Remove the ability for a CT to be a Warden back to back if there's more than 5 CT's

[kuantum]

I think we all know those jailbreak games where it's just one warden always, somehow, taking over the whole game.

I understand why you would want a warden to be the same: maybe he's a good warden, maybe he's funny, but it really removes the game being different.

There have been rounds where people have been trying to get warden but they simply can't because somehow they keep spamming their bind faster.

Now, the 5 CT limit is there only so that if they are games that have lower player count, there can be that one guy who takes warden and the other CT's don't need to worry about having a mic.

 

[Damon]

I understand that it can be annoying dealing with the same Warden back to back, but I personally think how the plugin works now is perfectly fine. How the plugin works is anyone that types !w is entered into a pool that the plugin randomly selects from.

It doesn't matter if you typed it first, and it doesn't matter if you spammed it more then others, it will always be a completely random and fair selection.

 

[kuantum]

I personally think it's perfectly fine how it is now, it doesn't matter if someone spams their bind faster or types !w first at all. Once you type !w the plugin randomly selects 1 of the people that type !w. It doesn't matter if you typed it first or how many times you typed it, it will always be a completely random selection.

It can be annoying dealing with the same Warden 5 times in a row, but how the plugin works everyone gets an equal chance of becoming Warden.

There is no way that plugin promises random chance.

 

[Damon]

There is no way that plugin promises random chance.

Pretty positive that is the way the plugin works, and pretty positive it's been this way for awhile. Could be mistaken, but I highly doubt it considering I've seen threads like these be opened up multiple times with the same conclusions.

 

[heidi]

even when it's 'randomized' there is possibilities for doubles to happen. just how it is

 

[K4PPA]

There is no way that plugin promises random chance.

As a player who has played on the Jailbreak server for almost 4 years, yes the plugin chooses a random guard.

 

[kuantum]

So the same person getting warden for the over the course of 5 rounds (which is frequent) is just complete random chance?

You could not convince me that RNG is just in the person's favor.

And even if it is, why not just have different wardens each round? What's the issue with that?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[Damon]

Well it isn't really my job to convince you, you can chose to believe what I've said or not, it's completely up to you. Just stating that this is how the plugin has worked for a long time, everyone that enters the Warden queue has a completely random and equal chance of getting Warden.

Excluding people that have been Warden a round before completely destroys that RNG factor and equal chance for all players to get Warden.

 

[kuantum]

But the problem is warden-hogging. Not whether fair chance is at play. It's unfair to other CT's who haven't gotten to be warden and want to be warden.

 

[TomSL]

I've previously worked on the pG JB plugin.

It is infact random, pooled from the players from 4 seconds, starting when the first !w is taken.

It's just pure luck that they get warden multiple times in a row.

I'm not in favor of arbitrarily restricting people from entering the pool, provided they meet all the requirements of becoming warden. I don't know why you'd want to restrict other people's play experience because of bad luck in RNG.

 

[EpicFlamingos]

There's an option in the current plugin to restrict wardens if they get it for more than x rounds, but it was a bit buggy when we tested it and might need to be tweaked a bit.

Personally, I don't see the point now that the rules say you can't start with the same game as the previous round. A long time ago it was an issue because the same wardens kept doing the same round over and over, but with the new rule it's not as much of an issue as before. If anything I would only support this to give other people a chance to be warden.

 

[BeastTheNinja]

you dont have to press your bind the fastest, I have picked warden at last second and gets it, it is random

 

[Matrix]

Yeah it sucks having one warden for 7 rounds in a row but it is randomized and sometimes the luck isn't in your favor
Not really doing a -1 but not a +1 either

 

[Corrupted]

There's an option in the current plugin to restrict wardens if they get it for more than x rounds, but it was a bit buggy when we tested it and might need to be tweaked a bit.

Thing is that some people might not pursue warden, and most ppl rely on that one person to take warden.

 

[thorgot]

Thing is that some people might not pursue warden, and most ppl rely on that one person to take warden.

A weighted randomizer would prevent this issue. If you were warden last round you'd be 1/2 as likely to be picked as someone who wasn't, if you were warden both of the last two rounds you'd be 1/4th as likely, and so on. That way if nobody else queued you'd still get a warden, but if someone else wants a turn you can't hog it.

 

[owen]

A weighted randomizer would prevent this issue. If you were warden last round you'd be 1/2 as likely to be picked as someone who wasn't, if you were warden both of the last two rounds you'd be 1/4th as likely, and so on. That way if nobody else queued you'd still get a warden, but if someone else wants a turn you can't hog it.

This could work well. No need to make it impossible for someone to get warden twice in a row if there's more than 5 CTs (especially if they're the only one in the queue), just make it less likely. +1 for this idea.

 

[Corrupted]

A weighted randomizer would prevent this issue. If you were warden last round you'd be 1/2 as likely to be picked as someone who wasn't, if you were warden both of the last two rounds you'd be 1/4th as likely, and so on. That way if nobody else queued you'd still get a warden, but if someone else wants a turn you can't hog it.

I didnt know thats an option

 

[kuantum]

A weighted randomizer would prevent this issue. If you were warden last round you'd be 1/2 as likely to be picked as someone who wasn't, if you were warden both of the last two rounds you'd be 1/4th as likely, and so on. That way if nobody else queued you'd still get a warden, but if someone else wants a turn you can't hog it.

That ain't a bad idea, I didn't think that was possible.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[Damon]

A weighted randomizer would prevent this issue. If you were warden last round you'd be 1/2 as likely to be picked as someone who wasn't, if you were warden both of the last two rounds you'd be 1/4th as likely, and so on. That way if nobody else queued you'd still get a warden, but if someone else wants a turn you can't hog it.

I'm all for having this type of system implemented and would love to see it in server

 

[TomSL]

A weighted randomizer would prevent this issue. If you were warden last round you'd be 1/2 as likely to be picked as someone who wasn't, if you were warden both of the last two rounds you'd be 1/4th as likely, and so on. That way if nobody else queued you'd still get a warden, but if someone else wants a turn you can't hog it.

This is a fine middle ground between an arbitrary restriction and pure RNG. A weighted pool with each consecutive round dividing your number of tickets and likelihood, and can be achieved by rolling x number of random ints for x number of CT's that joined the pool. Whoever rolls the highest is selected as warden.

This could also allow for a toggle warden opt-in potentially.

Though I'm not sure opt-in-toggle would be a good idea considering the fast paced nature and how fast you need to be able to start a round on some maps (ie vip).