Splash DamageBlogCommunity Question: Restoring Team Balance

Splash Damage Blog

Community Question: Restoring Team Balance

Thanks everyone who posted suggestions for Community-based Community Questions! One that immediately piqued our interest came from Humate and concerns the small and yet precarious matter of balanced teams. Playing in a match that has significantly more players on Team A than on Team B isn't fun for anyone, so we'd like to get your thoughts on the following this week:

What's the best way to rebalance teams that have wildly different amounts of players on them?

We've assembled a few of the most common things in the poll for this week's Community Question. Please cast your vote for your favourite or, if none of them seem adequate, suggest all-new ways of tackling this age-old multiplayer problem. We look forward to your suggestions!

96 Comments

Auto-balance at the end of the round. Allow /callvote shuffle mid-way through if needed.
Posted on 27 September, 2012 - 19:49
Auto-balance teams at the end of the round. Or... give the weak team 2 bots bodyguards/player :D . Every noob will have a ccbot medic and a bobot soldier to protect him from the incoming fire :D
Posted on 27 September, 2012 - 20:16
With imbalance we're talking quantitative imbalance rather than qualitative imbalance right? Depends on how relevant wins and losses are to your overall progress. If W/L or some rating system matters then you can't just frivolously swap people about without compensating them. If there's no consequences then I really like the automatic swap of the lowest scorer.
Posted on 27 September, 2012 - 20:48
Autobalance at the end, use accounts + global stats to shuffle to stop all kinds of ****tery from rating ho's :rolleyes:
Posted on 27 September, 2012 - 22:01
In terms of discrepancy in numbers, a shuffle is a bit extreme particularly if its a 3 map campaign. Usually you just wait for new players to fill the spots. Or a few players will switch on their own accord. In terms of a massive skill discrepancy, I would shuffle via skill rating. I would even give the dominated team, the option to concede a map after x amount of gametime with an autoshuffle on the next map.
Posted on 27 September, 2012 - 23:59
I don't think any of these things solves the problem, if you're lucky a shuffle will work, at other times it may have no affect or worse totally kill the server population. That's to say you're even able to join a server that has this functionality turned on or voting enabled. To repeat myself (and I won't bother clogging this thread with arguments in followup, you can read all those in the CQ Skills thread) it seems that if you can't balance teams by ensuring an even spread of player skill then you should in some way balance the teams as a whole through handicaps, boosts or other means (items, events etc). The aim there of course is to narrow the chasm but not close it. The better team should win but that should come down to them playing better not due to them having 2 very skilled players on their side. And yes I know this can be deemed as unfair and maybe is, yet is it any more unfair than facing a team that quite obviously can't be beaten. And to be clear, I repeat myself not to push an agenda or seek glory for some idea. I want to push for an alternative approach to the problem as we just seem content to repeat what was done last time, the time before that and the time before that. Can we try to think outside the box? Is there more 'Other' votes with ideas?
Posted on 28 September, 2012 - 00:08
Auto-balance at the next maps warm-up and move the people with the lowest scores. Could be better than at the end of the map because players might leave just before the map ends. Also players might want to finish the map on the side where they started. Maybe auto-balance mid-game if the map just started with few min warning that auto-balance coming.
Posted on 28 September, 2012 - 05:57
For numbers imbalance, move the person(s) who last joined, not person(s) with the lowest score unless, of course, score has no correlation to skill. Attempting to balance a game by moving lower skilled individuals onto teams with less players would indicate a disturbing laps in logic given that teams that are loosing significantly often suffer higher attrition. For significant skill imbalance, the thing I suggested in that other thread that shall not be referred to,
I would even give the dominated team, the option to concede a map after x amount of gametime with an autoshuffle on the next map.
and/or
Auto-balance teams at the end of the round
Posted on 28 September, 2012 - 06:14
For numbers imbalance, move the person(s) who last joined, not person(s) with the lowest score unless, of course, score has no correlation to skill. Attempting to balance a game by moving lower skilled individuals onto teams with less players would indicate a disturbing laps in logic given that teams that are losing significantly often suffer higher attrition.
Yeah! :) Also, do not allow people to join the other team if the difference in player count is >= 2 :D 8 vs 10 is not ideal, but acceptable. 8 vs 11 is just nasty :(.
Posted on 28 September, 2012 - 09:20
I don't know. Auto-balance at the end of the round sounds good, but from my own experience this is not really effective. Most people disconnect at the end of a round/beginning of a new round, so there is still a really great chance that teams end up uneven after the "shuffle".
Posted on 28 September, 2012 - 10:28
Balance at the end of the round seems a bit redundant for that reason. You want balance during the match, not after.
Posted on 28 September, 2012 - 11:42
maybe the best aproach would be an intelligent server that chooses what must be done. 1 - change 1 player for other side 2 - shuffles teams i prefer changing a player than offering xp. after playing et and etqw i think the forced swap works better. the second option is necessary because all of us have seen this happens before: 12v10 and the team with less players is winning. but it would require the server to have the perception of winning/losing sides.
Posted on 28 September, 2012 - 15:25
The xp-reward in ETQW simply was way too low as was always offered right before you were about to win. A 5% xp bonus or something the next match, or if you're playing a F2P, in-game credits, that's the kind of stuff that will make people switch sides.
Posted on 28 September, 2012 - 17:04
Other - If the maps are played in a campaign (and to preserve the teams but allow the losing team to have a fighting chance), give the losing team buffs for the next map, they can be: increase acc, increase damage (something like dmg x 0.1 - 1.5), lower times to plant, disarm, complete obj), the buffs can be multiplied according to how many maps are and the difference in the score at the end of a map (1map x0.5, second map x1.5, third map x2.5, etc) The simple example (from the W:ET) will be to keep the winning team at rank 1 Battle Sense(or a lower Rank) and give the losing team, flack jackets, adrenaline rush, Improved Health, Trap Awareness, Faster Reload, Full Revive, etc. The buffs will be implemented and tweaked in the beta :D This way you keep the already teams, give the losing team a fighting chance and make the game more challenging for the winning team, everybody wins :D - or allow the losing team at the end of a map to have higher number of players for the next map tagged as "Reinforcement" to show the incoming players what team to join to create balance. - or implement a GameMaster AI system to help keep the teams balanced, swap the players to the losing team, you can introduce an option (like the "Complaint popup F1/F2" ~ "Do you wish to join the other team to balance teams F1/F2") to allow the players on the winning team to create balance if they want and not to be hijacked by the system :D Allowing the players to chose to balance teams will give you an increase in balanced games and a decrease in quit after the shuffle :D
Posted on 28 September, 2012 - 17:04
give the losing team buffs for the next map, they can be: increase acc, increase damage (something like dmg x 0.1 - 1.5), lower times to plant, disarm, complete obj),
Thereīs nothing wrong with mechanics to help the losing side but thatīs one surefire way to make the game incredibly frustrating. The combat itself needs to play out on a level playing field. If you want to offer an advantage to losing or outnumbered players then shorten their respawn rate. Thatīs the correct way of shifting the odds while keeping the fights fair.
