[SUGGESTION] - Who Attacks and who Defenders first...

(PixelTwitch) #1

So during a frustrating couple of games where our team would hold out for 15min on any one of the 3 maps as defence, often without losing the first objective… I came up with a VERY simple idea…

How about…
The team with the OVERALL higher WIN/LOSS ratio become the attacking team first on public servers?

I would to ensure it works efficiently only count the highest 2 thirds of a teams players…
so for example… team (A) has 5 players… only 3 or 4 of the BEST players WIN/LOSS ratio would be taken into account due to the ability to “carry” less skilled players.

I would also recommend that it only counts the WIN/LOSS from the past 5 - 10 games to ensure its an up to date reflection.

So

TEAM ONE
Player 1 - WL = 73%
Player 2 - WL = 39%
Player 3 - WL = 62%
Player 4 - WL = 49%
Player 5 - WL = 51%

TEAM TWO
Player 1 - WL = 51%
Player 2 - WL = 22%
Player 3 - WL = 82%
Player 4 - WL = 75%
Player 5 - WL = 48%

so in team ONE, players 1, 3 and 5 would be counted - 186
in team TWO, players 1, 3 and 4 would be counted - 208

in this case team TWO would attack first…
this should increase the chances of not getting stuck on the first objectives for 15 min.
it should also mean when attacking its less frustrating for them as it will not last as long.

Obviously… Some games are just going to take ages regardless.
However this could get rid of some of the “boring” aspects and allow more of the map to be shown/played.

(Rex) #2

It doesn’t matter, because it’s pub.

(PixelTwitch) #3

it matters because I for one am bored out of my mind defending for 15 min on the first point of trainyard or underground…
only to win the defence then win the attack in 2 - 3 min…

(Rex) #4

[QUOTE=PixelTwitch;496319]it matters because I for one am bored out of my mind defending for 15 min on the first point of trainyard or underground…
only to win the defence then win the attack in 2 - 3 min…[/QUOTE]

That’s more a problem of the missing shuffle in sw matches on pub.

(PixelTwitch) #5

regardless if there was a shuffle function or not you would still have to play the first match.

All I am really asking for is that based on stats (that I know myself are not always right) give the “strongest” team attack first to save a lot of time from being wasted (potentially) if it does not work it does not end up any worse then it is now :slight_smile:

(Rex) #6

[QUOTE=PixelTwitch;496321]regardless if there was a shuffle function or not you would still have to play the first match.

All I am really asking for is that based on stats (that I know myself are not always right) give the “strongest” team attack first to save a lot of time from being wasted (potentially) if it does not work it does not end up any worse then it is now :)[/QUOTE]

Opinions may differ if a bad match is too long, too short, both or none of that.
At the moment in regard of the lobby waiting time I would prefer a fullhold at the first obj instead of a 3min rush from the attackers. But that’s only my opinion. You see?

But dude don’t worry the sw test phase is only temporary. :wink:

(Violator) #7

Its quite frustrating at the moment as most of the new players just don’t know about or want to go for the objective attacking or defending :(. Just now Fana and I were playing musical chairs as no-one else seemed to be doing the objective…

(INF3RN0) #8

stuff matchmaking will address soon, so don’t see a big priority in applying a temp band-aid.

(Rex) #9

I know that feeling. :confused:

(PixelTwitch) #10

it would not be a temp band aid…

That is of course using the assumption that public servers will still be available???

(INF3RN0) #11

[QUOTE=PixelTwitch;496331]it would not be a temp band aid…

That is of course using the assumption that public servers will still be available???[/QUOTE]

Assuming that public servers won’t have options to balance teams out to begin with :wink:. Also I think match making will also apply to non-ranked game ques. What you’re talking about is assuming that teams are imba so let’s just speed er up

(Protekt1) #12

Ideally the two teams should have about equal win rates when players rates are averaged together. So they should just have alternating who attacks first. Even if this is not the case, they should have alternating.

(PixelTwitch) #13

Then thats assuming you don’t have mates joining a public game together and making the teams imba lol.
I do expect they will “balance” teams as best as possible before it even goes into open beta.

However no matter how well you can balance the teams there is most likely going to be issues…
ie, that one guy that pwns the game or that guy that looks up at the sky and does circles.

I honestly see absolutely no reason to NOT try and prevent 10-15 min first objective hold?

its not like you get to choose if you attack first or defend first right now anyway right?

Or… Are you honestly telling me you enjoy being on defence for 10 min in the same spot just farming kills?
if so that is fair enough… However its not fun for certain people (like me) and I know from experience its certainly not fun for the attackers getting eaten alive.

The issue I see with these forums actually is that the majority of the people here are decent players…
as cool / skilled / competitive as we are… its the 95% game population of “casual scrubs” that are going to keep the game alive and supported…

I want to have a change that lets me do what I wanna do… (win and quickly)
as well as help the “casual scrubs” at least have some fun and/or not get destroyed again and again to the point they no longer want to play…

I am just making educated guesses here… I have no proof that the desired effect would happen… or even if I would like it any more…
However, I do not feel the current system or simple “team balance” is going to ever prevent 10min single point holds…

I feel guilty on the other 50 - 75 percent of the map we hardly ever get to see >.<

(INF3RN0) #14

I suggest you check out some of the threads on match making or just think similar to how queing normal games on LoL worked. Enforced team balance on all fronts is very doable.

(PixelTwitch) #15

it is only “very doable” with a large pool of players at any given time…
Just taking a look at CS:GO (a very popular game) shows just how flimsy “team balance” can be.

LoL works cause its got MILLIONS of concurrent players. and upwards of 32 million players on any given day.

regardless…
I am not saying that teams would not be balanced… what I am saying is that even when balanced there is always a “favourite” the one the book makers would put their money on… What I am suggesting is a TINY little thing that COULD have a huge impact on many peoples enjoyment of the game…

I just feel some people do not like change…

I mean really does it matter to you what side you play first?

(INF3RN0) #16

It doesn’t matter to me though it matters to others who consider one side more advantageous to start on (so 50/50 compromise seems best), but I agree that you need a large player pool to have good team balance. That said though, this game will be free2play and should be able to field enough of a player base to have fairly decent balance on all fronts. At this testing stage what you’re asking for would make sense because of such large differentials between players on a server and no means of enforcing team balance to begin with.

In a full fledged match making system the time differences between who wins and who loses won’t be nearly as extreme on average and players would be matched up with similar skilled groups. In the case of multi-ques? Well maybe it might have some issues, but I really doubt it considering most mm systems would put that group against a mix of higher skill rated players anyway. I get that your arguing for the sake of more consistently shorter lost games, but if the mm system is actually functional it shouldn’t be a huge issue. The tie breaker obj mechanic also does this for the most part already too without having to pick favorites.

(Loffy) #17

The idea is good, but as stated above we need shuffle, and to test that first. We’ll keep the idea meanwhile, it is a nice, unorthodox and novel way of thinking/mixong.

Overall… I yern progress… In fact, I’m playing League of Legends occassionally nowadays… what has become of me? Oh dear.

(shaftz0r) #18

this is a beta… the maps are nowhere near completed, there is no shuffle, nor matchmaking yet, not to mention that balancing based on w/l stats alone is a weak, temporary “fix”.

(PixelTwitch) #19

I have not said balance with w/l… All I have said is the team with the higher w/l percentage should attack first…
I really don’t get how people are overcomplicating possibly one of the most simplistic ideas in the history of mankind >.< lol

(DJswirlyAlien) #20

Good idea but I reckon it will get fixed when/if they implement matchmaking and balancing. No idea how challenging it would be to implement but I reckon they could do it relatively easily.