Asymetrical Map Balancing

(DrFunkenstein) #41

Beati pauperi spiritu.

I give up. No I don’t. It’s not about nerfing things, you drunk frenchman!

<3 apples.

Dr. Funkenstein

(.Chris.) #42

Yeah the vocal minority are representative of the silent majority…

(Cankor) #43

The whole point is to have the basic maps have no favored side (at least outside of stopwatch mode). I’m suggesting one way to do this is to adjust the map times so the wins and losses are equal on average, and to have this be a dynamic ongoing process using map win/loss statistics to pick up some discovered tactic which may change the balance of the map after play testing. For pub play maps should never favor one side or the other.

Stopwatch is a different animal, the maps need to be offensively biased in some manner. Some amount of additional time could accomplish this, as well as changes to spawn times, number of objectives or changes to the map itself, or any combination of those or other changes from the basic pub map including restrictions of various sorts. There’s lots of different ways.

Something else to consider is team size, larger team sizes tend to favor defense because there’s always more guys to get through to do the objective. Comp games tend to have smaller team sizes and that helps make them a little more offensively biased, but there’s probably not a big difference between aan 8 player team and a 6 player team as far as that goes.

This wasn’t intended to deal with stopwatch mode other than to point out you could extend the time on those maps a little as a quick fix.

(Ragoo) #44

5v5 is the standard for ego shooters nowadays, so I guess competitive BRINK will be 5v5, too :wink:

(tokamak) #45

There’s no such thing as a favored side if the right time limits are used.

(Cankor) #46

Exactly. And no two maps will have the same “right” time limit; and each “right” time limit may change over time as new tactics are discovered.

(tokamak) #47

Sure but I don’t think that warrants a dynamic adjustment of the time limits. Rather dev intervention through patches.

(.Chris.) #48

Well who the hell brought stopwatch into the equation then, for campaign your idea prob does make bit of sense but yeah would be very very stupid for stopwatch to increase map times rather than fix the maps.

(Cankor) #49

I’m not saying they get adjusted every day or week or even every month. Every three months or so would be effective (might need to re-set the win/loss stats after every adjustment so the old measurements based on old times don’t weight the results, so you need a few months of new data before making another adjustment). There’s time and effort related to distributing a patch, having a built in mechanism might be more work up front but it would probably save lots of work in the long run.

If patches were that easy we’d have one for Quarry and Slipgate by now :slight_smile:

Fix the maps in what way? Maps aren’t broken because one takes 8 minutes to get to an even win/loss ratio and another takes 12. My point is making each have a time limit of ten minutes will favor one side over the other (in the first case the attacker and in the second case the defender).

For stopwatch you will need to adjust something so an evenly weighted map favors the attacker. Adding some amount of time (say another 5 minutes or 50% or whatever is one way), adjusting spawn times or locations to favor the attacker is another. You just can’t use the same “settings”, so it would make sense to have map configs which allow these types of things to be adjusted.

And for those of you who said having a 3rd tie breaker map is the same as adding more time, that’s not quite correct because you have to start over on the 3rd map, losing whatever objectives you may already have made.

I seem to remember somewhere in the original description of stopwatch mode in ETQW they were going to have it so whoever progressed furthest on the map won in the case where a time wasn’t set. This is how they were doing it in TGL for Wolfenstein and how I’ve set it up for the NA Cup rules: in the case wheer a time isn’t set whoever’s completed more objectives win, if they’ve both completed the same amount of objectives whoever completed the last one in the least amount of total time wins. The only way to get a tie is if both teams hold the other at the first objective. I would suggest that this be added as an optional (or even the primary ruleset) for stopwatch. It solves a big part of the problem.

(Cankor) #50

Now that we’re 6 months further down the road on development, is there any further news from the devs on how they plan on balancing the standard mode (non-stopwatch) maps in terms of making sure the win/loss is even between the sides?

As a Recap Exedor stated they were considering not having a “standard” time for all maps, but rather each map has a different time to complete based on win/loss averages. Possibly even a dynamic system so the maps “self balance” over time (say the win/loss ration is heading towards 55/45 after a few thousand matches a minute is shaved off the official map time).