Posted on 28 September, 2012 - 17:35
Since Dormamu's brought up campaign unlocks, the unlock system has always provided stats modifiers that solidify player and team wide advantages, as well as discouraging playstyle adaptability. Rather than again arguing that the system should be scrapped, I'll suggest that if one team has twice as much experience as another, players on the latter team earn experience points (unlock points, don't care about epeen score) twice as fast.
I don't know. Auto-balance at the end of the round sounds good, but from my own experience this is not really effective. Most people disconnect at the end of a round/beginning of a new round, so there is still a really great chance that teams end up uneven after the "shuffle".
It may not be as effective but moving around a lot of players during a match is detrimental to deployable and vehicle play, class balance, cohesion and holds of strategic locations.
Posted on 28 September, 2012 - 17:43
I'll suggest that if one team has twice as much experience as another, players on the latter team earn experience points (unlock points, don't care about epeen score) twice as fast.
Excellent idea if it indeed doesn't touch the epeen score. You can even make the -unlock- points directly proportional to the xp difference. Beautiful.
Posted on 28 September, 2012 - 17:58
Excellent idea? Really? If higher XP and unlocks are what unbalances the teams, then the XP system is broken. If giving the other team double the XP fixes it, then the XP system is broken. If keeping everyone at the same XP is what keeps the game balanced, then the XP system is broken and should be done away with to keep it balanced. Omfg what a terrible idea.
Posted on 28 September, 2012 - 20:35
Wait, didn't we all agree that XP is pointless? Why include an idea if it's pointless?
Posted on 28 September, 2012 - 21:04
It may not be as effective but moving around a lot of players during a match is detrimental to deployable and vehicle play, class balance, cohesion and holds of strategic locations.
In my experience, mid match shuffles are the least effective, and least respected in terms of a result. The map needs to be restarted, the XP and unlocks need to return to their previous state, OR it needs to be played out with a shuffle at the beginning of the following map. Granted, the average joe will most likely F2 any shuffle that causes him to lose his xp or unlocks.
Posted on 28 September, 2012 - 22:36
The point is that this is the only way to reward a team based on merit. If you know another way then do tell. Players aren't being handed buffs for doing nothing but rather buffs based on their individual performance. This means that the best player in the disadvantaged team will suddenly stand out much more than the rest. This is especially satisfying to all the skilful players who have been let down by their teams. This allows good players for more capacity to 'carry' the team and drag them up rather than the skilful players in the bad team being inhibited. It's already far superior to handing out a flat xp bonus for simply changing the team. As changing the team doesn't necessitate actually adding to the team. Not only does this help to make the match more balanced, it also makes it way more attractive to play on the losing side if you're a good player. If you're less skilful then the xp boost isn't going to do much because you won't be able to earn as much to multiply it further anyway. Another huge plus is that this system is dynamic. If the xp-boost is directly tied to the xp-difference then all players know exactly where they stand. A small difference gives a small bonus and a huge difference gives a large bonus. So for a small difference most players won't bother changing (because of the inherent xp generating advantage of being on the winning side) but some may defect. When the difference grows larger, more and more players will succumb to that lure of receiving more rewards for their efforts, even if it means fighting a tougher game. Biosnark already succinctly pointed out that he's talking about xp as an unlock resource rather than a score. If it's exclusively an unlock resource then you're helping disadvantaged teams in an elegant way without spoiling the score. There's one thing that bothers me about this idea though. And that's that I haven't thought of it first.
Posted on 28 September, 2012 - 22:54
Great, another hijacked thread by tokamak. If you honestly think that doubling the losing teams XP to bring them inline with the winning team fixes the imbalance then you're a flat out moron. If you think that XP having such an effect that it can cause said imbalance is perfectly fine then you're a flat out moron. The fact you get double XP for a single action compared to someone else doing the same action on the winning team which, lets be clear, you said should be used to measure skill level, would further break an already broken system is utterly idiotic and you should be banned from the discussion for even suggesting it after the drama queen song and dance you made about using XP to measure skill. Sorry tok, you're a moron.
Posted on 29 September, 2012 - 01:19
^ thats not nice :(
Posted on 29 September, 2012 - 01:41
The point is you're back to exploiting the already exploitable XP system. It's frustrating to have nearly every component of the game tied back into a system that detracts from the game and instead encourages everyone to play for themselves. Not sure how many times I need to repeat this but if TEAMS are imbalanced then the measure and correction needs to be done on a TEAM basis and it can't be permanent.
Posted on 29 September, 2012 - 02:01
This was the thread where unlocks/xp was discussed: http://forums.warchestgames.com/showthread.php/32051-Community-Question-Campaign-Rewards-and-Unlocks and, to some extent, this http://forums.warchestgames.com/showthread.php/32471-Community-Question-Measuring-Player-Skill Apparently it's a minority of us who don't like statistically significant campaign unlocks which is why I suggested something different and relevant to the subject of this thread, maintaining team balance. Lets stay on target at least till this thread starts going in circles a few times.
Posted on 29 September, 2012 - 03:32
Pause game for few secs ..ask for voluntary Switch team ..if no one ..switch latest player to the other team If impossible to Balance give Bonus points or other goodies to the team with less players :)
Posted on 29 September, 2012 - 04:37
Unfortunately unless you're going to look at a means to drive game mechanics without XP, the topic is going to come back to the XP system. It's tired and I'm fed up hearing about it too but you can't say "swap players based on points/score/XP" or "double XP" without honestly asking how that score/XP is derived in the first place. If that system can be manipulated directly or indirectly then the mechanic you base it on is also going to be flawed. So if we don't want to rehash the old ground why not come up with some suggestions and new approaches that don't cover it and discuss those? Maybe the first things to agree on is whether the problem of imbalanced teams leading to negative game experiences exists to a degree that it requires attention? And do the current methods listed in the poll alleviate the problem to a significant degree? Because frankly if we don't give a **** about imbalanced teams then why waste resources trying to fix it. Likewise if the methods to fix it fail, why consider them again.
