• 0 Players on Java
  • us.mineplex.com
  • 3082 Players Online
  • 3082 Players on Bedrock
  • pe.mineplex.com
Attention Internet Explorer Users
To have the best user experience on our site please consider upgrading to Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox

Alpha Chaser Selection Proposed Rework

Discussion in 'Death Tag' started by Loofii, Mar 19, 2020.


Should these changes be implemented to the Alpha Chaser selection system?

  1. Yes, as they are

    5 vote(s)
  2. Yes, with modifications/additions

    11 vote(s)
  3. No, but other changes should be made

    3 vote(s)
  4. No, the selection system should remain as it is

    1 vote(s)
  1. A lot of people tend to get frustrated when they're chosen as the Alpha Chaser, especially if they're chosen multiple times in a row or if they're one of the last two runners and get zapped. The Alpha Chaser selection is somewhat of a necessary evil, as the game either cannot occur without it (for the initial selecting) or oftentimes cannot end without it, a factor equally as important as the beginning. However, the random selection I feel can be at times unfair or more frustrating than is necessary. So, I have a few proposed updates for a rework.

    1. In-game Alpha Chaser selection should be based first off of health, then off of chaser proximity. If the game has been continuing for an extended period of time without any runners dying, the selection of the next Alpha Chaser should not be random. Currently the randomness allows someone to be within half a heart of dying and not be selected as the next Alpha Chaser, making someone else become one rather pointlessly. By having the runner with the lowest health/who is closest to Chasers be turned next, it ensures that the most likely to die runner is turned thus avoiding frustration from people who worked quite hard to get to their tough-to-reach hiding spot.
    2. Initial Alpha Chaser selection should correlate with how long a player has been in the game. The longer that a player has been in the lobby that is playing Death Tag, the less of a percent chance they should have to be chosen as the Alpha Chaser. This not only rewards game loyalty and encourages players to stay in their lobby, but it also in turn punishes players who immediately quit when they are chosen as Alpha Chaser to find a new game, as they will have an increased likelihood of being the Alpha Chaser once more.
    3. If a player was selected as an Alpha Chaser in the previous game and remained in the lobby, they should not be chosen as the initial Alpha Chaser in the next game. This one's fairly straightforward and I feel would prevent a lot of frustration at people getting AC repeatedly. However, this should be capped at 5 players able to receive immunity in the event that a lobby's previous game was full of pacifist Chasers and there were an extensive amount of Alpha Chasers chosen.

    What are y'all's thoughts on these proposed reworks? Are there any other things that should be included in a theoretical update of the Alpha Chaser selection system?
    Posted Mar 19, 2020
    reaLLytired likes this.
  2. Number 3 really shows out to me because people much rather prefer to be runners. Maybe they could have it how other games do like block hunt where if someone wants to volunteer to be the chaser they can.
    Posted Mar 19, 2020
  3. You've definitely got some interesting ideas. Even though I don't play DT anymore, I know that alpha frustration is something that's always present with a majority of the players. Although a few details should be altered in my opinion.

    1. This one I can't agree with since there are a few circumstances where it should be the opposite. There's two basic sides to the argument; who deserves it more? From past experiences I've had games where I was running with less than 3 hearts and still managing to avoid most the chasers. Some games I got lucky and either the other person died or got alpha'd, and other games I either died or was alpha'd. Even when someone's health is low there's no guarantee that they'd die even with chasers harassing them all game. (Not to mention there are players far better than me that are in that position all the time.) On the flip side, the other person and what they're doing. If they're hiding then there's not much to it. It can often be viewed as a cheap win so logically that person should get alpha'd instead. Or, if they're camping with a bow and fending off 5+ people at once for several minutes, then you could say they've earned that win. Maybe both cases are accurate, one is outrunning the chasers with ease while the other is just holding on with those bow shots. It can be argued that both of them deserve the win, so alpha could be disabled in that case.
    All-in-all, I think the endgame alpha selection should be left to randomness, since after a while the number of wins will even out with the number of losses for those 1v1 cases. Basically a 50-50 shot. There are just too many variables that can't be judged by a bot based on health or movement alone.

    Sorry for the essay. The last two will be shorter lol.

    2. Can't say I fully like this one. It makes sense, but there's the shared risk of players that just logged on always getting hit. Not to mention, assuming the lobby is full and no one leaves or joins for up to an hour (rare occasion, but still), then the same few people would be getting hit constantly. If not initially, then most likely later on if a new alpha is selected. I think a better system would be to punish players that quit and join a new game. So if Player1 gets alpha'd and quits to find a new game, they'd have a much higher chance of becoming alpha. Might seem mean, but then again they did force alpha on someone else by quitting a game they didn't want to play.

