useful.
214
#214
3 Frags +

any plans on expanding to support the oceania region?

any plans on expanding to support the oceania region?
215
#215
21 Frags +

I'm proud to announce that with the help of a few friends in Australia, we now have PugChamp AU up and running!

I'm proud to announce that with the help of a few friends in Australia, we now have [url=https://au.pug.champ.gg/]PugChamp AU[/url] up and running!
216
#216
8 Frags +

Thanks for the AU pugchamp! Played a bunch today and it was awesome fun!

It was pretty funny having a pug where no one had played reckoner before and it randomed it :P

Thanks for the AU pugchamp! Played a bunch today and it was awesome fun!

It was pretty funny having a pug where no one had played reckoner before and it randomed it :P
217
#217
4 Frags +

Thanks for auuuu

Thanks for auuuu
218
#218
4 Frags +

Due to the overwhelming demand we've seen, we've brought up another game server for PugChamp AU. Enjoy!

Due to the overwhelming demand we've seen, we've brought up another game server for PugChamp AU. Enjoy!
219
#219
2 Frags +

I can't play PugChamp because of my vac ban from mw2. it was fixed for a while but the problem has came back :(

I can't play PugChamp because of my vac ban from mw2. it was fixed for a while but the problem has came back :(
220
#220
4 Frags +

Apologies, that was due to an update to our flagging system. You should be good to go now.

Apologies, that was due to an update to our flagging system. You should be good to go now.
221
#221
2 Frags +

Thanks, i appreciate it a lot.

Thanks, i appreciate it a lot.
222
#222
1 Frags +

good stuff

good stuff
223
#223
9 Frags +

tsc said on Discord that https://eu.pug.champ.gg/ is now fully functional! Who's willing to try it out?

tsc said on Discord that https://eu.pug.champ.gg/ is now fully functional! Who's willing to try it out?
224
#224
6 Frags +

It's actually been fully functional for a long while, we just don't have any EU staff willing to monitor the site.

It's actually been fully functional for a long while, we just don't have any EU staff willing to monitor the site.
225
#225
1 Frags +
tscIt's actually been fully functional for a long while, we just don't have any EU staff willing to monitor the site.

tried to talk to both sideshow and buttnose, but neither of them have the time to do it.

[quote=tsc]It's actually been fully functional for a long while, we just don't have any EU staff willing to monitor the site.[/quote]
tried to talk to both sideshow and buttnose, but neither of them have the time to do it.
226
#226
1 Frags +

my pugchamp is stuck on "Your account is not set up properly."
ive set my name and clicked save but its still stuck
help please

all good now

[s]my pugchamp is stuck on "Your account is not set up properly."
ive set my name and clicked save but its still stuck
help please[/s]
all good now
227
#227
0 Frags +
DynamiCmy pugchamp is stuck on "Your account is not set up properly."
ive set my name and clicked save but its still stuck
help please
[quote=DynamiC]my pugchamp is stuck on "Your account is not set up properly."
ive set my name and clicked save but its still stuck
help please[/quote]
228
#228
ChampGG
0 Frags +
solaDynamiCmy pugchamp is stuck on "Your account is not set up properly."
ive set my name and clicked save but its still stuck
help please

This sometimes happens. Try logging out and back in again.

[quote=sola][quote=DynamiC]my pugchamp is stuck on "Your account is not set up properly."
ive set my name and clicked save but its still stuck
help please[/quote][/quote]

This sometimes happens. Try logging out and back in again.
229
#229
1 Frags +

hey can you fix the name change field?
isn't currently working

hey can you fix the name change field?
isn't currently working
230
#230
ChampGG
3 Frags +
iskiiehey can you fix the name change field?
isn't currently working

An admin has to change it once it is set. We don't want people to have the ability to frequently change their name because it would cause confusion as to who is who.