Posted on 29 September, 2012 - 04:49
The important thing is not who wins / loses but did the player have fun. That is more related generally on whether they felt their play was good or whether they were out classed. Additional elements that affect fun are team co-operation and focus, chat and chatter, annoying opponents, ping response, knowing the map and weapons, etc. Calculating FP (fun points) is not as simple as XP, but some things can be tried. For instance the survival time may correlate to FP (repeated low survival time => low FP generally). Are they being pwded by one opposing player vs many opposing players? How did they die ( Sniped? fun for the sniper but less so the victim, blasted to bits? Might be a drag if done from a distance with no defense). Killed by bots? (bots should be difficult but not dominating). Team co-operation is of course impossible to really measure but a game can provide bonuses to team mates who run together, maybe even detect saves (one player killing an opponent attacking a low health team mate). One of the most valuable rewards is a team player chatting a thanks (and some can be counted for estimating FP). Indeed awards of commendation with no other benefit during and after a game may hold some through the whole match. E.G. Open special awards just for good players on the losing team. What you really want is an "is everybody having fun?" survey button before they disconnect but alas that won't work. The best way for mid-game re-balancing is when a good or very good player on the winning team chooses to go help the losing team. Not all players have the maturity to do this and not all players will see the stats when the need arises. But volunteering is a self reward to those that do. A game could add to that reward by offering special unique powers to those that switch (camper detection, or highest opposing XP map-tracking, or even those old Quake 3 silly super powers if the game isn't to be taken too seriously). These rewards need not be permanent, and should be open to those whose XP is above the bottom half in the losing team. Getting single players to switch is not possible in all matches so additional bonuses to those already on the losing side should also be available (respawn and recharge being the most obvious, but armor and ammo at the spawn is good too). And if the losing team does lose players then yes some automatic bot players to fill the spots is a good idea if the bots are well capable, with good Human play characteristics that don't annoy. Filling in immediately may slow XP inflation in the winning team, though the good players on the losing team also lose the benefit that comes from having relatively more opponents to kill. The bot player names should be handled in the right way so that spectators know they can take over a bots place. Team balance testing of waypoints for an W:ET bot (FritzBot) is a simple mass test of matches, but before I get there I try out each team and position myself until my FP says the waypoints are ready.
Posted on 29 September, 2012 - 08:10
The important thing is not who wins / loses but did the player have fun
The important thing is to allow or accept whatever the game presents, and accept the challenge. That means playing against stacks, getting spawn camped, getting fragged by the same player 15 times in a row and finding a solution. When these individual moments happen, that becomes the game. The objective isnt to complete the objective. The objective is to come up with a solution for the challenge presented to you in the game, so that you can eventually complete the main objective. Its important that the game allows you to do that on an individual level via soft and/or hard counters like ETQW. In a game like Brink which always requires hand holding, a lot of time the appropriate response for the challenge presented is out of your direct control. Now most players probably are conditioned to enjoy presenting the challenge over coming up with a response.So in that respect, the game can be less fun. In addition to that, on some level the player needs to feel as though a victory is possible. But this is easily solved by altering the win condition or the goal. Not the game's winning condition, but the one in their mind. /cough
Posted on 29 September, 2012 - 10:07
Only if teams are uneven everyone should pick a new side at the beginning of the next round. Picking a team should be really easy like pressing your left or right mouse button so the new players won't get confused. And maybe give people a penalty for leaving midgame or something like that.
Posted on 29 September, 2012 - 11:09
If your playing a time based mode shuffle midgame is the worst possible option. Because the weaker team messed up the elapsed time and probably it can't be fixed with the amount of objects, unless you restart the match aswell. Afaik the only fair way to rebalance midgame is to switch the player (if nobody vuluntary within a amount of time) with the lowest score because this player didn't contribute much to the team yet. Allthough if this a afk player it won't change much xD
Posted on 29 September, 2012 - 11:21
The fact you get double XP for a single action compared to someone else doing the same action on the winning team which, lets be clear, you said should be used to measure skill level, would further break an already broken system
Goes to show how far you read my post. - Unlock resources and skill score can be treated as different things (IE you still get the same score reward for each handling even though the boost makes it contribute more towards unlocking stuff) - The xp boost isn't just double but dymamically tied to the xp difference. So for it to be double the other team would have a shared xp team of twice your team. If this is the case then the other team is already having such a huge advantage that double xp generation is totally acceptable. Most of the time the xp difference will be small which in turn makes the xp boost of the team with the smallest xp pool modest. This is the only system that allows for a direct negative feedback on teams getting out of balance based on the merits of the individual player. That's what makes it beautiful.
Posted on 29 September, 2012 - 15:01
8 vs 10 is not ideal, but acceptable. 8 vs 11 is just nasty :(.
But if these 8 players are pros and 11 are n00bs!
Posted on 29 September, 2012 - 16:06
It's a botched, half assed system that only works in your mind. Before you hijack another thread with your pointless, blind gibbering I'm going to leave it at this... your system can never and will never work, end of. It's been proven not to work, it's been proven to be open to abuse, it's been proven to be inaccurate and not a piss poor basis for measuring skill, never mind balancing something it can't calculate in the 1st place. Do us all a favour, you've said your piece of nonsense, now don't derail yet -another- thread with some more XP shenanigans.
Posted on 29 September, 2012 - 17:00
Well the only actual limit is that this works better with temporary unlocks than with permanent unlocks. With temporary unlocks the disadvantaged team can still catch up while with permanent unlocks it's merely compensation for having a bad time. I'm not really sure how this is a derailment. Aside from it not being my idea in the first place it's also exactly about balancing disadvantaged qualitatively disadvantaged teams. So far we've only been discussing quantitative imbalance which is a pretty trivial issue compared to skill/strength imbalance.
Posted on 29 September, 2012 - 17:19
The best way for mid-game re-balancing is when a good or very good player on the winning team chooses to go help the losing team.
Agreed TomTom but I think most sensible people don't need any incentive to switch beyond the prospect of better games. Voted for 'Offer XP to players for changing teams' because it's handy to know when the teams are numerically uneven. I was surprised more than once in Brink to find a previously full team only had 1/2 human players left at the end of a round, which I suppose is a compliment for the bots.
Posted on 29 September, 2012 - 17:34
Trusting on the gamers being good samaritans is a bad idea though.
Posted on 29 September, 2012 - 18:36
I've mentioned this before in the other thread, but the top players dont usually play very hard in pub matches when they see imbalanced teams. A nice side effect of this is, if the lower skilled team ends up winning, they arent aware that they're given a handicap and can enjoy the win as if they earnt it. When a shuffle is called, the win is urinated on with the tag of charity. The players that lose post-shuffle claim the game doesnt shuffle properly. However Pubstars (aka mid level players) will switch teams primarily to prove their own value as a player, veiled as a 'good samaritan'. Occasionally you'll get a low skilled player making a big fuss in chat he switched across, so people draw the conclusion hes a nice guy... its still motivated by ego.
Posted on 30 September, 2012 - 00:04
ETQW is strictly clan vs. clan game, so no re-balancing. pub is random nonsense, you can get balance only by chance.
Posted on 30 September, 2012 - 02:23
Good to see these posts. I was afraid the elitist fringe had flaked off years ago.
