Asymetrical Map Balancing

(Cankor) #1

From what i have read, it sounds like Brink will have some type of objective based game play, similar to W:ET and ET:QW Hopefully this is the case because it’s a huge part of what makes those games so great.

That being said, and assuming one side has to defend and the other to assault, it’s easy to get a map which favors either offense or defense. One way i think this could be addressed would be by having variable map times, based on historic win/loss rations. If defense is winning a disproportionate number of maps, the map time is extended, if assaulting team wins more often, may default time is shortened.

Maybe there could be some kind of weekly update from the master server which tweaks the map times or something?

This should help stacking on maps which end up favoring one side or the other.

just a thought…

(signofzeta) #2

speaking of which, it would be nice if they show us the maps and thier objectives. It seems that the last bits of info they will give us are always the maps and the objectives, and from ETQW, it took them until almost a month before release to release the final map details. I hope it is a different case here though.

(WhiteAden) #3

I think there were still changes being implemented (like adding / removing routes from and too certain objectives) till then…

don’t know for sure though…

(tokamak) #4

Not in campaign mode though.

Using averages is just a very bad idea, wins or losses shouldn’t be decided by mob rule. Different times for each maps are okay and Rahdo already hinted at that would the case. From there it’s just a matter of rigorous testing.

(Exedore) #5

I’ll just say, I have similar thoughts… but there’s nothing we can confirm this early on.

It’s much too early to be saying stuff about the map specifics as well, though you’ll probably get some more info on the settings through the media in the upcoming months.

(tokamak) #6

Aye, letting forums steal the scoop of magazines is bad PR indeed.

(Cankor) #7

[QUOTE=tokamak;206735]Not in campaign mode though.

Using averages is just a very bad idea, wins or losses shouldn’t be decided by mob rule. Different times for each maps are okay and Rahdo already hinted at that would the case. From there it’s just a matter of rigorous testing.[/QUOTE]

Yes, in campaign mode too (if there is such a thing in Brink). I think you meant not in stopwatch mode though, and yes you would want maps weighted so the assaulting team wins more often in stopwatch mode or else you end up with lots of double full holds. This could also be solved just by lengthening the time limits when playing stopwatch.

And devs they are setting map times based on rigorous play testing, they are just using the averages for those play tests. Bigger data pool = more accurate averages. And averages are a good idea, especially if you publish map win/loss ratios as part of any kind of stats (I’m aware this wasn’t done in ETQW), because people will try and join the side which has more statistical wins to give themselves any kind of edge.

Anyway, question was answered, idea is under consideration but depends on type of maps/objectives.

(DrFunkenstein) #8

I like the idea and I’m glad SD are considering it.

Something similar could be done with respawn times and that could be used in conjunction with your suggestion. Adding a couple of seconds or shortening it with a couple of seconds could make a big difference in the balance on a map, without changing the actual layout.

The way I understand it, respawn times are variable in ET:QW, but as far as I know, this is only valid for the attacking side. If they don’t get an objective done in a certain amount of time, the respawn time gets shortened. (Someone correct me if I’m wrong here.) Making the respawn times variable for each side similar to the way you described for map times, could help to maintain balance between sides.

I don’t want to start a discussion about the ET:QW maps here, I’m just using this as an example. The last objective on Ark is too easy for Strogg and adding a couple of seconds to their respawn time, might make it a bit more difficult for them and give GDF the extra time needed to disarm a plant on the Bioscanner.

I hope you get the idea.

Dr. Funkenstein

(Ragoo) #9

Yeah, respawn timers should be the no1 thing to tweak for better mapbalancing in stopwatch for the competitive scene. You always want to give the attacking team an advantages because full holds obviously suck. I hope SD will make the tweaking of respawn timers as simple as possible (server setting), so the competitive scene can balance the maps right from the start.

(tokamak) #10

[QUOTE=Cankor;207010]Yes, in campaign mode too (if there is such a thing in Brink). I think you meant not in stopwatch mode though, and yes you would want maps weighted so the assaulting team wins more often in stopwatch mode or else you end up with lots of double full holds. This could also be solved just by lengthening the time limits when playing stopwatch.
[/QUOTE]

First, no in campaign mode you can’t switch to the other side, this is because you’re playing against different teams throughout the campaign.

Secondly, what’s wrong with simply not setting a time limit for stopwatch? It’s after all, a stopwatch. Either no limit or just say, twice the ‘official’ length would suffice. I never really understood why ETQW stopwatch mode expected you to complete the game in the same time limit of a normal match.

