Asymetrical Map Balancing

(.Chris.) #21

Too long either way, it would be bad enough having to play for 40mins on defense then possibly have to play another 40mins attacking, totaling 80mins for single map which ends in a draw.

(tokamak) #22

If there’s such a big skill difference between both teams that the defenders can hold out a map balanced around 20 minutes for double the time than it’s unlikely that they’ll have much problems attacking that map the next round which means it simply won’t last long.

The point is, either draws or extended time, you decide.

(CyburK) #23

how about that. the extra time feature is not that bad at all if you set the overall round time shorter in exchange.

but you could also make some event happening if a team doesnt get past some checkpoint. if the team for example doesnt manage to fullfill the task within a certain time limit some “reinforcement” event could occur wich gets them automatically past the ceckpoint.
for example.

starting map time limit : 20 minutes

allies have to build a bridge they have 10 minutes time for that

if they manage to build the bridge in 5 minutes they get 5 minutes extra time!

if they dont, no extra time will be given BUT there is some reinforcement event (nuke, air support, whatever) that gets them over the bridge.

so if this would be the only task in the map (besides bowing up the main crate…whatever)

for example the times for the map could be:

defense wins

max time
29:59 if the attackers build the bridge in a second and the defenders hold the rest of the map

min time
20:00 attackers cant build the bridge and cant blow up the crate

attackers win

max time
29:59 they build the bridge in one second and blow up the crate in the last second

min time
00:02 they build the bridge in one second and destroy the crate in the next second

with this there could be best time records for the map besides stopwatch maybe more for public play.
dont know if this already exists in other games if so pardon me :slight_smile:

(MILFandCookies) #24

[QUOTE=tokamak;207158]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.

[/QUOTE]

Have a think about why teams dont want draws, and you’ll see that your suggestion achieves the same result.

(tokamak) #25

Not at all. You people forget that if a team manages to hold out against another team for that long, they’re not likely to have much problem in the offensive role either.

(Ragoo) #26

So 20 minutes wasted, yeeah! :smiley:

I’d still say that if a map has a time limit of 20 minutes and full hold happens often, you have to change the map. I would say adjust the respawn timer first but there might be other possibilities like they did with Volcano (delete the last objective) or Salvage (add the indoor spawn).

Altogether you would want a match to take 60 minutes or less.

(CyburK) #27

where is the problem? skill has got to pay off.

(light_sh4v0r) #28

20 minutes is more than enough imo, and if that results in a draw, you play another map, meaning both teams get the additional 20 minutes you just mentioned anyway. Makes for shorter waittimes on the matches where 1 team is stronger than the other.

(MILFandCookies) #29

[QUOTE=tokamak;207164]If there’s such a big skill difference between both teams that the defenders can hold out a map balanced around 20 minutes for double the time than it’s unlikely that they’ll have much problems attacking that map the next round which means it simply won’t last long.

The point is, either draws or extended time, you decide.[/QUOTE]

In the rare instances where there is a double full hold, a tie breaker [usually on a different map] needs to played in order to get the desired win/loss result. This is essentially extra time.

However you are suggesting that teams play for double the time by default, regardless of the skill discrepancy b/w teams.

(tokamak) #30

Yes, double the time reserved for normal maps indeed, to prevent draws. In how many different ways do I need to formulate my posts?

Again, get your priorities straight. What’s the problem here, matches that take too long or draws?

Someone managed to get into the private beta.

(DrFunkenstein) #31

I won’t claim I speak for Cankor, but I get the feeling some people here are missing an important point. The way I see it, he’s suggesting to adjust map times in general based on the win/loss ratio for each side on average.

Here’s an example of how this could work.

Let’s suppose we’re talking about balancing maps in stopwatch mode and let’s say we’re aiming for an 80% chance to win the map for the attacking side. You start out with a map time of 20 minutes and adjust the time limit based on the overall outcome of the games played on that particular map. He’s not suggesting the time limit should be adjusted in one particular match just because a team can’t get past an objective. The way I read it is that the time limit will be increased if the attacking side ends up winning the map 70% of the time and it will be decreased if they win it 90% of the time. On average!

You can test maps till you’re blue in the face as a developer, but my basic assumption is that you can not beat a couple of hundred thousand people that play the game after it’s released. They will come up with things and strategies no one even considered during development or testing.