And please, don’t drag the whole discussion of stopwatch back into this, that’s a whole different issue.

(SockDog) #51

I certainly wouldn’t fight for this job, especially when not only are you now talkings maps, objectives, weapons and classes but also a shower of perks, buffs and stuff influencing play.

Still I like the idea of smaller tweaks designed to balance maps as knowledge/experience grows and power shifts. Whether it’s autonomously based on statistics or maybe pushed in smaller updates similar to Valve’s mutations for L4D2 I’m not entirely sure which would be best but I like the idea that the game isn’t done when it’s erm said to be done. :slight_smile:

I also liked the idea of balancing individual matches via a L4D style AI director who could oversee elements that could aid or hinder teams based on their statistics compared to average matches. For example, a team that is steam rolling the opposition may see their path blocked by an obstacle that needs to be blown up, or the losing team may be granted temporary access to better weaponry or support.

A little unconventional perhaps but it would add another layer to pub games that can come down more to the composition of the random teams.

(Nail) #52

“I also liked the idea of balancing individual matches via a L4D style AI director who could oversee elements that could aid or hinder teams based on their statistics compared to average matches. For example, a team that is steam rolling the opposition may see their path blocked by an obstacle that needs to be blown up, or the losing team may be granted temporary access to better weaponry or support.”

I like this idea, if it could be implemented
new obstacles being presented dynamically would be a refreshing idea

(0xT1) #53

AI director would definitely keep it fresh in casual matches

(maxtalent) #54

[QUOTE=Nail;234033]“I also liked the idea of balancing individual matches via a L4D style AI director who could oversee elements that could aid or hinder teams based on their statistics compared to average matches. For example, a team that is steam rolling the opposition may see their path blocked by an obstacle that needs to be blown up, or the losing team may be granted temporary access to better weaponry or support.”
[/QUOTE]

dislike, if i’m raping the other team i don’t want to suddenly have a wall pop up in my face. Reminds me of mario cart double dash. If your in last place you always get awesome items while in first you get crap. Its like punishing you for doing well and rewarding you for sucking.

(engiebenjy) #55

I do like the idea of objectives changing based on how well the team is performing - but I would think if it was to be put in brink we would already know about it :frowning:

(Cankor) #56

The individual map balance is interesting but a different topic…games where one team steamrolls another based on play skill should tend to average out bewteen the two sides (full holds at the first objective vs maps won in five minutes).

OK, maybe not a different topic entirely, because if implemented it could tend to push the bell curve higher (more reults towards the middle vs the outsides, see Tok’s graph earlier in the thread as the example of what I was talking about).

I’ve played a number of games where the game is going the defenders way for the majority of the map and then there’s a real strong push in the last 5 minutes or so to see the attackers win, or (more rarely) where the attackers get the the 3rd objective in 5 minutes only to be held there for the rest of the time. Usually it seems like it’s a very good player or two joining the losing team which makes the difference though.

(SockDog) #57

Sure, didn’t intend to derail just look at the issue more in terms of real time micro-adjustments rather that long term tweaks. Both methods have drawbacks but I’d totally agree that it would be nice to know there was some plan to account for shifts in balance over an extended period of play.

(LyndonL) #58

By the same token… if you’ve played some games (for instance BFBC2) you will sometimes see a team made up of low level players (level 10 and below) and the other team made up of level 35-50s… it’s quite obvious after several maps that things are ridiculously unbalanced.
So this idea isn’t too bad imo.

(Apples) #59

[QUOTE=LyndonL;234114]By the same token… if you’ve played some games (for instance BFBC2) you will sometimes see a team made up of low level players (level 10 and below) and the other team made up of level 35-50s… it’s quite obvious after several maps that things are ridiculously unbalanced.
So this idea isn’t too bad imo.[/QUOTE]

Indeed the balance issue is a big one, but as I’ve said before you need to blame the players there, not the game… If its lvl 10 VS lvl 50 its clearly cuz the server is badly admined, just quit and join another balanced server, plain n simple. I must admit that on BC2 its harder and harder to find a decent game going tho.

Peace

(LyndonL) #60

Yeah that’s true…

LOL @ the thread tags…