We need forced balancing

(LifeupOmega) #21

If people wanted balanced matches so badly we’d have had a larger focus on ranked, funnily enough ranked doesn’t mean you need to tryhard, it just means you’ll actually get a rank and play against people of similar ranks and skills - which seems to be what people constantly want. Ranked also had punishments for leaving, which work for other games of a 5v5 format so why wouldn’t they work here? There’s also a forfeit vote now too if it truly goes to hell.

Expecting balance in public where anyone can play in a server regardless of skill is asinine, especially in a game like Dirty Bomb where the skill ceiling is incredibly high. Now we’re stuck with this pub culture of “drop in drop out nothing matters let’s screw over my team cause enemy has level 123 gg lol F5 > call shuffle” because SD didn’t promote ranked to be the go-to standard. Double credits means nothing because credits are ultimately worthless.

While I switch occasionally just to see if I can hold against the team that started to snowball it’s ultimately a fruitless endeavour and I’d much rather just be playing against equally skilled opponents and getting some enjoyment out of this game instead of playing in public forever.

(watsyurdeal) #22

The real solution is for the individual player to get better, because it doesn’t matter how many shuffles there are or how good the matchmaking is, you’ll still have steam rolls or matches that seem unfair.

If you keep losing and the only common factor is you, then that’s a sign. You can only control yourself, so before complaining about teams be sure you’re playing your best.

(doxjq) #23

There’s too much involved with balance though. It’s not always as simple as just evening out the skill levels between players. Merc choices, team composition and synergy are the 3 most important factors to proper balance in a team based shooter, but I don’t think it’s even possible to calculate such things is it?

You might have similar skilled players matching, but if you have the wrong mercs to counter their mercs, you’re not going to get anywhere. Synergy is another thing entirely. We’ve often played 5v5 pugs where one team of 5 can all be individually better than all of the other 5 players on the other team, so you predict it will be a stomp, but those 5 players simply just play for themselves and actually function poorly as a team and end up getting stomped much to everyones surprise.

It’s a team based shooter after all. The game can force equally skilled players to pair up together but it can’t force them to all play smart, work together, select the right mercs, and make good decisions in game. That is where half the problem is with Dirty Bomb. Half the matches you lose are not because the skill levels are unbalanced, but more because a team of 6 Proxy’s on attack is just not going to work for anyone.

I’m not saying something more can’t be done to improve the balance, I’m just trying to say it’s completely impossible to perfect the team balance, and while I don’t have an answer on how to improve it, I at least understand enough to know that the suggestions that have been given so far won’t solve anything. There’s just way too much to consider when it comes to balancing the teams.

But yes, I know wins and losses don’t mean anything @Jostabeere but you’re kidding yourself if you think newer players won’t have a tantrum every time the game forces them a loss because they had to change when a couple of other players left. I mean christ I play games every day where there must be 8-10 people quit over the course of a match, and it’s usually in 2’s or 3’s when one team gets spawn trapped 2-3 times in a row and a bunch all quit together. If the game forced the top players to shuffle 3-4 times per game every time this happened, it would just be a cluster mess.

(Szakalot) #24

@Dox team synergy and all that can affect the game, sure, but it doesnt affect the ‘intensity’ of the stomp: balancing around skill level pre-server allocation is the only way to avoid amazing players be matches with/against potato skill. this is the core of th frustration, not the stomp itself. people dont mind losing as much if they can still put up a fight. but if youre facing a wall and average k/d is 0.5 or less, you know that nobody on that team is having a good time

5 great players can get stomped by a weaker (skill-wise) team, sure, but it certainly wont be the type of stomp you see on pubs where half the team is closed in spawn and the other half is rageqqing or trolling on spec

(Cletus_VanDamme) #25

[quote=“grumpyBull;213072”]Imagine what one of the ‘dis game is not balance, pls make fair SD’ people would do if given the opportunity to manipulate the game in the manner that you’ve suggested.

It’d be chaos, a never ending cycle of shuffles.[/quote]

Unable to name a clear example.

You better get to specsavers m8.

EDIT - I see that Dox already responded by repeating the example that he’d already given, and that your response was to talk about wins, losses, spectating and somebody else’s suggestion.

A question for you @Jostabeere Do you see any flaws in your proposed solution to match balance?

(Jostabeere) #26

Still waiting for YOU to tell me how you’d exploit the system. Don’t answer the question with another question.
I answered Dox’ post about issues he is seeing about people getting shuffled into the losing team, which, as you stated, is irrelevant because for you wins or losses do not matter. And that even if a player gets shuffled into the losing team, he still has a better game than an one-sided stomp. And that the spectator issue with people creating unbalances can be changed in a way that only one player can spectate. But that’s a different topic. We discuss balancing, and not the spectator mode here.
And finally I told Dox that the other solution posted above could solve the problem aswell. You should actually read what other people write instead of reading what you want to see.

(Szakalot) #27

@Jostabeere

just because some players dont care about win/loss, doesnt mean we should punish those that do. forced auto balance should only be done as a last resort.

carrot>stick

(Jostabeere) #28

[quote=“Szakalot;213127”]@Jostabeere

just because some players dont care about win/loss, doesnt mean we should punish those that do. forced auto balance should only be done as a last resort.

carrot>stick[/quote]

Yes, As a last resort when the teams are unbalanced and people do not switch teams on their own.

(B_Montiel) #29

Forced autobalance should have been mandatory on public servers from the start.
But the balance issues we all face in this game never helps player retention during a public game. The forced autobalance will be weak in the current situation, because there are too many general leaves currently.