Posted on 30 September, 2012 - 03:07
ETQW is strictly clan vs. clan game, so no re-balancing. pub is random nonsense, you can get balance only by chance.
Both pubplay and comp play dont require balanced matchups. If it was the case where every match was equal, players would know beforehand each game would go down to the wire. Would be pretty boring dont you think?
Posted on 30 September, 2012 - 05:50
Snip
Either way, you want something that measures the actions rather than motivations. Players having to put themselves in lower gear in order to maintain balance is worse than someone switching sides and bragging about it. You just can't depend on player virtue, it's too unreliable.
Posted on 30 September, 2012 - 12:31
Automatically switch the player with the lowest score upon death. Call of Duty way, works great in all CoDs.
Posted on 30 September, 2012 - 13:06
When the game is unbalanced switch everyone to one side and change to deathmatch problem solved :D
Posted on 30 September, 2012 - 13:33
- or in a stopwatch match , allow the wining team to beat his own time to win the game ( or lower the time they need to complete for the next map). - or Change the spawn position of the losing team (spawn near a teammate), if a player is near an obj and is using v-say "I need backup!", this will trigger the game to spawn some teammates near him. If a player is near an obj, needs an engineer "We need an engineer!", the game will spawn an engineer teammate near his location, etc. You can implement a new ability, you can buy/earn/unlock, playing against unfavorable odds will allow you to call reinforcements on/near your position :D - or change the importance of the obj in the map, allow the losing team to have a last push in the last 5 min. of the map to get near the enemy spawn/bunker/station and call (if a min. of 2-3 players ~ 30-50% from the losing team are their) an orbital strike to obliterate everything and win the match :D, not that great for the winning team, but the final cutscenes will be awesome :D ~ On pub matches you will see lots of players doing this they will switch to rifle, pistols (weapons they don't already mastered), not using adrenaline on themselves (on xp save), switching to support, dragging the team all the way. Is not about switching to lower gear, is about stacking the odds against you to improve, i'm sure they will play with lower health to learn how to make those bullets count. This is why you play against better players/teams to learn faster, to improvise, to adapt, to overcome :D. Most of the time in a game, those things you get to easy are not that important, even if the teams are not equally balanced, the best/most memorable matches are those who end when the clock is almost out, or you win against greater odds.
Posted on 30 September, 2012 - 14:49
- or Change the spawn position of the losing team (spawn near a teammate), if a player is near an obj and is using v-say "I need backup!", this will trigger the game to spawn some teammates near him. If a player is near an obj, needs an engineer "We need an engineer!", the game will spawn an engineer teammate near his location, etc. You can implement a new ability, you can buy/earn/unlock, playing against unfavorable odds will allow you to call reinforcements on/near your position
This can be potentially disadvantageous for the losing team. Simply reducing the respawn time does the same thing without all the weird stuff. ETQW already does this to some extend based on how long it takes to complete an objective (it's not directly tied to team balance). Faster respawns isn't everything though. It can also be detrimental. It can break up teams and tear apart group cohesion. Unexperienced players who keep rushing the objective will then attack piece meal rather than in strong waves.
Posted on 30 September, 2012 - 14:52
@Humate did you understand what you are saying?
Posted on 30 September, 2012 - 15:55
Is not about switching to lower gear, is about stacking the odds against you to improve,
That's exactly the same thing and I consider that flawed game design. If it can be avoided, it should be avoided. Most games do it through matchmaking but I think everyone here already agrees that matchmaking doesn't suit large team games. So rather than matching players we can impose negative feedback on getting too far ahead in order to prevent one team rolling over the other. Success usually escalates in this genre. A small head-start will grow into an insurmountable advantage over time. A mechanic that adds juice to the loser depending on how far they're behind keeps both sides on their edge. Again. Solving quantitative imbalance is easy. You swap a few players around. Either forced or through an incentive and it's done. Qualitative imbalance is a completely different issue altogether and far more interesting to find a right approach for.
Posted on 30 September, 2012 - 16:15
The fact you get double XP for a single action compared to someone else doing the same action on the winning team which, lets be clear, you said should be used to measure skill level, would further break an already broken system is utterly idiotic
I've slept on this and I think this isn't true. Doing the same action on the side of the winning team is always more easy. A winning team is well established has more people alive, therefore more buffs, better supplies, better area control etc. etc. Consequently, such an action is also less necessary, important and valuable. There's actually an inflation going on when a team starts to get an upper hand. Doing the same thing (like killing a target) on the losing side is more difficult and also more valuable and consequential in the game. Where for a winning team killing a player during a steam roll or from an impenetrable defence is just one of the many inevitable kills, for the losing side killing a player can often lead to a breakthrough. The chances that you're taking out a key element and making the opposition less cohesive and thus weaker are just way bigger. So both in therms of value as well as required skill the idea of giving simply more xp (skill score as well as unlock resource) for the same actions depending on how far behind in collective xp the losing team is isn't that crazy after all.
Posted on 30 September, 2012 - 17:21
The sad part is that you're actually serious. Giving losers a boost keeps them on their edge? How is being given an artificial boost, which is counter-productive against a game which should be nurturing the players intrinsic desire to learn, the desire to push harder and learn from your mistakes or lackings as a gamer keeping them on their edge? How is cuddling the losing team, patting them on the head and saying 'there there it's ok, here's something that will make it all better' helping the losing team? Where are you getting this 'small head start' from? What you're subconsciously saying here is that better players than yourself will capitalize through strategic gameplay and tactics and use that to their advantage to get ahead where lesser players will let these opportunities pass them by and fall behind. Constant repetition of this process causes the gap to grow bigger in this regard. The game should take pity on the lesser players, hold their hand to try and bring them up to speed without actually earning it which is in no way, shape or form balancing the teams what so ever. So really we're back to your failings as a gamer. Once again you want the game to aid and help you because you can't help yourself. All these suggestions do is damage lesser skilled gamers and never spurns them to try harder. Why try when the game will just give me a boost for being bad anyway? You want to add the fps equivalent of Mario Kart's Bullet Bill and throw in a blue spiky turtle shell for good measure. That reply was to your previous post, the new one you've added looks like a right doozy as well, though I think i'll leave that one just now. I wouldn't want to help you saturate another thread. (and you said you weren't gonna hijack... liar)
Posted on 30 September, 2012 - 17:23
With a small headstart at the start I mean somehow obtaining more xp, therefore unlocks at the start of the campaign. These unlocks are assets which lead to more strength, therefore xp gain therefore an ever widening advantage. Now, in a 1v1 match this would be right. Starcraft and chess are completely based on that principle. Keep trying to take small advantages which eventually may lead to a win. In a 12v12 game this becomes problematic because you're depending on your team-mates successes and failures. A good player on the losing side of the team is less capable of bringing his full strength to bear because his team is offering him less opportunities to do so. The same player on the winning side has all the resources in the world to carry out his feats. I don't really agree with the Mario Kart analogy as players receive those loser-benefits regardless of their efforts. It's not like the game is saying 'hey pal, having trouble? Here's an extra airstrike ;)". Instead it's only giving a higher pay off for actions that are already more difficult to perform due to being on the back-foot. This implementation will mostly matter for higher skilled players and not for the lower skilled ones. This means that the outcome will be more reliant on the actions of the top players. So rather than be stuck in the inertia of two large teams slowly sliding out of balance there will be some firm opposition from a couple of individuals until the teams are approaching equality again. It makes playing on the losing side less frustrating and being on the winning side more interesting.