    3. I definitely agree with this. I remember times when someone would become the first alpha, leave (forcing a new alpha), and then the new alpha leaves. I think the most I saw was 3 quits in a row. Giving immunity to whoever became alpha (or in the case of multiple, greatly decreasing the odds depending on who was first) would be a fair reward in my opinion. Maybe give immunity to 2nd/3rd place as well if they got alpha'd. Something to cut down the frustration, if only a little.
    Posted Mar 19, 2020
    SpitefulNick likes this.
  4. Hey!

    I have mixed opinions on the ideas you gave for Death Tag. Getting picked as an Alpha Chaser randomly is really annoying in my opinion. The first idea you gave, I'm not sure about. I see how it would fix the randomness on getting picked but this way still wouldn't be fair. Just because you have low health or because you're right by an Alpha Chaser doesn't mean you're going to die. But if it is based on who is closest to an Alpha Chaser and health, then I agree with that because even though there is a chance of them getting away, they would probably die. For the second one, I totally agree with what @GuitarHero_King has said for it. Players that just got online would have a higher chance of getting chosen as Alpha Chaser. If there was a way to avoid this happening then I would be fine this getting added in. And I do agree that this would be good for the people who quit when they become Alpha. Finally, for the third one, I am all for. This does fix the problem of people getting picked as Alpha one game after another. I also agree that the player not being able to be picked as Alpha should be limited to 5 or even a little more. Overall, if these ideas had a few adjustments then I think they would be perfect for Death Tag!
    Posted Mar 19, 2020

  5. For your points in number one about why you disagree, I think trying to decide what "strategy" is more "deserving" of a win is pointless. Every strategy is a strategy, regardless if someone finds it cheap. The only truly fair way would be to eliminate the Alpha Chaser selection in its entirety, which would cause many games to go on for far too long. Deciding what strategy is moral or immoral is not realistic. The only fair way is to go by who is most likely to win. That's best determined by proximity and health remaining. Sure, you can supply rare exceptions for almost any scenario, but it still remains in most cases the best option.

    As for the disagreement with the second point, that's why it's a percentage and not a guarantee. And, since percentage has to add up to 100%, it would not infinitely decrease-- there would be a cap. Once the cap is reached (probably 5 games) then all players with that and above have the same likelihood, and all players with 4 have slightly more, with 3 have slightly more, etc. etc. etc. That way there would not be an infinite chance that the players there longest would not be chosen, and they of course still would have a chance.
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Mar 19, 2020
  6. I believe that alpha chaser selection should be based on movement, if a player is camping and running the least they should have a higher percentage of being picked as alpha. It'd help maps like pirates harbor move quicker.
    Posted Mar 20, 2020
  7. This could be interesting to factor in, and is a good idea for anti-camping, but that's still IMO a judgement of strategy. I think that camping is a completely valid strategy, and that it's supported by the map design and kit design. I'd say if movement were to be included, it should be included below health and proximity, so if they're equally healthy and proximal to chasers, their movement could be a factor.
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Mar 20, 2020
    JN_PlayzMC likes this.
  8. I agree that camping is a valid strategy but there is a major issue of the length of some DT games in mixed arcade and I'm not sure what other changes could be made.
    Posted Mar 20, 2020
    xKen likes this.
  9. Do you play DT on the regular
    Posted Mar 26, 2020
  10. I've been playing this since 2015

    1. I have to disagree with this like Guitar, because it makes no sense.

    2. I have to disagree with this as well, because everyone needs to become alpha chaser, you cant just stay in the game for a long time to not become chaser.

    3. Yes, I'll agree with this, it is frustrating for some players.
    Posted Mar 26, 2020
  11. I do! I play DT every day, and it's one of my top three favorite games on the server.

    I think a way for #2 to make sense is with a cap of percentages. This means that when say, all 16 players have been there for at least 5 rounds (maybe some of them have been there for 10, maybe some of them just hit 5) it evens out so that they all have the same percentage. That percentage would be 100/16 (or however many players are there if they are all over 5) and the distance between percentages needn't be that extreme-- since it's a percentage chance rather than a guarantee, they can still become Alpha Chasers at any time, however it would still reward game loyalty and discourage leaving immediately when you are selected as an Alpha Chaser.

    As for #1, I can see the points being made that it would potentially require a judgement of strategies, or in itself be a judgement of strategies, and I spent some time thinking about an alternative. What if, instead of the selection being based in health and proximity, it was withheld due to proximity and health?

