Community Question: Restoring Team Balance

(BioSnark) #41

Good to see these posts. I was afraid the elitist fringe had flaked off years ago.

(Humate) #42

Both pubplay and comp play dont require balanced matchups.
If it was the case where every match was equal, players would know beforehand each game would go down to the wire. Would be pretty boring dont you think?

(tokamak) #43

Either way, you want something that measures the actions rather than motivations. Players having to put themselves in lower gear in order to maintain balance is worse than someone switching sides and bragging about it. You just can’t depend on player virtue, it’s too unreliable.

(Dragonji) #44

Automatically switch the player with the lowest score upon death.

Call of Duty way, works great in all CoDs.

(Breo) #45

When the game is unbalanced switch everyone to one side and change to deathmatch problem solved :smiley:

(Dormamu) #46

  • or in a stopwatch match , allow the wining team to beat his own time to win the game ( or lower the time they need to complete for the next map).

  • or Change the spawn position of the losing team (spawn near a teammate), if a player is near an obj and is using v-say “I need backup!”, this will trigger the game to spawn some teammates near him. If a player is near an obj, needs an engineer “We need an engineer!”, the game will spawn an engineer teammate near his location, etc. You can implement a new ability, you can buy/earn/unlock, playing against unfavorable odds will allow you to call reinforcements on/near your position :smiley:

  • or change the importance of the obj in the map, allow the losing team to have a last push in the last 5 min. of the map to get near the enemy spawn/bunker/station and call (if a min. of 2-3 players ~ 30-50% from the losing team are their) an orbital strike to obliterate everything and win the match :D, not that great for the winning team, but the final cutscenes will be awesome :smiley:

~ On pub matches you will see lots of players doing this they will switch to rifle, pistols (weapons they don’t already mastered), not using adrenaline on themselves (on xp save), switching to support, dragging the team all the way. Is not about switching to lower gear, is about stacking the odds against you to improve, i’m sure they will play with lower health to learn how to make those bullets count. This is why you play against better players/teams to learn faster, to improvise, to adapt, to overcome :D. Most of the time in a game, those things you get to easy are not that important, even if the teams are not equally balanced, the best/most memorable matches are those who end when the clock is almost out, or you win against greater odds.

(tokamak) #47
  • or Change the spawn position of the losing team (spawn near a teammate), if a player is near an obj and is using v-say “I need backup!”, this will trigger the game to spawn some teammates near him. If a player is near an obj, needs an engineer “We need an engineer!”, the game will spawn an engineer teammate near his location, etc. You can implement a new ability, you can buy/earn/unlock, playing against unfavorable odds will allow you to call reinforcements on/near your position

This can be potentially disadvantageous for the losing team. Simply reducing the respawn time does the same thing without all the weird stuff. ETQW already does this to some extend based on how long it takes to complete an objective (it’s not directly tied to team balance).

Faster respawns isn’t everything though. It can also be detrimental. It can break up teams and tear apart group cohesion. Unexperienced players who keep rushing the objective will then attack piece meal rather than in strong waves.

(_Megabyte) #48

@Humate did you understand what you are saying?

(tokamak) #49

That’s exactly the same thing and I consider that flawed game design. If it can be avoided, it should be avoided. Most games do it through matchmaking but I think everyone here already agrees that matchmaking doesn’t suit large team games. So rather than matching players we can impose negative feedback on getting too far ahead in order to prevent one team rolling over the other.

Success usually escalates in this genre. A small head-start will grow into an insurmountable advantage over time. A mechanic that adds juice to the loser depending on how far they’re behind keeps both sides on their edge.

Again. Solving quantitative imbalance is easy. You swap a few players around. Either forced or through an incentive and it’s done. Qualitative imbalance is a completely different issue altogether and far more interesting to find a right approach for.

(tokamak) #50

I’ve slept on this and I think this isn’t true. Doing the same action on the side of the winning team is always more easy. A winning team is well established has more people alive, therefore more buffs, better supplies, better area control etc. etc. Consequently, such an action is also less necessary, important and valuable. There’s actually an inflation going on when a team starts to get an upper hand.

Doing the same thing (like killing a target) on the losing side is more difficult and also more valuable and consequential in the game. Where for a winning team killing a player during a steam roll or from an impenetrable defence is just one of the many inevitable kills, for the losing side killing a player can often lead to a breakthrough. The chances that you’re taking out a key element and making the opposition less cohesive and thus weaker are just way bigger.

So both in therms of value as well as required skill the idea of giving simply more xp (skill score as well as unlock resource) for the same actions depending on how far behind in collective xp the losing team is isn’t that crazy after all.

(DarkangelUK) #51

The sad part is that you’re actually serious. Giving losers a boost keeps them on their edge? How is being given an artificial boost, which is counter-productive against a game which should be nurturing the players intrinsic desire to learn, the desire to push harder and learn from your mistakes or lackings as a gamer keeping them on their edge? How is cuddling the losing team, patting them on the head and saying ‘there there it’s ok, here’s something that will make it all better’ helping the losing team?

Where are you getting this ‘small head start’ from? What you’re subconsciously saying here is that better players than yourself will capitalize through strategic gameplay and tactics and use that to their advantage to get ahead where lesser players will let these opportunities pass them by and fall behind. Constant repetition of this process causes the gap to grow bigger in this regard. The game should take pity on the lesser players, hold their hand to try and bring them up to speed without actually earning it which is in no way, shape or form balancing the teams what so ever.

So really we’re back to your failings as a gamer. Once again you want the game to aid and help you because you can’t help yourself. All these suggestions do is damage lesser skilled gamers and never spurns them to try harder. Why try when the game will just give me a boost for being bad anyway? You want to add the fps equivalent of Mario Kart’s Bullet Bill and throw in a blue spiky turtle shell for good measure.

That reply was to your previous post, the new one you’ve added looks like a right doozy as well, though I think i’ll leave that one just now. I wouldn’t want to help you saturate another thread. (and you said you weren’t gonna hijack… liar)

(tokamak) #52

With a small headstart at the start I mean somehow obtaining more xp, therefore unlocks at the start of the campaign. These unlocks are assets which lead to more strength, therefore xp gain therefore an ever widening advantage.

Now, in a 1v1 match this would be right. Starcraft and chess are completely based on that principle. Keep trying to take small advantages which eventually may lead to a win.

In a 12v12 game this becomes problematic because you’re depending on your team-mates successes and failures. A good player on the losing side of the team is less capable of bringing his full strength to bear because his team is offering him less opportunities to do so. The same player on the winning side has all the resources in the world to carry out his feats.

I don’t really agree with the Mario Kart analogy as players receive those loser-benefits regardless of their efforts. It’s not like the game is saying 'hey pal, having trouble? Here’s an extra airstrike ;)". Instead it’s only giving a higher pay off for actions that are already more difficult to perform due to being on the back-foot.

This implementation will mostly matter for higher skilled players and not for the lower skilled ones. This means that the outcome will be more reliant on the actions of the top players. So rather than be stuck in the inertia of two large teams slowly sliding out of balance there will be some firm opposition from a couple of individuals until the teams are approaching equality again.

It makes playing on the losing side less frustrating and being on the winning side more interesting.

(DarkangelUK) #53

The unlock and XP system is broken if it can cause a complete imbalance by getting there 1st.

Now, in a 1v1 match this would be right. Starcraft and chess are completely based on that principle. Keep trying to take small advantages which eventually may lead to a win.

In a 12v12 game this becomes problematic because you’re depending on your team-mates successes and failures. A good player on the losing side of the team is less capable of bringing his full strength to bear because his team is offering him less opportunities to do so. The same player on the winning side has all the resources in the world to carry out his feats.

I love that statement right there. We’ve had a similar discussion before in a previous thread, you’re saying the opposite here than what you said there. I think we’ll leave it at that :smiley:

I don’t really agree with the Mario Kart analogy as players receive those loser-benefits regardless of their efforts. It’s not like the game is saying 'hey pal, having trouble? Here’s an extra airstrike ;)". Instead it’s only giving a higher pay off for actions that are already more difficult to perform due to being on the back-foot.

It’s fine not to agree.

This implementation will mostly matter for higher skilled players and not for the lower skilled ones. This means that the outcome will be more reliant on the actions of the top players. So rather than be stuck in the inertia of two large teams slowly sliding out of balance there will be some firm opposition from a couple of individuals until the teams are approaching equality again.

It’s fine for me not to agree as well.

It makes playing on the losing side less frustrating and being on the winning side more interesting.

I think you’re quite biased in your suggestions and how you believe other people will view something. You’re heavily geared towards making the lesser players look like their doing well, convincing them that its ok to not be as good as the others and always the take the route to not offend them for playing poorly. A bias decision is always a bad decision, you need to look objectively and stop favouring a side because its close to you.

