Put the high rank players against the low rank players.

I've watch it happen enough times. Perhaps instead of Random Teams the option should be Balanced Teams? Or maybe just add that option in there.

Random teams are random teams.

I like the idea of Balanced teams, however that raises the question on how to balance them.

Levels do not represent actual playing strength but might be better then nothing.

Edited 5/9/2014 22:03:37

true that! im the best player but dont have the highest lvl....

Levels are are an amazing indicator of skill.

Every level 50+ I have curbstomped agrees.

Clearly levels is a lazy way of finding bootrate

I mean level 1s clearly get booted way more often than level 55s

I completely agree that levels is only an indicator of activity, and not necessarily skill.

It just becomes obvious when you have a game when its

Team A - levels: 54;50;48
Team B - levels: 22;9;47

I don't know what balanced means in that scenario, but I know I see that enough to know that it isn't really random.

Then you don't understand random. You only understand what looks like random. There's a whole lot of random out there that doesn't look like random.

Please so understand actual randomness before coming back and trying again.

I think there could be a good compromise between random teams and fixed teams to balance team games a little bit more. Two captains who compose their teams and like the starting spots distribution the first captain pick one player, then the second pick 2 players etc.

Edited 5/11/2014 13:03:33

Dear Cheery Dogs,

After reading your post it dawned on me. You must be stuck in a room full of farts.

Anyways, as far as random goes (you did mean pseudo random right?), there is nothing random about seeing teams constantly built as I described. I do understand that it is just as likely for a team to be perfectly balanced as it is for a team to be all high vs all low.

This is why I gave my input from MY trials and observations. This is also why I gave a compromise that will fill the gap between your stank attitude about what I "only" understand and actual randomness(you did mean pseudo random right?)

So perhaps before you come back, you should get an oxygen mask and fill that big brain of yours with some nutritious fresh air and THEN proceed to tell us ALL about your pseudo knowledge of actual pseudo randomness.

For the record, this isn't the only piece of the game that I think struggle with pseudo random issues.

Edited 5/13/2014 00:16:23

So Doctor,

Are you implying that rather than having a code for truly random team assignments (and your other pseudo random issues) that Fizzer actually coded in provisions to stack the deck away from random?

I find this far fetched.

Dear Doctor,

Anecdotal evidence is not empirical evidence. Perhaps you should actually do a statistical analysis of your issue across the thousands of games and players that participate each month to see if indeed the odds are stacked...

I doubt that level is even a factor when randomly allocating players to teams, so yes, it's more or less random.

As for pseudo-random vs. random, it's all semantics, every programming languages rand_num(x, y) function or equivalent is random enough to be considered truly random for nearly all intents and purposes. Just because it isn't technically "random" doesn't mean it isn't close enough.

I didn't imply anything Mr. Pooh. I simply stated my observation of the pattern in the game, and provided a suggestion on how that perception could be different.

Mr. TLDR, I find it laughable that you are suggesting that my observations of the patterns are not empirical evidence and then proceed to challenge me to do an impossible analysis in order to stand up the straw man that you so effortlessly knocked down.

Mr. Kid, your doubts would be a solid explanation for the pattern that I observe.
my experience tells me that not all pseudo random methods are created equal. I have no idea what random number generator is used in this game, but for all intents and purposes, it's not hard to take a pseudo random number and do a bunch of stuff to it and make it not random at all.

I am amazed at the the level of spitefulness rising up in response to my observations and suggestions. It does however seem endemic to most "gaming" communities today. Sad.

Perhaps you only notice the pattern when it is there. I just played a random 3v3 with teams (by level) as follows: 28, 31, 52 - 51, 42, 41

I certainly don't think my post was remotely spiteful.

I can't say whether the code is sufficiently random or not without actually seeing it, but, I do think it is safe to say that it probably doesn't check each players levels and that level has absolutely no affect on what team someone is placed on, which is ideal, level shouldn't be checked, if it was that wasn't random.

The problem is that results which appear the most random are actually typically the least random.

ie. A computerized coin-flip, that keeps track of previous results, and intentionally keeps "heads" and "tails" at close to equal frequencies is less random than code which gives previous results no consideration. Its results might be more uniform, but randomness doesn't always result in expected results, that's the whole idea of randomness, it's unpredictable (or at least intended to be).

On the other hand, I do agree that a "balance teams" settings might not be a bad thing, it just comes into question then as to how it should balance them, which is a whole other can of worms.