Can we talk about matches starting with uneven teams?

(Harlot) #1

I’ve had a few games ruined now where the timer starts and 2-3 people quit from one team, and the game continues to start anyways. Yes, a lot of times people join and it’s evened out. But I just had a 8 minute Stopwatch game because the enemy team started 2 players up and pushed hard with the advantage.

The game was a complete waste of everybody’s time. This shouldn’t be the case in a team-based competitive shooter, matches in pubs being decided solely by who has the most people quit during the countdown.

I would rather wait an extra minute or two to get a full match than play out a game like that.

(Zenity) #2

It could force balanced teams, e.g. by shuffling a few people over before the match starts.

But in general, keep in mind this is called “casual” for reason, so things like this can happen and I wouldn’t take it too seriously. Really balanced matches will be the goal for the competitive matchmaking option.

(Harlot) #3

[quote=“Zenity;10744”]It could force balanced teams, e.g. by shuffling a few people over before the match starts.

But in general, keep in mind this is called “casual” for reason, so things like this can happen and I wouldn’t take it too seriously. Really balanced matches will be the goal for the competitive matchmaking option.[/quote]

I kind of figured someone would mention this. I think just because it’s a casual match and not competitive doesn’t mean it shouldn’t try and wait for even teams. There’s a large portion of players out there who have no interest in the competitive aspect. Why should their experience suffer?

Just to clarify, I prefer competitive but the queues have been ridiculously long for me. So I tend to play casual when I only have an hour to burn. And if it’s just going to start 3 vs 6 then there’s really no reason to log on and play those quick casual matches. I’d be better served playing something else. I doubt SD wants to see people feel that way. But I would be happier playing some Nosgoth or Brawlhalla than a 3 vs 6 Objective match that’s over 30 seconds in.

(Szakalot) #4

The only real way to make sure teams are balanced is to have players that want them balanced. no system in the world will balance the teams for you.

What I’m proposing is asking the players at the end of the game whether they think it was balanced. If a significant majority agrees, everyone would get a $$$ bonus. This provides a clear incentive for everyone to concede that the game was balanced, while also allowing the 3v6 team to punish the stackers.

(Harlot) #5

[quote=“Szakalot;10751”]The only real way to make sure teams are balanced is to have players that want them balanced. no system in the world will balance the teams for you.

What I’m proposing is asking the players at the end of the game whether they think it was balanced. If a significant majority agrees, everyone would get a $$$ bonus. This provides a clear incentive for everyone to concede that the game was balanced, while also allowing the 3v6 team to punish the stackers.[/quote]

It’s not necessarily the stackers. Premades and stacks are a problem in every team based game. My issue is the countdown timer starting, and then 3 people from one team quit. The game starts anyways and one team, having a 3 person advantage, can push the objective and build a massive lead. The timer SHOULD stop and allow more people to join or teams to shift to make things fair. As getting 2 quick objectives in Stopwatch pretty much guarantees a win, as well as rushing the first/second objective in Objective mode.

(Szakalot) #6

[quote=“Harlot;10753”]
It’s not necessarily the stackers. Premades and stacks are a problem in every team based game. My issue is the countdown timer starting, and then 3 people from one team quit. The game starts anyways and one team, having a 3 person advantage, can push the objective and build a massive lead. The timer SHOULD stop and allow more people to join or teams to shift to make things fair. As getting 2 quick objectives in Stopwatch pretty much guarantees a win, as well as rushing the first/second objective in Objective mode.[/quote]

well people will quit at random times, nothing can be done about that. I don’t think casual games should stop at any point , lol.

(unknownSpout) #7

Wouldn’t this make the “significant majority” all join one team? :wink:

But seriously, I don’t believe a better balancing system can’t be made.

(Szakalot) #8

Wouldn’t this make the “significant majority” all join one team? :wink:

But seriously, I don’t believe a better balancing system can’t be made. [/quote]

??

if votes are counted to be 50% from each team, the problem solves itself. So a vote in 3v6 scenario of a player from the 3-people team would be worth twice as much as the other.

I was thinking significant majority as sth along the line of >66%. So in 8v8 scenario , with the winning team all voting yes (conservative, but likely assumption), 5 players from the losing team saying no (rounded up) would void the bonus.

(sinKrin) #9

I tried to swap to a team with less players. The teams were 6v4 but because I’d locked in there was no way to swap over. It would be nice if the lock-in didn’t effect the ability to change team before the game starts.