Posted on 30 September, 2012 - 17:51
With a small headstart at the start I mean somehow obtaining more xp, therefore unlocks at the start of the campaign. These unlocks are assets which lead to more strength, therefore xp gain therefore an ever widening advantage.
The unlock and XP system is broken if it can cause a complete imbalance by getting there 1st.
Now, in a 1v1 match this would be right. Starcraft and chess are completely based on that principle. Keep trying to take small advantages which eventually may lead to a win. In a 12v12 game this becomes problematic because you're depending on your team-mates successes and failures. A good player on the losing side of the team is less capable of bringing his full strength to bear because his team is offering him less opportunities to do so. The same player on the winning side has all the resources in the world to carry out his feats.
I love that statement right there. We've had a similar discussion before in a previous thread, you're saying the opposite here than what you said there. I think we'll leave it at that :D
I don't really agree with the Mario Kart analogy as players receive those loser-benefits regardless of their efforts. It's not like the game is saying 'hey pal, having trouble? Here's an extra airstrike ;)". Instead it's only giving a higher pay off for actions that are already more difficult to perform due to being on the back-foot.
It's fine not to agree.
This implementation will mostly matter for higher skilled players and not for the lower skilled ones. This means that the outcome will be more reliant on the actions of the top players. So rather than be stuck in the inertia of two large teams slowly sliding out of balance there will be some firm opposition from a couple of individuals until the teams are approaching equality again.
It's fine for me not to agree as well.
It makes playing on the losing side less frustrating and being on the winning side more interesting.
I think you're quite biased in your suggestions and how you believe other people will view something. You're heavily geared towards making the lesser players look like their doing well, convincing them that its ok to not be as good as the others and always the take the route to not offend them for playing poorly. A bias decision is always a bad decision, you need to look objectively and stop favouring a side because its close to you.
Posted on 30 September, 2012 - 18:18
The unlock and XP system is broken if it can cause a complete imbalance by getting there 1st.
It's a flaw that needs to be recognised indeed. But it's not just a matter of getting there first, it's also a matter of being able to easily extend the advantage you already had. I think that needs to be more difficult.
I love that statement right there. We've had a similar discussion before in a previous thread, you're saying the opposite here than what you said there. I think we'll leave it at that
Then I guess you don't understand at least one of the discussions.
I think you're quite biased in your suggestions and how you believe other people will view something. You're heavily geared towards making the lesser players look like their doing well, convincing them that its ok to not be as good as the others and always the take the route to not offend them for playing poorly.
Not at all, this implementation favours the better players in the worse team. Worse players in the worse team won't notice much of this change. If you don't earn much xp in the first place then there's less to boost as well. The only thing the worse players will notice is that one or two team-mates are suddenly becoming more powerful.
A bias decision is always a bad decision, you need to look objectively and stop favouring a side because its close to you.
You do know that your attempts at making underhanded personal insults only result in arguments against doing anything against qualitative team imbalance right?
Posted on 30 September, 2012 - 18:24
It's a flaw that needs to be recognised indeed. But it's not just a matter of getting there first, it's also a matter of being able to easily extend the advantage you already had. I think that needs to be more difficult.
Vague at best, well done.
Then I guess you don't understand at least one of the discussions.
Haha nice, just say the same thing back and that'll do eh? Basically you have the right view for both but the wrong way round... you seem to not understand both discussions.
Not at all, this implementation favours the better players in the worse team. Worse players in the worse team won't notice much of this change. If you don't earn much xp in the first place then there's less to boost as well. The only thing the worse players will notice is that one or two team-mates are suddenly becoming more powerful.
So in other words, it fixes nothing. It puts a poster over the big glaring hole that's there and hopes no one notices. Let's not fix the problem, lets just pretend it's not there by hiding it with boosters and making it look like the losing team are doing well when really the boosters brought them to that level... never mind why they needed it in the 1st place!
You do know that your attempts at making underhanded personal insults only result in arguments against doing anything against qualitative team imbalance right?
You can view it as personal insults all you want, your completely illogical and biased suggestions speak for themselves show exactly why you suggest the poorly thought out and one sided suggestions that you do. Your lack of understanding of player mentality and dealing with the problems that can arise also speak for themselves. You're fixing nothing by being biased, you're magnifying the existing problems that are already there and causing new ones on a completely needless basis... all because you're biased and can only view it from a single stand point, the losing side. Become objective and we may get somewhere.
Posted on 30 September, 2012 - 19:14
So in other words, it fixes nothing. It puts a poster over the big glaring hole that's there and hopes no one notices. Let's not fix the problem, lets just pretend it's not there by hiding it with boosters and making it look like the losing team are doing well when really the boosters brought them to that level... never mind why they needed it in the 1st place!
Right now a score is only useful to compare players on the same team. You can't really compare cross-team because the conditions are considerably different. There's the inherent asymmetry in the games but even if the objective and maps were symmetrical then there's all kinds of other external factors that pollute comparison between teams. Once you level both scores so that it becomes easier for both teams to accumulate the same amount of xp then it suddenly becomes possible to compare players in the entire match. Giving a flat amount of xp as well as a flat rate at which you reward action ignores all these external factors. It really does take more skill to make a kill when you're on the back-foot because of your team. That needs to be recognised as well as corrected. Being on the losing side due to your team-mates is frustrating. Being on the winning side due to your team-mates is boring. If you get more capacity to do something about avoiding your loss while at the same time having to work harder for your win then I think we made a great step into keeping the match consistently interesting. So both from a score perspective as a gameplay perspective this is preferential.
Posted on 30 September, 2012 - 19:27
No, it's not. It's a very bad idea.
Posted on 30 September, 2012 - 19:34
@Humate did you understand what you are saying?
Have a few games of Brink.
Posted on 1 October, 2012 - 00:27
I'm just going to note this poll result to the question of unlocks since I don't think it's realistic to ignore it in the current tangent and expect Splash Damage to do away with the system they've pioneered, regardless of what my apparent minority thinks of it.
psychological speculations
Even in the cleanest of contexts, the reason people express generosity is to feel good about themselves or to feel less bad for others, which is a variation of the previous option. Other reasons you might have listed include expectation of reciprocity and not wanting to kill servers, of which, following some bad matches, a surprising 100% were earlier this morning in the lovely world of ETQW. *sadface expressing sadness*
Posted on 1 October, 2012 - 14:18
......