And give me full holds over steam rolls any time.

(Ragoo) #11

[QUOTE=tokamak;207047]
Secondly, what’s wrong with simply not setting a time limit for stopwatch? It’s after all, a stopwatch. Either no limit or just say, twice the ‘official’ length would suffice. I never really understood why ETQW stopwatch mode expected you to complete the game in the same time limit of a normal match.[/QUOTE]

I agree that you want to avoid it that the time runs out, so the attackers definitely set a time.
But also if you don’t set a time limit, matches with a defending team that is way better than the attackers will just be too long.

I hope the maps don’t take too long. Imho ET:QW was the absolute maximum with games that take an hour or more.

(Apples) #12

If you dont set a time, you can play map for days with a better defending team, I also admit that in most qw maps, 15 minutes should be the limit, not 20, usually the times are like 11-12 or less, if you cant complete the first obj in 10 minutes, you can give up already cuz generaly that means that the other team will get the whole map in shorter time than you anyway.

Peace

(MILFandCookies) #13

[QUOTE=tokamak;207047]First, no in campaign mode you can’t switch to the other side, this is because you’re playing against different teams throughout the campaign.

Secondly, what’s wrong with simply not setting a time limit for stopwatch? It’s after all, a stopwatch. Either no limit or just say, twice the ‘official’ length would suffice. I never really understood why ETQW stopwatch mode expected you to complete the game in the same time limit of a normal match.

And give me full holds over steam rolls any time.[/QUOTE]

Because if there was no time limit, and its a full hold on the first objective for the first 20 minutes, chances are its going to stay that way for another 5 hours.

edit: apples beat me to it :slight_smile:

(tokamak) #14

Then double the time -as I said in my previous post- I just don’t see why it has to be the same time required for normal play.

The problem with stopwatches is not that they maps aren’t well-balanced, it’s that they’re being played with the wrong time-frame.

(Exedore) #15

‘Normal’ and ‘Stopwatch’ mode will indeed work quite a bit differently, due to the far more competitive nature of the latter. A lot of points made in this thread have been discussed/are being experimented with/have been considered, but again it’s too early to reveal anything just yet.

(MILFandCookies) #16

[QUOTE=tokamak;207061]Then double the time -as I said in my previous post- I just don’t see why it has to be the same time required for normal play.

The problem with stopwatches is not that they maps aren’t well-balanced, it’s that they’re being played with the wrong time-frame.[/QUOTE]

Doubling the time achieves nothing. It just means that the team getting destroyed on the first objective for 20 minutes… will get destroyed for 40 minutes instead. And people generally have things to do :wink: and dont want to play that long. Secondly, if a team gets held for 40 minutes… it means that the only way they can make a comeback and equalise is if they also hold for 40 minutes. While that may be highly unlikely, its simply too long.

(.Chris.) #17

Not everyone likes to play a single round for hours on end till something finally cracks, which would most likely be boredum from the team crapping all over the other and letting them win rather than the other side actually getting sudden skill boost just cause they been playing the same map for an hour.

(CyburK) #18

i think attacking gets way overrated just cause its more frustrating if it doesnt work as quickly as you wish. i dont know about the brink maps so far but for et and qw i can say the time limits are just right. it greatly depends on the amount of players how fast or slow a map gets finished.
i play et for a long long time now and most maps only seem to be better for the defenders. i mean people get frustrated very quick if they dont get further in the map. it only takes 10 minutes or something like that.
if there are not many players on the server defending is always the harder task.
some maps, especially the 30 minute ones, are most times easier for the attackers. even when there is a moment in game where they are stuck for 10 minutes they make it in the end. cause nobody can defend for an infinite time.

(tokamak) #19

It increases the chance that the map is finished within the given time and therefore make it far less likely to result in a draw. Seriously, the comp player should make up their minds, either complain about not wanting draws or complain about the game being too long. Bunch of whining kids they are.

Secondly, if a team gets held for 40 minutes… it means that the only way they can make a comeback and equalise is if they also hold for 40 minutes. While that may be highly unlikely, its simply too long.

Too long for what? It wasn’t too long for the initial defenders.

(Ragoo) #20

If an ET:QW map would take 40 minutes, I would say there is definitely something wrong with the map.
And if team A needs like 35 minutes for a map that normally takes 20 minutes, team B should beat them easily anyway.

Plus the fact that 40 minutes is just too long. If you think about live broadcasting via BRINKTV nobody wants to see 40 minutes of the same shit if the defending team is just way better than the attackers.