Player number imbalance. Stop the feed fest!

(Lumi) #1

Hey, hope this fits here as it happens in all game mode types.

One team is overpowering the other to the point of spawn invasion and then the losing players start leaving and shuffle being what it is it always ends up into a feedfest for the full team vs 3 or 2 players that can’t do anything.

Here’s my solution: When detecting a lack of players in one team higher than one than the system should not allow any dead person from the team with too many players to respawn until the balance is restored, or that person switches teams.

The system has shown its worth in Natural Selection 2 where team unbalance can also be very penalizing. Hence, you either spend your time spectating your team until more people join or you switch to balance the teams. This way only one player difference will exist at tops and depopulating teams get a chance to fight back.

I really hope this system makes it to the game, as currently there is no penalty for leaving a public game, nor do players have the decency to switch on their own.

Thanks for reading.

EDIT: Maybe removing win based missions would also motivate people to shuffle and switch teams more, as right now, nobody wants to give up an easy win…

(Szakalot) #2

[quote=“satisfyingCove;11826”]
Here’s my solution: When detecting a lack of players in one team higher than one than the system should not allow any dead person from the team with too many players to respawn until the balance is restored, or that person switches teams.[/quote]

I was thinking the same. Say a 6v4 situation: two people from 6 are dead. They go into ‘respawn queue’ and one of them only gets to spawn when a 3rd player from 6 is dead. That 3rd player now goes back to the end of the queue.

Imo this would be the best way to address this problem, as it maintains balance throughout the game, without punishing any one player, specifically.

(Lumi) #3

[quote=“Szakalot;27219”][quote=“satisfyingCove;11826”]
Here’s my solution: When detecting a lack of players in one team higher than one than the system should not allow any dead person from the team with too many players to respawn until the balance is restored, or that person switches teams.[/quote]

I was thinking the same. Say a 6v4 situation: two people from 6 are dead. They go into ‘respawn queue’ and one of them only gets to spawn when a 3rd player from 6 is dead. That 3rd player now goes back to the end of the queue.

Imo this would be the best way to address this problem, as it maintains balance throughout the game, without punishing any one player, specifically.
[/quote]

That’s what I mean, although I would still only put one player in queue and not two in your situation, as 5vs4 is still playable, maybe I would restrict 2vs1, but the rest is fine. Otherwise the system becomes too intrusive imo, if it stops your game just because it’s 4v5 or 6v7. Doesn’t make sense to me.

(Szakalot) #4

[quote=“satisfyingCove;27260”][quote=“Szakalot;27219”][quote=“satisfyingCove;11826”]
Here’s my solution: When detecting a lack of players in one team higher than one than the system should not allow any dead person from the team with too many players to respawn until the balance is restored, or that person switches teams.[/quote]

I was thinking the same. Say a 6v4 situation: two people from 6 are dead. They go into ‘respawn queue’ and one of them only gets to spawn when a 3rd player from 6 is dead. That 3rd player now goes back to the end of the queue.

Imo this would be the best way to address this problem, as it maintains balance throughout the game, without punishing any one player, specifically.
[/quote]

That’s what I mean, although I would still only put one player in queue and not two in your situation, as 5vs4 is still playable, maybe I would restrict 2vs1, but the rest is fine. Otherwise the system becomes too intrusive imo, if it stops your game just because it’s 4v5 or 6v7. Doesn’t make sense to me.[/quote]

I know what you mean, and I agree; but I would still put two people in queue. A 5v4 need not change, someone is likely to join; and you can’t blame an odd number of players for not playing in even-sized teams.

A 6v4 is a mean feat though, and the 6 players should know that their stack is unwelcome. Hence 2 people in the queue - which would likely make one person switch.

A 6v4 with only one person in limbo-queue, and you might still end up with nobody switching to the other team.

(Lumi) #5

[quote=“Szakalot;27622”]

I know what you mean, and I agree; but I would still put two people in queue. A 5v4 need not change, someone is likely to join; and you can’t blame an odd number of players for not playing in even-sized teams.

A 6v4 is a mean feat though, and the 6 players should know that their stack is unwelcome. Hence 2 people in the queue - which would likely make one person switch.