[quote=iskiie]hey can you fix the name change field?
isn't currently working[/quote]

An admin has to change it once it is set. We don't want people to have the ability to frequently change their name because it would cause confusion as to who is who.
231
#231
-1 Frags +

how about implement a bar where you can see how many players are online

furthermore i would suggest to order the names alphabetical,
(atm i think it is the ones with a capital first then the ones with a minuscle)

how about implement a bar where you can see how many players are online

furthermore i would suggest to order the names alphabetical,
(atm i think it is the ones with a capital first then the ones with a minuscle)
232
#232
4 Frags +

Remove elo system, points make people play for the wrong reason :X it'll cause salt and cancer between people who care about elo and people who dont

Remove elo system, points make people play for the wrong reason :X it'll cause salt and cancer between people who care about elo and people who dont
233
#233
2 Frags +
LanzerRemove elo system, points make people play for the wrong reason :X it'll cause salt and cancer between people who care about elo and people who dont

It has mostly positive effects imo

[quote=Lanzer]Remove elo system, points make people play for the wrong reason :X it'll cause salt and cancer between people who care about elo and people who dont[/quote]

It has mostly positive effects imo
234
#234
11 Frags +

incoming rant
why the FUCK does this site randomly ban 6 out of the 9 maps right off the bat?
i feel like this is a bug but if it's not it definitely needs to be rethought

i think i can speak for everyone in saying that when rng leaves you with a choice between pugging reckoner, metalworks or granary you know it's going to be shit

if it were up to me I would either ban a minimal number of maps randomly (maybe 2-3) and allow captains to narrow it down further, or add back the ability to rock the vote
rtv worked perfectly fine in literally every other pug service that has been used in the past (most notably pugme, tf2pug.na and tf2mix) because people actually do not want to play the same map over and over again
as dingo once pointed out, it's astounding how people figure out how to make each subsequent 'new pug site' worse than all of its predecessors
the reason pugna's irc bot was good was not because it had aesthetically appealing visuals or that it had a bunch of fancy extra features, but it was simple: it did what people needed and nothing more

I feel like in terms of priorities the main thing should be people actually enjoying the pug rather than arbitrarily enforcing rules for more "diversity" which actually ends up with people banning reckoner and granary 95% of the time but being forced to play sunshine metalworks or badlands
i would be very interested to see some statistics for the overall number of pugs played on each map to see if the system actually works the way it's supposed to, but that being said I feel like the majority of people would rather be able to choose which map they play (along with which sub player they get...) than try to achieve the 'perfect' balance of diversity
i actually cant remember the last time ive played a pug on snakewater and i play way too much on this fucking site rofl

edit: actually even if the system was kept as is one possible solution to the problem could just be to allow for rtvs but only if there is, for example, a 7/12 majority players who don't want to play the map (though if it were just to be a majority if 10 people joined fast they could rtv even if the last two people don't want to change the map)

incoming rant
why the FUCK does this site randomly ban 6 out of the 9 maps right off the bat?
i feel like this is a bug but if it's not it definitely needs to be rethought

i think i can speak for everyone in saying that when rng leaves you with a choice between pugging reckoner, metalworks or granary you know it's going to be shit

if it were up to me I would either ban a minimal number of maps randomly (maybe 2-3) and allow captains to narrow it down further, or add back the ability to rock the vote
rtv worked perfectly fine in literally every other pug service that has been used in the past (most notably pugme, tf2pug.na and tf2mix) because people actually [b]do not [/b]want to play the same map over and over again
as dingo once pointed out, it's astounding how people figure out how to make each subsequent 'new pug site' worse than all of its predecessors
the reason pugna's irc bot was good was not because it had aesthetically appealing visuals or that it had a bunch of fancy extra features, but it was simple: it did what people needed and [b]nothing[/b] more

I feel like in terms of priorities the main thing should be people actually enjoying the pug rather than arbitrarily enforcing rules for more "diversity" which actually ends up with people banning reckoner and granary 95% of the time but being forced to play sunshine metalworks or badlands
i would be very interested to see some statistics for the overall number of pugs played on each map to see if the system actually works the way it's supposed to, but that being said I feel like the majority of people would rather be able to choose which map they play (along with which sub player they get...) than try to achieve the 'perfect' balance of diversity
i actually cant remember the last time ive played a pug on snakewater and i play way too much on this fucking site rofl

edit: actually even if the system was kept as is one possible solution to the problem could just be to allow for rtvs but only if there is, for example, a 7/12 majority players who don't want to play the map (though if it were just to be a majority if 10 people joined fast they could rtv even if the last two people don't want to change the map)
235
#235
-5 Frags +
bearodactylincoming rant
why the FUCK does this site randomly ban 6 out of the 9 maps right off the bat?
i feel like this is a bug but if it's not it definitely needs to be rethought