(tokamak) #54

[QUOTE=DarkangelUK;406206]The unlock and XP system is broken if it can cause a complete imbalance by getting there 1st.
[/QUOTE]

It’s a flaw that needs to be recognised indeed. But it’s not just a matter of getting there first, it’s also a matter of being able to easily extend the advantage you already had. I think that needs to be more difficult.

I love that statement right there. We’ve had a similar discussion before in a previous thread, you’re saying the opposite here than what you said there. I think we’ll leave it at that

Then I guess you don’t understand at least one of the discussions.

I think you’re quite biased in your suggestions and how you believe other people will view something. You’re heavily geared towards making the lesser players look like their doing well, convincing them that its ok to not be as good as the others and always the take the route to not offend them for playing poorly.

Not at all, this implementation favours the better players in the worse team. Worse players in the worse team won’t notice much of this change. If you don’t earn much xp in the first place then there’s less to boost as well. The only thing the worse players will notice is that one or two team-mates are suddenly becoming more powerful.

A bias decision is always a bad decision, you need to look objectively and stop favouring a side because its close to you.

You do know that your attempts at making underhanded personal insults only result in arguments against doing anything against qualitative team imbalance right?

(DarkangelUK) #55

Vague at best, well done.

Then I guess you don’t understand at least one of the discussions.

Haha nice, just say the same thing back and that’ll do eh? Basically you have the right view for both but the wrong way round… you seem to not understand both discussions.

Not at all, this implementation favours the better players in the worse team. Worse players in the worse team won’t notice much of this change. If you don’t earn much xp in the first place then there’s less to boost as well. The only thing the worse players will notice is that one or two team-mates are suddenly becoming more powerful.

So in other words, it fixes nothing. It puts a poster over the big glaring hole that’s there and hopes no one notices. Let’s not fix the problem, lets just pretend it’s not there by hiding it with boosters and making it look like the losing team are doing well when really the boosters brought them to that level… never mind why they needed it in the 1st place!

You do know that your attempts at making underhanded personal insults only result in arguments against doing anything against qualitative team imbalance right?

You can view it as personal insults all you want, your completely illogical and biased suggestions speak for themselves show exactly why you suggest the poorly thought out and one sided suggestions that you do. Your lack of understanding of player mentality and dealing with the problems that can arise also speak for themselves. You’re fixing nothing by being biased, you’re magnifying the existing problems that are already there and causing new ones on a completely needless basis… all because you’re biased and can only view it from a single stand point, the losing side. Become objective and we may get somewhere.

(tokamak) #56

So in other words, it fixes nothing. It puts a poster over the big glaring hole that’s there and hopes no one notices. Let’s not fix the problem, lets just pretend it’s not there by hiding it with boosters and making it look like the losing team are doing well when really the boosters brought them to that level… never mind why they needed it in the 1st place!

Right now a score is only useful to compare players on the same team. You can’t really compare cross-team because the conditions are considerably different. There’s the inherent asymmetry in the games but even if the objective and maps were symmetrical then there’s all kinds of other external factors that pollute comparison between teams. Once you level both scores so that it becomes easier for both teams to accumulate the same amount of xp then it suddenly becomes possible to compare players in the entire match.

Giving a flat amount of xp as well as a flat rate at which you reward action ignores all these external factors. It really does take more skill to make a kill when you’re on the back-foot because of your team. That needs to be recognised as well as corrected.

Being on the losing side due to your team-mates is frustrating. Being on the winning side due to your team-mates is boring. If you get more capacity to do something about avoiding your loss while at the same time having to work harder for your win then I think we made a great step into keeping the match consistently interesting.

So both from a score perspective as a gameplay perspective this is preferential.

(DarkangelUK) #57

No, it’s not. It’s a very bad idea.

(Humate) #58

@Humate did you understand what you are saying?

Have a few games of Brink.

(Boktor) #59

Humate, I agree with what you’re saying, but it applies more to communities that have matured over time.

With a freshly released game and a large initial playerbase I’d agree with Tokamak - you can’t trust on the gamers to be good samaritans. Players will obsess over padding their kd/r.

(BioSnark) #60

I’m just going to note this poll result to the question of unlocks since I don’t think it’s realistic to ignore it in the current tangent and expect Splash Damage to do away with the system they’ve pioneered, regardless of what my apparent minority thinks of it.

Even in the cleanest of contexts, the reason people express generosity is to feel good about themselves or to feel less bad for others, which is a variation of the previous option. Other reasons you might have listed include expectation of reciprocity and not wanting to kill servers, of which, following some bad matches, a surprising 100% were earlier this morning in the lovely world of ETQW. sadface expressing sadness