When players make a big deal over switching, usually its with the intent of demonstrating how "generous" they are. Granted, players that deliberately ease up on the competition may have the agenda of trying to avoid server kills, or shuffles that potentially could remove them from their favourite faction... however in my experience thats not usually the case. What is usually the case are pubheroes, being well... a hero.... Is there anything wrong with that? Not really; the "generosity" is still welcomed regardless of intent if you're a player that's trying to avoid the pub stomp. But at the same time, I wouldn't exactly call it being a good samaritan either. Good samaritans where I come from, dont even want a thank you. :infiltrator:
...
Its definitely not something that can be relied upon, no. Especially when the game is in its infancy, and players still care about their w/l etc... I still think the go to solution, is offering the bad team the option to concede the game with a shuffle.
Posted on 1 October, 2012 - 15:37
how it would it be implemented ? a - teams need rebalance when one team is losing bad ? like losing 1st obj in 2 min, or being unable to get it for 10 min ? or b - teams need rebalance when one team has 2 players less ? from this you can see that 4 diferent situations are possible: 1 - teams have equal number of players and result is uncertain. 2 - one team has less players but result is uncertain 3 - one team has less players and is losing 4 - one team has less players and is winning each one of them should result in diferent action by the game. i would suggest the following actions: 1 - do nothing 2 - change player with less score 3 - change player with most score 4 - swap player with most score from winning team with 3 lowest score players from losing team PS: in order to change the minumum amount of people (save deployables). also, the 2/10 min was given as an example and it should be adapted to the map.
Posted on 1 October, 2012 - 17:08
Good samaritans where I come from, dont even want a thank you.
Sorry if I was unclear. I'm saying people get a "thank you" injection from their brain, regardless of anything external. People may switch to a loosing team even if it is greeted with vocal dislike from their former team but they are still receiving a 'high' so, even there, it is not truly help without the expectation of reward.
Posted on 1 October, 2012 - 18:07
No I was unclear biosnark.... I mean they actually do it despite benefiting from the thank you injection. :) Its always about helping the person(s) than it is receiving something internally or externally. The intention to benefit personally doesnt exist :) Just to be clear theres nothing wrong with ppl that expect a thank you, just explaining what a true samaritan is. /offtopic
Posted on 2 October, 2012 - 01:59
It's true altruist OR good samaritan. [video=youtube;rywVlfTtlMY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rywVlfTtlMY[/video]
Posted on 2 October, 2012 - 10:31
The 3 servers I used to play on, e-t.com and chicken bucket (a little on Goat's Bar and Grill) all shuffled when asked, you just need a solid community and decent admins
Posted on 3 October, 2012 - 02:37
True but that's out of the reach of developers. All those unmanaged or poorly managed servers are so frustrating and such a waste of time that it makes a self-regulating game really desirable.
Posted on 3 October, 2012 - 12:32
I would say just give players and server admins the tools to regulate the game as they see fit. Forcing an automated system across all servers seems a bad idea, by all means create something that can automatically balance the game that can be left on by those wishing not to constantly monitor their server's but give more dedicated admins and communities the chance to do things their way. Not really given much thought about how that automatic system would work though.
Posted on 3 October, 2012 - 13:04
Well it goes without saying that admins and players should have as much tools to do as they see fit. Still. That xp-boost balance thing. That's a really flexible incentive to maintain balance in a way that people can't. If players can actually benefit from stepping up and making sure the game remains fair then everything else seems to become superfluous. Mind you, there's no forcing here, it's just a carrot dangling there on the side of the underdog. That means there won't be any top-down admin tyranny or mob-rule through voting. People are completely free to decide so themselves. It also works like an auction, more philanthropic inclined players will change sooner than profit-driven ones. All of this can still happen even with voting and admin tools in place, but the necessity is driven back to the point of being redundant.
Posted on 3 October, 2012 - 13:24
Toka, sometimes only the game should be the game. Making players choose teams shouldn't be the game.
Posted on 4 October, 2012 - 09:59
The same goes for votes and such. Then itīs the majority or the admin imposing the will on other players. That's why (dynamic) incentives are so great, it's completely voluntarily.
Posted on 4 October, 2012 - 10:29
Admins, admins everywhere!
Posted on 4 October, 2012 - 10:30
Well it goes without saying that admins and players should have as much tools to do as they see fit. Still. That xp-boost balance thing. That's a really flexible incentive to maintain balance in a way that people can't. If players can actually benefit from stepping up and making sure the game remains fair then everything else seems to become superfluous. Mind you, there's no forcing here, it's just a carrot dangling there on the side of the underdog. That means there won't be any top-down admin tyranny or mob-rule through voting. People are completely free to decide so themselves. It also works like an auction, more philanthropic inclined players will change sooner than profit-driven ones. All of this can still happen even with voting and admin tools in place, but the necessity is driven back to the point of being redundant.
i can see anansi whores voting you for president
Posted on 5 October, 2012 - 04:32
Best would be if there would be two specific values; the first one is the most obvious one and the easiest one to get; the players on each team shouldn't differ more than one player. But the more important one would be a more complex value. That would be a value incorporating the average team buffing habits and k/d- and hit ratio of a player. And since it would be a combined value it would favor every playing style. You could be a team buffing maniac, a one man army or Wilhelm Tell himself to keep that combined value up. Basically it's the XP you'd get in Brink(or like an overall statistic value from the former stats page), but with the difference that it would be a much smaller number -like for example 35,32 average XP, or something like that- that would stuck with you "forever" and would get refined the more you play. It would be a number that wouldn't change much and would probably be instantly quite high, if you are an eperienced player, but if you are a total noob that value would be quite low at the start, but would rise fast over time, till it won't change very much beyond the decimal area. Long story short: 7 Players would allways result in 3 vs 4 and to even the teams, the team with only 3 players would get players with a higher "average XP" number. For example Player and aXP(average XP) 1=22,56 aXP 2=45,80 aXP 3=33,11 aXP 4=41,01 aXP 5=23,90 aXP 6=37,00 aXP 7=50,03 aXP Combined aXP=253,41 The matchmaking would therefore result in something like that. 3 vs 4; Team one is "worth" 128,04aXP and Team two 125,37aXP Team1 Players: 4 6 7 Combined Team aXP: 128,04 Team2 Players: 1 2 3 5 Combined Team aXP: 125,37 Maybe it would make even more sense to give the team that is one guy short players with an average XP wich would result in a 10, or 20 percent higher Team aXP than the aXP of the other team, since 4 average players can also destroy 3 good players, even if the combined aXP of the two teams are even; since teams are more than the sum of their parts.