A 6v4 with only one person in limbo-queue, and you might still end up with nobody switching to the other team.[/quote]

Now I get it, makes sense. Like some kind of penalty for the advantaged team being unfair.

Nonetheless, I realized one of the reasons why people don’t balance teams out: winning missions.

In my opinion all missions or monetary rewards involving winning a match should be removed. Because I myself feel the same about those missions: if I need to do one or more, then I actually feel glad to be in a team with an uneven advantage as on my own I can do nothing to influence the outcome of a game. And if I’m winning, the last thing I want to do is change teams to see myself lose and not manage to do the mission.

In the end I believe that missions should be dependend on only oneself and not on the circumstances of a game or the others playing with and against you. So I’m for adding more varied missions, but winning based missions should be removed as well as the daily bonus.

Then there are also issues of easy XP and cash due to easy high score ensuing of being on the winning side of a rape game. So I believe this system as you define it should still be present as the reasons as to why people don’t want to switch or shuffle are plentifull.

(CCP115) #6

Why not just have autobalance?

It works for TF2 98% of the time, the other 2% of the time it was just Gabe Newell screwing with you.

(Lumi) #7

[quote=“extravagentBypass;27926”]Why not just have autobalance?

It works for TF2 98% of the time, the other 2% of the time it was just Gabe Newell screwing with you.[/quote]

I’m not familiar with TF2’s autobalance system but if it’s something happening mid game then it sucks. As so many missions are win based it would suck to constantly get your wins taken away because of a last minute shuffle.

(classyRequiem) #8

In guild wars 2, when one team gets wrecked or has fewer players, the game will ask people from the winning team if they want to swap to the losing team(and they will still get winner bonus) if no one accepts the game forceswap random players. :smiley:

(Lumi) #9

I like that idea! That would motivate people to change, because the loss is a big no no right now for most players. Especially when seeking to acomplish those missions…

(sinKrin) #10

Didn’t Quake Wars offer dead players a chance to respawn on the outnumbered team for an XP bonus? That was a good idea. SD could do that with credits as an incentive.

(Lumi) #11

Well, to sum up:

  1. everyone commenting here agrees that player number imbalance is an issue! And a regularly occuring at that.
  2. We proposed plenty of solutions to adress the problem, maybe a little of this and a little of that could be the solution? Or why not even combine a few of them unaltered?
  3. @MissMurder I hope this gets to the dev team!

Thanks to all for supporting this and hopefully help make this happen!

(Borganism) #12

I had a game the other day where it started as 4 v 1, I swapped to make it 2v3 and then more joined and we then became the higher stack and smacked the d*cks who voted no on the shuffle. I laughed at them quite a lot.

Something needs to be done though as of all the shuffles I have called only 1 has ever been successful. A lot of people dont know how to call a shuffle, or dont see the vote happening since its quite small as well.

(sqpantz) #13

Great ideas in this thread. Nothing is worse than being mini-gunned to death at spawn only to find that your team is down by two+players, and another is afk. Voting simply does not work, & lol at people doing the right thing.

Lately I feel like the only way to ensure an even numbered game is to play mm.

(pnellesen) #14

Just bumping - some good ideas here, really hope they implement something along these lines.

(bontsa) #15

[left]I like the idea of limboing dead players longer if teams are uneven. And absolutely love the idea of server ASKING people to switch, allowing them to keep dat silly win bonus if the team they started in wins, hence most probably contributed in that outcome.

There was suggested a credit- encouragement in other thread for players that swap in e.g. 5v7 situation making it 6v6. See it here, and same idea has been said here too apparently. Would definitely make people start thinking of balance, even if only through their virtual wallet, still resulting in more even teams => less spawncamp and frustration. After all, in pubs balancing by skill is harder and not imo necessary due to nature of easy join-easy quit functions, no ranks etc. So balancing by numbers gives better chance to turn the tides, or if not, at least an illusion of more balance.

I’ve just skimmed very roughly through more developer-read warchest forums, can anyone confirm if such things have been discussed there, where it might actually be seen by the devs?[/left]

E: Whoops, a bumbitybump :>

(Lumi) #16

So are we going to get these ideas implemented in todays bugfix update? Sure hope some made it into the lot.