i think i can speak for everyone in saying that when rng leaves you with a choice between pugging reckoner, metalworks or granary you know it's going to be shit

if it were up to me I would either ban a minimal number of maps randomly (maybe 2-3) and allow captains to narrow it down further, or add back the ability to rock the vote
rtv worked perfectly fine in literally every other pug service that has been used in the past (most notably pugme, tf2pug.na and tf2mix) because people actually do not want to play the same map over and over again
as dingo once pointed out, it's astounding how people figure out how to make each subsequent 'new pug site' worse than all of its predecessors
the reason pugna's irc bot was good was not because it had aesthetically appealing visuals or that it had a bunch of fancy extra features, but it was simple: it did what people needed and nothing more

I feel like in terms of priorities the main thing should be people actually enjoying the pug rather than arbitrarily enforcing rules for more "diversity" which actually ends up with people banning reckoner and granary 95% of the time but being forced to play sunshine metalworks or badlands
i would be very interested to see some statistics for the overall number of pugs played on each map to see if the system actually works the way it's supposed to, but that being said I feel like the majority of people would rather be able to choose which map they play (along with which sub player they get...) than try to achieve the 'perfect' balance of diversity
i actually cant remember the last time ive played a pug on snakewater and i play way too much on this fucking site rofl

yeah me too man xD

[quote=bearodactyl]incoming rant
why the FUCK does this site randomly ban 6 out of the 9 maps right off the bat?
i feel like this is a bug but if it's not it definitely needs to be rethought

i think i can speak for everyone in saying that when rng leaves you with a choice between pugging reckoner, metalworks or granary you know it's going to be shit

if it were up to me I would either ban a minimal number of maps randomly (maybe 2-3) and allow captains to narrow it down further, or add back the ability to rock the vote
rtv worked perfectly fine in literally every other pug service that has been used in the past (most notably pugme, tf2pug.na and tf2mix) because people actually [b]do not [/b]want to play the same map over and over again
as dingo once pointed out, it's astounding how people figure out how to make each subsequent 'new pug site' worse than all of its predecessors
the reason pugna's irc bot was good was not because it had aesthetically appealing visuals or that it had a bunch of fancy extra features, but it was simple: it did what people needed and [b]nothing[/b] more

I feel like in terms of priorities the main thing should be people actually enjoying the pug rather than arbitrarily enforcing rules for more "diversity" which actually ends up with people banning reckoner and granary 95% of the time but being forced to play sunshine metalworks or badlands
i would be very interested to see some statistics for the overall number of pugs played on each map to see if the system actually works the way it's supposed to, but that being said I feel like the majority of people would rather be able to choose which map they play (along with which sub player they get...) than try to achieve the 'perfect' balance of diversity
i actually cant remember the last time ive played a pug on snakewater and i play way too much on this fucking site rofl[/quote]

yeah me too man xD
236
#236
7 Frags +

can you change the rule set of eu.pugchamp to the etf2l one?
win difference 5 being the main issue.

can you change the rule set of eu.pugchamp to the etf2l one?
win difference 5 being the main issue.
237
#237
2 Frags +

amazing, I'm really looking forward to play a couple of games once I come back

amazing, I'm really looking forward to play a couple of games once I come back
238
#238
2 Frags +

Awesome job and nice site !

Awesome job and nice site !
239
#239
2 Frags +
bearodactylrtv worked perfectly fine in literally every other pug service that has been used in the past

theres literally no reason why this should not be implemented

[quote=bearodactyl]
rtv worked perfectly fine in literally every other pug service that has been used in the past[/quote]

theres literally no reason why this should not be implemented
240
#240
ChampGG
6 Frags +

In regards to map bans vs rtv: We originally replaced the normal rtv system with a pick/ban process because we believed that rtv resulted in the same 3 maps being played over and over again. Having the same 3 maps versus a more consistent variety can be debated but we thought that if we could have a map selection that wasn't stale it would freshen pugs up. Back in march I decided to go and tally up the frequency of the pugme maps and compare it to what we had up to that point. So basically I had a little over the last two months of pugme and a little over the first two months of pugchamp. (note a few eu pugs are included in the pugme tally).
Warning. I am not good at math and statistics was pretty much my worst subject in uni. (I had to take it a few times).