Posted on 5 October, 2012 - 10:14
Nothing else will work in game except of switching one player to the other team. BUT. I think the game should track the playtime of all connected players and switch the one who has been the least time connected. Not based on XP. Rather time.
Posted on 5 October, 2012 - 17:14
Best would be if there would be two specific values
Thanks for at least acknowledging the difference between a quantitative and qualitative imbalance. Quantitative is indeed easy to solve. Qualitative isn't.
But the more important one would be a more complex value. That would be a value incorporating the average team buffing habits and k/d- and hit ratio of a player.
Yeah or just the xp total of the entire team.
i can see anansi whores voting you for president
Karma whoring is not a systemic problem.
Posted on 8 October, 2012 - 19:53
Differences don't need acknowledgement unless you're looking for a literacy pat on the head so you can take comfort in the fact that you used to 2 different words in the same sentence. The part you're failing to grasp is that they're tied together... the measures used to absolve quantitative issues breed adverse qualitative behaviours that far outweigh any problems you believe you're fixing. Stop thinking of them as 2 separate problems and deal with them as an overall issue and we may get somewhere.
Posted on 9 October, 2012 - 01:11
I'm rather tired and illiterate right now such that I may not correctly read the last four posts. Qualitative and quantitative imbalances may sometimes be tied but that is not necessarily the case. However, are you saying that the latter should be an opportunity to balance the former? In other words, expanding on what frost is discussing about prematch automated skill balancing, player attrition could be an opportunity for an automated system to balance teams, skill wise, by calculating averages and moving an appropriately skilled player to the undermanned team. If so, that's also a reasonable idea. - Coming from a background in Unreal Tournament and with the mods thereof that did what Frost is describing at the start of each match, and to some result, I don't know that a consistent, complete reshuffle is altogether desirable if the game we're discussing has asymmetrical team mechanics. In addition, dramatic automated solutions are the subject of some resentment if they don't lead to a picture perfect balance. That's why I think player initiation of dramatic mechanics is important. Ultimately, the player base should have to take some ownership of that responsibility. That is the beauty of small, restricted or even dying communities that lack anonymity. The player base has to take ownership to survive and individuals can expect others to share ownership. Likely, my years of experience with smallish communities is why I think humate's opinion of individual initiative is incorrectly harsh.
Posted on 9 October, 2012 - 05:23
I guess this all depends on team size, but I've seen far too often that skill based shuffles work for a very short period and that's it, unless you have very little player attrition. In Quake Live, if there are an uneven number of players, it will stack a few of the upper skilled players on the side with the lowest team count and use the additional player on the other team to make the overall skill level even, which is perfectly fine for that player count at that moment in time. As soon as someone else joins the server and obviously joins the team that's a man down, instantly the teams are imbalanced again. So yes I agree, it requires the player base to take responsibility in making adjustments on the fly when the teams shift balance
Posted on 9 October, 2012 - 11:45
Oh I very much agree that quantitative balance is merely a symptom of the qualitative imbalance. It's also one of the easiest ones to fix (don't allow switching to the larger team, autobalance, rewards yadda yadda). That's two big reasons why quantitative balance is far less interesting to discuss than qualitative imbalance. And I agree that skill based shuffles are inadequate.
Posted on 9 October, 2012 - 13:40
Yeah or just the xp total of the entire team.
Actually that's something I've shown in my XP example at the bottom of my post. Nevertheless, thanks for the nice reply. And of course you can't keep a match entirely even, since new players are joining and leaving on the fly, but you can keep the match in some reasonable boundaries. For example; it definitely doesn't make much sense when guys like "die Pappe", "Nozzi" and some of the other usual suspects are all in one team in order to totally destroy their opponents. And they wouldn't switch teams until the last player has left the match in a rage quit. Crap like that couldn't happen, at least not longer than one match. In Brink, two very skilled players on one side are allready enough to ruin a entire match, three can totally destroy their opponents, especially when they are playing as defense. Though the freedom to choose sides/teams, and in this regard your friends or clan-members, is also very important; a real dilemma I'd say.
Posted on 9 October, 2012 - 14:28
Oh right I mistook that. But yeah if you're comparing both teams then the difference of the total and the average is the same. The advantage of comparing xp though is that it also values the player. A player who leaves with a high xp score tends to hurt the team more than a deserter with low xp.
Posted on 9 October, 2012 - 18:29
So if the fairest means of ensuring a fair team is a small community, where there is less anonymity and more social/peer pressure to do the right thing rather than the selfish thing. Then wouldn't the logical conclusion then be to try methods to create this kind of environment with a larger user base? Of course the concept of a persistent identity with socially driving ranking has been **** on faster and higher than suggesting you go sacrifice your first born. I still think this is very close to the answer to lots of gaming ills but we'll leave where it always descends to, "people will abuse it" (like they don't every other bloody system that exists). So how about some nice stats instead. If the game detects a stack, it warns the overpowered team they'll get flagged with a stacked win. This wouldn't show up as a win but instead in a section of it's own. Want to avoid this? Then move teams or accept a larger team shuffle until the game deems things more even.
Posted on 9 October, 2012 - 21:48
That would need some careful timing implemented though, you know many people on the losing team are likely to quit before the game ends.
Posted on 9 October, 2012 - 22:44
That would need some careful timing implemented though, you know many people on the losing team are likely to quit before the game ends.
True, but you must also consider the fact, that players know, that there won't be a change after the match ends, since they know, that there is no balancing system implemented that would even everything after one round of getting raped. Most people can take losing one or two matches, but getting constantly bashed for three, four or more matches will most likely cause them to rage quit. But if there would be such a balancing system more people would stay for payback in the next round. But again, the freedom of choosing teams/factions is also a very important "feature" that I wouldn't like to miss. It's basically like having to choose between communism and capitalism. The one stands for "perfect" balance and fairness, whereas the other stands for the ultimate freedom of choice. People waged wars over wich one of the two is the best system and they haven't really come to an overall solution so far*; I doubt we'll get to a solution, that will please everyone in this forum. *though in real-life it seems that there is a strong tendency that people favor the freedom of choice.
Posted on 9 October, 2012 - 23:43
I guess this all depends on team size,
Well, yeah. I neglected to mention this in my last post extolling the virtues of small scales. If the team sizes are small, much more responsibility is placed on each individual and, more importantly, each individual has much more significance in altering the team balance, for good or, as you note, otherwise. As such, with a larger player count, dramatic solutions, like full reshuffles or automated skill balancing mechanics, become more a necessary than a convenient option. That reminds me of how much of a pain small teams with significant skill differences are to balance. That's my main problem with small team scale which would be, otherwise, in my view, a more entertaining experience.
So if the fairest means of ensuring a fair team is a small community, where there is less anonymity and more social/peer pressure to do the right thing rather than the selfish thing. Then wouldn't the logical conclusion then be to try methods to create this kind of environment with a larger user base?