    I.e. If a remaining runner is within 15 blocks of a chaser or if a remaining runner has less than 7.5 hearts, the Alpha Chaser mechanism was suspended until both of these factors were not true and ten seconds had passed (in case the one with proximity slips out of that proximity for a second then returns, it would be unfair to immediately trigger an Alpha selection). That way it wouldn't punish either of the players, and allow for continued but reasonably limited gameplay in case one has the potential to die soon.
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Mar 26, 2020
  12. Oh you do? I never see you.
    Posted Mar 27, 2020
  13. I think that the initial Alpha Chaser should be selected based on the people that choose to become the Alpha Chaser. I think it should remain the way it is currently in that if nobody chooses to become the Alpha Chaser, someone will be picked randomly. Alternatively, the Alpha Chaser could be chosen based on who has been playing the longest (ex. someone who just joined a game would have a higher chance of becoming an Alpha Chaser than someone who has been playing for a few hours). This would reward players for staying on longer. This is not to say that the people who most recently joined would always become Alpha Chasers, however, as that could be unfair. It could instead be that there would be a lower probability for people that have been online longer to become the Alpha Chaser.

    As others have said, I don't think that the selection of additional chasers based on health or proximity to chasers would be fair. It seems to me that it would be a judgment of somebody's strategy and therefore be unfair.

    I am interested in your idea of giving "immunity" to people that have been an Alpha Chaser in a past game. I think this could be very fair for people so that they are not stuck playing as Alpha Chaser several times in a row against their will.
    Posted Mar 27, 2020
    ImJustDigital likes this.
  14. I prefer to play in MIN lobbies, so that might be why :P
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Mar 27, 2020
  15. As someone who has been playing way too much Death Tag for my own good, I strongly disagree with the first two suggestions, especially the first.

    1. You keep talking about who's most likely to win, and in your opinion, it's the player with the most health. Well, no. Here's the thing; it's actually the player with the most skill, and believe me when I say this: I haven't seen all too many highly skilled players who are hiding the entire game.
    Let's assume that the alpha system was removed completely. Now, in this scenario, there are two runners left: a hiding camper and an exceedingly skilled runner. It takes one chaser to find this camper with his compass, and they're dead. However, you could have the rest of the chasers going after this other runner, and they would still outrun them all. Why? Because they have practiced for hours and hours, therefore gaining these perks called skills. You might argue that one runner can't outrun a lobby, however; I've done it countless times, I've seen countless other players do it countless times. It's not impossible, sometimes not even hard under the right conditions.
    TL;DR - the most skilled player is the one who's most likely to win, not the one with the best hiding spot.

    2. Disagree; Guitar worded the elaboration well already.

    3. I can agree with this, don't see why people should get alpha'd several times in a row.
    Posted Mar 28, 2020
  16. I think that out of all of these ideas the only one that should definitely be implemented is number three. The others would just be too controversial to make happen. I think half of the player base would agree while the other half would disagree and thus make players even more frustrated with the new system. To add on, many players are used to the system we have had forever and the new additions would just cause chaos if anything. It might even drive some players to stop playing or take a break from Death Tag. Number three isn't game breaking or anything and would just remove frustration from many players and I feel like not many people would disagree with that change.
    Posted Apr 9, 2020
  17. I would rather have those who are of high proximity from chasers be top priority for forced chasers. Being targeted will increase one's chances of getting zapped. If they get hit once, it is almost like an insta-kill just because the game needs to continue. Those who are camping up in an untouchable position have it off easier, so those who are constantly on the run rightfully earn their rights to not be a force chaser.

    If you get chosen, it technically means you have already lost, but still necessary to keep the game going. What if someone must relog for whatever reason or their game crashes? This will punish them innocently. The same statement can be said about those who were unluckily chosen as alpha chasers.

    As long as they do not queue for alpha chaser, this condition should apply. Like said before, ACs cannot win, so getting zapped repeatedly starts a losing streak when it was not completely their mistake.


    Report a User | Report a Bug | Rules | My Profile | Applications
    Posted Apr 9, 2020
  18. First alpha chaser selection:

    Choose one completely randomly. Change the first alpha chaser into a runner when half of the runners are dead. This way, the initial alpha chaser can win.

    When changing a chaser into a runner, they are given invisibility, speed 4 & invincibility for 10 seconds. This removes the problem of finding a suitable respawn location (we're not teleporting the player at all, they just get the potion effects and turn into a runner).

    Late-game speedup:

    When nobody has been killed for a while, turn one person into a temporary chaser.

    Temporary chasers have 30 seconds to kill someone. If they do this, they turn back into a runner, with the same potion effects as described above. If they fail to kill anyone, then they turn into a permanent chaser.

    If only 2 people remain and one turns into a temporary chaser, they will get 30 seconds to kill the last person.

    This is basically the current system, but a bit better. People who are picked randomly now get a second chance.

    Definitely agree
    Posted Aug 23, 2020

Share This Page