Show Content
From Novemberish till last pugme
Process 315
Gullywash 297
Snakewater 288
Badlands 166
Metalworks 69
Granary 30
Sunshine 20
Reckoner 5
Logjam 1

From pugchamp launch until march
Process 228
Snakewater 228
Gullywash 223
Sunshine 155
Badlands 141
Metalworks 129
Granary 78
Reckoner 9
For all purposes, Reckoner and logjam are going to be grouped together.
Show Content
PugMe
Standard Deviation 134.5
coefficient of variation 0.9038

PugChamp
Standard Deviation 78.47
coefficient of variation 0.5271

Take this as you will. Our goal at the beginning was to try and facilitate a better map distribution instead of having the same 3 maps played over and over again and I think we did that to an extent. If I am out to lunch and royally fucked up my pugme numbers please correct me. I was just going to logs and then I tallied up the maps using a spreadsheet.

Show Content
We believe in order to keep things 'fresh' we want to do something like:
2 fresh bans, 2 random, 1 C1 ban, 1 C2 ban, Random pick from 3 (original)
2 fresh bans, 1 C1 Ban, C2 Ban, 1 C1 Ban, 1 C2 Ban, Random pick from 3 (we suspect this to have problems of maps being overplayed)

Side note: We are running reckoner because it is currently (to my knowledge) the only competitive map in active development and the creator is actually trying to get feedback to make a decent competitive map. It won't be perfect right away but if a few pugs are played on it and that results in some feedback getting back to them then it gives us the chance to get a new map that could be great. We aren't including it because we want to troll you guys. The original idea was to try and help out the map creator and see if something could happen with it.

In regards to map bans vs rtv: We originally replaced the normal rtv system with a pick/ban process because we believed that rtv resulted in the same 3 maps being played over and over again. Having the same 3 maps versus a more consistent variety can be debated but we thought that if we could have a map selection that wasn't stale it would freshen pugs up. Back in march I decided to go and tally up the frequency of the pugme maps and compare it to what we had up to that point. So basically I had a little over the last two months of pugme and a little over the first two months of pugchamp. (note a few eu pugs are included in the pugme tally).
Warning. I am not good at math and statistics was pretty much my worst subject in uni. (I had to take it a few times).

[spoiler]
From Novemberish till last pugme
Process 315
Gullywash 297
Snakewater 288
Badlands 166
Metalworks 69
Granary 30
Sunshine 20
Reckoner 5
Logjam 1

From pugchamp launch until march
Process 228
Snakewater 228
Gullywash 223
Sunshine 155
Badlands 141
Metalworks 129
Granary 78
Reckoner 9
For all purposes, Reckoner and logjam are going to be grouped together.
[/spoiler]

[spoiler]
PugMe
Standard Deviation 134.5
coefficient of variation 0.9038

PugChamp
Standard Deviation 78.47
coefficient of variation 0.5271
[/spoiler]

Take this as you will. Our goal at the beginning was to try and facilitate a better map distribution instead of having the same 3 maps played over and over again and I think we did that to an extent. If I am out to lunch and royally fucked up my pugme numbers please correct me. I was just going to logs and then I tallied up the maps using a spreadsheet.

[spoiler]
We believe in order to keep things 'fresh' we want to do something like:
2 fresh bans, 2 random, 1 C1 ban, 1 C2 ban, Random pick from 3 (original)
2 fresh bans, 1 C1 Ban, C2 Ban, 1 C1 Ban, 1 C2 Ban, Random pick from 3 (we suspect this to have problems of maps being overplayed)
[/spoiler]

Side note: We are running reckoner because it is currently (to my knowledge) the only competitive map in active development and the creator is actually trying to get feedback to make a decent competitive map. It won't be perfect right away but if a few pugs are played on it and that results in some feedback getting back to them then it gives us the chance to get a new map that could be great. We aren't including it because we want to troll you guys. The original idea was to try and help out the map creator and see if something could happen with it.
1 ⋅⋅ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ⋅⋅ 43
Please sign in through STEAM to post a comment.