Although I can't be bothered to defend it in this community, I agree with your repeated suggestion.
That would need some careful timing implemented though, you know many people on the losing team are likely to quit before the game ends.
There could be fairly simple solutions such as using data from x minutes before the match's conclusion.
Posted on 10 October, 2012 - 01:43
That would need some careful timing implemented though, you know many people on the losing team are likely to quit before the game ends.
Maybe you track the stats of those matches too. DNF Losing/Winning Matches. Again this would allow you to taint other desirable stats such as W/L, a leaderboard could include the DNF stat next to the actual W/L helping to highlight people who are gaming the stats. Of course this all relies on people giving a fudge about stats to begin with. :)
Posted on 10 October, 2012 - 12:49
Keep teams even by not allowing more than +1 on one of the teams. If some leaves from a team so its more than +1 then automove the person that last joined to the other team, and keep doing that til its +1 or equal again. and allow voting for shuffle Btw dont come up with a game that has some global stats built in :( make it like W:ET so we aint depending on you guys keeping a site up for stats, like you did in ETQW and BRINK, both are not there anymore.
Posted on 10 October, 2012 - 15:03
We really need to get admining of servers back in the hands of server admins rather than being forced automatic stuff a'la BF3/CODBLOPS So if not already mentioned, e.g.: - Option for admin to move individual players when/if needed (including moving "afk" players to spectators). - Option for admin to manually force a team balance after round end. - Being able to enable/disable any automatic options. Thank you!
Posted on 12 October, 2012 - 23:35
Since Dormamu's brought up campaign unlocks, the unlock system has always provided stats modifiers that solidify player and team wide advantages, as well as discouraging playstyle adaptability. Rather than again arguing that the system should be scrapped, I'll suggest that if one team has twice as much experience as another, players on the latter team earn experience points (unlock points, don't care about epeen score) twice as fast. It may not be as effective but moving around a lot of players during a match is detrimental to deployable and vehicle play, class balance, cohesion and holds of strategic locations.
Excellent idea if it indeed doesn't touch the epeen score. You can even make the -unlock- points directly proportional to the xp difference. Beautiful.
I too like this idea, and agree with most if not all of tokamak's arguments in this thread following this post. It's seamless and doesn't stop the flow of the campaign/map. One question though... would the XP buff continue once the XP difference was < "twice as much"? I mean as soon as just one of the winning teams players switched it would instantly cancel the effect and end the incentive to switch. I would be against leaving it in place for the remainder of the map or campaign if the teams were no longer so lopsided.
Excellent idea? Really? If higher XP and unlocks are what unbalances the teams, then the XP system is broken. If giving the other team double the XP fixes it, then the XP system is broken. If keeping everyone at the same XP is what keeps the game balanced, then the XP system is broken and should be done away with to keep it balanced. Omfg what a terrible idea.
Darkangel, XP and unlocks are not the imbalance in this problem, team stacking and bad sportsmanship are. XP is just a way in game mechanics of quantifying it. And remember BioSnark only suggested it would only come into effect when the XP balance was at twice what the losing team had. That's hardly a big game-play changer. Callvote reshuffles, automatic reshuffles, admin reshuffles and having everyone quit the server in the middle of a map are big game-play changers. Omfg get some perspective.
Posted on 21 November, 2012 - 00:18
Yes they are, they contribute.
Posted on 21 November, 2012 - 07:48
Just a point of clarification: For the sake of this discussion it's worth to keep in mind that being for and against using xp and being for and against further attempts at balancing are two different dialogues entirely. You oppose these ideas because you don't like the role xp plays. Therefore you also argue against attempts at making it work better. You don't want it to work better, you want it gone, in your view this mechanic is just polishing a turd. Now that's a respectable viewpoint but it your reasoning is coming from an entirely different viewpoint than from someone who is in favour of an xp-system and who would oppose the levelling of the xp difference for different reasons.
Posted on 21 November, 2012 - 13:15
You may be missing the point for arguing against change it seems. I'm very open to being convinced of a system that will work, I've just never seen one suggested yet and I know why that is... I'm just waiting for everyone else to catch up.
Posted on 21 November, 2012 - 13:27
I hope SD never abandons the XP system. As a former Q3 player I was attracted to RTCW by its class/obj gameplay. W:ET added so much, and imo made it a better game. The XP system was the main difference, and at that time very original and unique in a FPS. If you didn't care for it you could always play on servers w/competitive settings. No XP, no unlocks, and very restrictive weapon/vehicle settings is a great way to play SD games, I just enjoy playing with those things activated better. To suggest that the main pub game should play more like RTCW, or more like W:ET and ETQWs competition settings, seams very close minded. To the point XP is a very practical way of measuring team balance, and effecting it.
Posted on 21 November, 2012 - 17:35
You may be missing the point for arguing against change it seems. I'm very open to being convinced of a system that will work, I've just never seen one suggested yet and I know why that is... I'm just waiting for everyone else to catch up.
I'm completely getting your point and I'm respecting it. If I wasn't then I would just be writing you off as merely being reactionary. The position that xp-system is inherently flawed IS defensible and arguable, after all, there's many tactical shooters that manage themselves perfectly without it. However, I think being against a system as a whole and arguing on that basis should be a separate discussion from arguing against a specific part of it. In other words, you can be in favour or hold whatever view on levelling both teams based on-xp as a means to make the use of xp more legitimate WHILE being principally opposed to using xp at all. You could still hold an opinion that xp-levelling between two teams may or may not improve the system and then still hold the opinion that this improvement is not sufficient to justify the system as a whole. However trying to push the agenda within a discussion of a minor aspect which in turn is based on the premise that the rest of the xp-system is sound, that's just confusing categories.
Posted on 21 November, 2012 - 17:53
I apologise if I'm not understanding you here, are you saying that since I'm against XP as I think it causes imbalance, then I shouldn't comment on the suggestions to fix it? As I said, I'm open to a working scenario but I haven't seen one, so generally my comments are towards why suggestion X won't work because I believe I see a flaw in that suggestion... I'm not simply writing off every suggestion simply because I don't like XP.
Posted on 22 November, 2012 - 09:34
Do you think an xp system is better or worse off with an xp-levelling mechanic?
Posted on 22 November, 2012 - 14:49
If it's a competitive match like CS:GO's classic competitive matchmaking. Replace the missing player with a bot and open the game for a player to fill that space. Maybe put the game into warm up for 90 seconds or so so team imbalance doesn't let one team get one up on the other. One problem I see with this from my perspective anyway is that I wouldn't want to be entered into a game and placed onto a team that was being completely over run. Make certain requirements such as the length the game/round has already been running and rounds remaining, once more than half way through give the team the option to surrender or make do with a bot replacement.
Posted on 2 December, 2012 - 08:43