This is one way of addressing that problem.

Dr. Funkenstein

(Ragoo) #32

Both suck.
Changing the map (spawntimer and other things) will help to avoid both.
Changing the time limit will just make matches longer but having a map where defending teams have the advantage will also make matches longer.
If you’d say on a certain map the attackers just need like 2 minutes more to make the map a good stopwatch map, I would be fine with it. But doubling the time limit is just way too much.

(MILFandCookies) #33

[QUOTE=tokamak;207204]Yes, double the time reserved for normal maps indeed, to prevent draws. In how many different ways do I need to formulate my posts?

Again, get your priorities straight. What’s the problem here, matches that take too long or draws?

Someone managed to get into the private beta.[/QUOTE]

What part of a tie breaker map dont you understand? Its added time champ.

But its a good effort on the suggestion… at least youre trying :wink:

(tokamak) #34

Okay, there seems to be some problems with thinking abstract here.

  • It’s probable if not likely that the maps will have different time limits.
  • This means that when enough matches played, a bell curve arises for the lengths of time teams need to complete the objective.

Double the time sounds like a lot, but at least it’s relative to the normal map length and far better than the default time limit. A better time limit would be one that still encompasses a good chunk of the right side off the bell curve.

For a campaign map the outcome is absolute so only the time needed left of the border counts. That’s why it’s foolish to play a stopwatch with the same time limit as you’re ignoring a large part of the bell behind it. If in a campaign mode the chance of the attackers winning within the given time is 50%, then the chance of the stopwatch resulting in a draw is also 50%.

Now how much time should be added? All depends on the curve. I don’t plan to write an essays on statistics here. But the main factor playing is how stable map itself. The map ‘Quarry’ is very unstable and can end at lots of different moments due to it’s nature (yes even if with perfectly balanced), while a map like There’s stable maps, maps with little variables and a consistent objective progression (salvage, Area 22), and there are maps that are unstable and have varied ending times (quarry and volcano).

Unstable maps will need longer extensions than stable maps because the curve extends further from the middle.

Anyway, that’s what I’m trying to get across. I hope it’s a bit more clear now.

(.Chris.) #35

Or just play with competition settings and on maps that favor the attacking side…

(Ragoo) #36

This please. I’m totally against adding more time^^

(tokamak) #37

I guess this is just going way over people’s heads.

(CyburK) #38

based on this curve you could also give “winning points” for different maps. maybe a map with 80% chance of winning gets you only 2 points in the scoreboard and a map with 20% chance gives 8 points. this might be a bit confusing for some clans an there had to be some new scoring system but it would also allow little tactical adjustments in map selection.
anyways it will take a pretty long time to establish that curve so that everybody is satisfied with it.

greetings

:slight_smile:

(Apples) #39

Why dont we go back to old fps stuffs, “kill them more and complete the map before them, and you are good to go”, why do we allways want to nerf things for player? I dont get it… Just get good tactics and countermeasure, train to have a good aim, and thats it… why would we nerf the maps? just exclude the obvious flawed one as quarry (for etqw) and thats it, it allways worked and will continue for some time. In Q3 I never complained about anythng neither in ET (well q3 isnt obj based but still), if you want to compete you have to go thru many obstacle, what doesnt kill you makes you stronger right? So we should just stop nerfing everything for the player and let him actually learn things on his own, thats what I think anyway.

To stand on a more general point, we are on a society where all “young” ppl think that all is easy to get, as videogames are a huge part of this “new” society, devs should at least make the games a bit complex in order to keep the learning curve important and not nerf things in order to be more “friendly” even if its for sales’sake. remember how it was hard to finish ghost’n’goblins or shadow of the beast or R-type? And no one was complaining back in there, we just tryed many many many MANY times and we finaly got these games, and it was freaking fun (I still play these games…). While now we just finish COD in about 15 hours and we are all blased, do a freaking hard game, they will allways be the better ones…

Peace

ps: sry drunk frenchman have spoken…

(CyburK) #40

thats true. just count it like soccer. win = 2 points, lose 0 points, draw 1 point. if teams are even at the end of the seasion count the frags and thats it. a draw cant be that bad can it?

or just play one map everyone against everyone in the league. the winner is the winner of that “map seasion”. if you have like 4 maps in the pool do that 4 times and you have your winner.

anyways i dont like the clan scene all they do is complain…