I’ll lay an egg I usually like to put on such topics. Community servers :p…
This certainly would lower level discrepancies significantly, especially on a rather fast fps where the skill gap between good and bad player is important. Stomps are also bound to happen in public matchmaking for that very reason. Some level 15-ish could totally receive a good public game rating because he played against players who were worse than him, while a vet could receive a bad one because he played against better players than him or played a merc he’s not used to and sucked with him during a couple of rounds.

Match balancing will always be a proper nightmare as long as you don’t put some extremes out of the equation.

(Cletus_VanDamme) #30

[quote=“Jostabeere;213125”]Still waiting for YOU to tell me how you’d exploit the system. Don’t answer the question with another question.
I answered Dox’ post about issues he is seeing about people getting shuffled into the losing team, which, as you stated, is irrelevant because for you wins or losses do not matter. And that even if a player gets shuffled into the losing team, he still has a better game than an one-sided stomp. And that the spectator issue with people creating unbalances can be changed in a way that only one player can spectate. But that’s a different topic. We discuss balancing, and not the spectator mode here.
And finally I told Dox that the other solution posted above could solve the problem aswell. You should actually read what other people write instead of reading what you want to see. [/quote]

Not sure if you’re trolling or just really really thick, either way it’s very impressive.

(watsyurdeal) #31

He’s thick, get used to it

(Jostabeere) #32

[quote=“grumpyBull;213177”][quote=“Jostabeere;213125”]Still waiting for YOU to tell me how you’d exploit the system. Don’t answer the question with another question.
I answered Dox’ post about issues he is seeing about people getting shuffled into the losing team, which, as you stated, is irrelevant because for you wins or losses do not matter. And that even if a player gets shuffled into the losing team, he still has a better game than an one-sided stomp. And that the spectator issue with people creating unbalances can be changed in a way that only one player can spectate. But that’s a different topic. We discuss balancing, and not the spectator mode here.
And finally I told Dox that the other solution posted above could solve the problem aswell. You should actually read what other people write instead of reading what you want to see. [/quote]

Not sure if you’re trolling or just really really thick, either way it’s very impressive.

[/quote]

Still waiting for your response, if you’re not full of BS.

(The_N00Ba) #33

I think automating the balance too much will further weaken the community. Plus I don’t like the idea of this game limiting player options. that’s just me though.

(Cletus_VanDamme) #34

Honestly he makes my 2 year old boy seem like Nostradamus.

[quote=“Jostabeere;213189”][quote=“grumpyBull;213177”][quote=“Jostabeere;213125”]Still waiting for YOU to tell me how you’d exploit the system. Don’t answer the question with another question.
I answered Dox’ post about issues he is seeing about people getting shuffled into the losing team, which, as you stated, is irrelevant because for you wins or losses do not matter. And that even if a player gets shuffled into the losing team, he still has a better game than an one-sided stomp. And that the spectator issue with people creating unbalances can be changed in a way that only one player can spectate. But that’s a different topic. We discuss balancing, and not the spectator mode here.
And finally I told Dox that the other solution posted above could solve the problem aswell. You should actually read what other people write instead of reading what you want to see. [/quote]

Not sure if you’re trolling or just really really thick, either way it’s very impressive.

[/quote]

Still waiting for your response, if you’re not full of BS.[/quote]

I’ve already responded m8, quoting myself again seems like a waste of time if you’re not even going to bother reading it lol.

Very rich of you to say I should actually read what other people write instead of reading what I want to see, when that’s EXACTLY what you’re doing.

(doxjq) #35

Auto balance would be hard if CMM ever arrives too. Half the point of CMM is to introduce grouping up with friends - What if you’re in a party of 6? Kind of defeats the purpose if RQ’ers are going to split you up.

(TeuFort) #36

They should try and encourage the act of changing teams more than just forcing it on to a player. I’d be pretty peeved if one guy DC’s because his internet provider is a traveling potato salesman only for RNGejus to K me off a kill-streak. Maybe give an additional 50 or 100 Credits, or enhance their chances at a case drop. Call it a “Nobility Bonus,” going something along those lines.

(GatoCommodore) #37

y not this? this is actually good idea.

(bontsa) #38

Yes I amongst plethora of others have been suggesting this for what, years :'D Would be just fine and fitting placeholder solution to ragequitting issue until SD gets their CMM working out. And would be good enough for the remaining server browser.

(Grave_Knight) #39

Wow, okay, didn’t think people would actually reply as much to my salty thread of salt.

Anyways, seems that people think it would be easy to cause a reshuffle. Mind you I said that battles should be a 2 to 1, that’s to say that one side shouldn’t have twice as many players as the other side. In an 8 v 8 a 2 to 1 reshuffle would have to have 8 players on one side and 4 on the other, even if the match began as a 8 v 7 it would require 3 players to leave the side with the least members without the side with the most members leaving. Ontop of that, I’m not sure which game did this, it should also warn that the game is going to be reshuffled 10 seconds before the shuffle (it should also follow the standard reshuffle rules) and allow people on the larger team, if they wish, to switch sides in order to rebalance it.

So a 8 v 4 would cause a reshuffle. A 7 v 3 would cause a reshuffle. And a 6 v 3 would cause a reshuffle. 8 v 5, and 7 v 4 would not cause a reshuffle.

(TeuFort) #40

Yes I amongst plethora of others have been suggesting this for what, years :'D Would be just fine and fitting placeholder solution to ragequitting issue until SD gets their CMM working out. And would be good enough for the remaining server browser.[/quote]

Does this mean I have reached Dirty Bomb community-member nirvana?! :smiley: