[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]
well isn’t that an issue with the game balancing not the performance of the team? BFBC2 was pretty cool too.
[QUOTE=Cankor;234024]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).
[/QUOTE]
I still don’t like an automated system that decides the map lengths. Winning or losing will then turn into a matter of achieving under or above average.
I get what you mean but I don’t see it as being as cheap as Mario Kart. Say you’ve rushed and taken the first objective in under a minute, the game AI could lockdown a gate to the next objective, the gate would unlock in 4 minutes (bringing you back to statistical “quick” time for the 1st objective) or you could hack/explode the gate in less that that time. Overall, the better team would have more to do (which IMO means you have more fun), the worse team would have an opportunity to recover and either way you end up not being overly disadvantaged.
That’s far from a perfect solution though. Surely efforts that mean games are more balanced regardless of the player spread are worth looking into? If it means less server hopping and more “enjoyable” games for all then I’d say it’d be worth implementing.
ehh i’m still uncomfortable with the idea. Obviously i doubt it will be as BS as mario cart but i still dislike the idea of being handicapped for doing well. Again if it’s a balancing problem i don’t think this is the solution. if its level 50s vs. lvl 1s even if you throw a bunch of walls and s*** at them they’re still prolly gonna win. Also i think balancing should be based on more then just level. You could eventually reach top level if you completely suck, maybe win percentage or something? anybody got a good way to balance out teams thats fair to everybody?
It may not be the solution for all balancing issues but to mix up the games a little I think it would be a nice idea. Again it shouldn’t feel like a handicap to the stronger team, only more challenging and elongate the game so that it’s not a matter of Start>Rush>Win in under five minute. IMO that sort of game sucks more than a red shell up the bum.
Ultimately whether it’s via long term developer patches, shorter term automated timer manipulations based on statistics or a full blown realtime AI based system it’s clear that games/maps have imbalances and that systems to cope with them should be considered as part of development.
Don’t get me started on the whole XP, Lvl BS. The “gaming collective” wanted it and they can live with the consequences of everything it taints. But that isn’t for this thread so lets leave that there.
That’s the whole point. Consider the alternative, a map like Quarry is a good example. When you win as strogg, pfft, big deal. Quite nice for GDF to hold for the full 20 minutes and win, but the point is you should have an equal chance to win regardless of which side you played, all other things (i.e. player skill levels) being equal. Generally if you want to play GDF it’s pretty easy when the map is Quarry or Slipgate, that’s due at least in part becasue it’s harder to win as GDF on those maps.
The map win/loss record, ideally, should look as close as possible like a symetrical map win/loss record.
Indeed it is worth implementing, but ultimately the balance issue is allways due to the players themselves, a stacked team will win 98% of the time, even if its harder for them with this idea, they’ll still win like 95% of the time…
I didn’t expect Brink to have an automated system, I didn’t like the suggestion (as opposed to manually adjusting them).
If maps are “unbalanced” and favour one side over the other, just balance them.
Any game that lasts longer than 30 minutes is, to me, a game of frustration. Ideally matches should last 10-20 minutes, 25 at MOST.
Im totally for map rotation taking into account the past history of wins and defeats. It makes the playlist more dynamic and coherent.
I’m guessing there will be a timer cap in place, ETQW had 20min rounds etc and the defenders won if it ran the full 20mins. I already made a suggestion of a dynamic map rotation based on the outcome of the map… wasn’t too well received and generally considered a PITA
i don’t see why not if one side loses 65% of the time i think you could auto-balance it to make it take longer for the other team have a shorter time to beat or whatever
True, but what is also true is that some people are just not willing to spend more than 20 minutes in front of the console/PC, sometimes 20 minutes is all you have before work/school, etc.
Thats why its important to more or les standardize the map duration.
There is nothing wrong with long maps per se, but with the objective gameplay you risk sitting a long time on the same objective which can get very boring especially for the attackers.
In this case a progress system like TF2 is much more suitable. IE: you have a set time to complete the first objective. If you manage to do it, you get additional time for the next objective. That way you can never be stuck very long on an objective but still have plenty of time to complete the entire map.
On shorter maps this is not really a problem, but if there are maps with >20 mins of defense time, I’d rather have the TF2 system applied.
As you might have glimpsed in some of the previews from E3, Brink works this way in ‘normal’ (non-stopwatch) mode.
[QUOTE=light_sh4v0r;234320]There is nothing wrong with long maps per se, but with the objective gameplay you risk sitting a long time on the same objective which can get very boring especially for the attackers.
In this case a progress system like TF2 is much more suitable. IE: you have a set time to complete the first objective. If you manage to do it, you get additional time for the next objective. That way you can never be stuck very long on an objective but still have plenty of time to complete the entire map.
On shorter maps this is not really a problem, but if there are maps with >20 mins of defense time, I’d rather have the TF2 system applied.[/QUOTE]
Don’t know if I like that idea or not. It would kill the games where you were stuck at the first objective for 10 or 12 minutes but still managed to pull out a win by getting the next ones in record time. I’m reminded of a game on Refinery where we were stuck at the shield generator for about 12 minutes and then going inside had less than a minute left and managed to blow up both objectives for the win about 10 seconds before the clock would have run out. In your scenario we wouldn’t have made it past the second because we would have been out of time.
That’s true and I realised this as I posted. That’s the downside of a per-objective timer. But if for a certain map 30 mins is the limit, I would rather have the game timeout after 10 if the attackers can’t manage to complete it. Fair chance they’d be stuck for another 20 which will get very annoying. Yes, this eliminates the chances of a comeback, but it also eliminates 30 mins of boredom on both teams.
[QUOTE=Cankor;206672]Maybe there could be some kind of weekly update from the master server which tweaks the map times or something?
[/QUOTE]
So now we know how they can do this easily: necvars!