Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tzaeru

Too many one-sided games, need e.g. autobalancing

Recommended Posts

3/4 of games are very one-sided stompfests. You can only do so and so much alone. If you're the only SL setting up FOBs and mounting meaningful attacks, but the other team has two such SLs, you've lost. If you're the SL, but your team has no good anti-tanks guys and enemy is heavy on vehicles, you've lost. If you take an armored vehicle, but now no one sets up FOBs, well, you've lost. A lot of games are lost or won before they even start, simply because one team ends up with fewer quality players.

 

This game desperately needs some sort of autobalancing functionality. It could work like this: You form a group, similar to how you form a group in many other games before entering their matchmaking. Your group will be placed together on one side when a new map starts. For each group, the game calculates the groups' total skill rating and adds an experimentally determined bonus on top of that depending on the groups' size (e.g. a group of 10 vastly outclasses a group of 10 equally skilled, but non-grouped players). The game then places groups in turns to both sides and then places individual players, trying to keep the total skill ratings of both teams balanced. Skill ratings don't need to be super accurate; having a rough estimate from the players' winrate, K:D and score could already be vastly better than having nothing.

Actual matchmaking is not needed. This addition would be non-intrusive and wouldn't change anything from the perspective of solo players. It's not perfect and could be gamed to a degree, but yeah, it's definitely needed as I am getting burned out of playing non-competitive games that get decided not by me or my squad, but by the luck of the draw.

Edited by tzaeru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm against any kind of skill based system in Squad. There is simply no metric in game that can determine skill. K/D doesn't mean anything when a medic can go an entire round killing no enemies, dying 6 times, but reviving 15 of his squad mates. Is he less skilled than the marksman who killed 20 enemies and died twice? Squad score doesn't work as well, I know you can certainly game that system. What about win rate? Nope. Like you complained about in your post, you can do all that you can but get screwed over when the team doesn't work well together.

 

The only auto balancing feature that I wouldn't mind in game would be a vote system (or maybe better an admin tool) for a random team scramble. This though would not stop players from simply switching back to whatever team that they wish to be on. Any team balancing system runs into the problem of splitting up friends and others from playing with each other. If the squad lead that I played with last round did a great job, I would like to join his squad in the next round. What if I did horrible the previous round but my buddy did great? Am I not able to play with him? These types of systems seem to bring more issues to the game that what they solve. It isn't about the skill of the individual but the skill of the team as a whole.

 

The real solution to this issue is to try to stick it out. One of the biggest problems that occurs during a stomp is that players tend to leave the losing team in order to join the winning team or another server. This only snowballs the issue. Although it seems a bit cliche at times, leading by example is great in this situation. Many times the reason for a stomp is one team is communicating effectively and the other may not be communicating at all. Communicate to the team where you are going, what you are doing, how you are doing it. If you do it, another squad might do it and so on.

 

In the end sometimes doing everything you can just isn't enough, if you play 3-4 matches where every one is a loss it might be time to just switch servers. There is no use in getting frustrated with the game. Give up and try again later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Geebus you just bad at stats, math or competitive gaming.

There is simply no metric in game that can determine skill.
Most metrics (over time) determine some skill. Skill is a complex value, some parts are hard to determine like "communication ability" without a lot of advanced work which no one will invest into with a game like this, but it's measurable.

K/D doesn't mean anything when a medic can go an entire round killing no enemies, dying 6 times, but reviving 15 of his squad mates.
K/D means a lot in any case. 0 K/D means you can't kill, so why are you carrying that MG or marksman rifle? If you are medic with 0 K/D but 15 revives, drop your scope and give it to a better shooter medic.

Is he less skilled than the marksman who killed 20 enemies and died twice?
Yes, he is less skilled in killing enemies. Isn't it obvious?

Squad score doesn't work as well, I know you can certainly game that system.
That one is (probably) one of the most useless introduced right now, at least without clear explanation of how it's counted. For now, I just call it "Time spent on active objectives", it's not precise, but mostly close, so still kinda useful.

> What about win rate? Nope.
Lol what? Is that an argument? Nope.
Average player on average setup will get win rate typically in 40-60% range. Deviations from those are clear display of difference of the approach. It's accepted by everywhere but not you? ok.

So please, stop noping and go take some free game theory courses online.

Any team balancing system runs into the problem of splitting up friends and others from playing with each other.
Ever heard about parties? Work fine is so many games. And yes, if SL doesn't want you in his squad, you obviously not allowed to be in his squad, it has nothing to do with teambalancing too.
Enforcing people to stick to the team and team balancing are different things. Team balancing only need to initially assign you to the team. Switching rules are totally different problem. Spreading strongs parties and players (possibly SL) equally between teams initially in the start of the round and for new joining players is the main concern.

If your team has 10 kills against 200 last game, no amount of communication will fix it for you.

Edited by paragonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similar problems happened to me many many times and it was so obvious when you see a player in your squad and at the other point you see him in the enemy team in the middle of the game just because we started loosing.

Some kind of balance is needed as the loosing side sometimes can be loosing for 5 games in a row.Me and my clan mates switch side when the game ends to the other loosing side if they loose two or more games in a row especially if they loose all the way to their main base.There is no fun in playing games like that at all not for the winning or for the loosing side.

 

But the type of balancing like in Battlefield that switches you to the loosing side in the middle of the game just because of the enemy rage quitting is out of the question.

 

There can always be some kind of understanding and compromises in the servers by the server admins that can ask some clan guys to switch sides or the whole clan.Because we all can agree there is a lot of clans and clan members on servers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That can be solved with rcon tool and a script, that will mix teams based on some metrics or without metrics at all. Simply mix teams randomly, taking in account clan tag. That can be done by any server admin with some programmer skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @paragonid. Almost any sort of skill measurement will, on the average, lead to closer approximation of reality than pure randomness will. Even if you could determine a player's skill compared to another player with only 70% accuracy (that is, you were 70% likely to be correct in saying whether the player is better or worse than some other player), that would already help a lot in balancing two teams of 40 players.

For K/D, yes, it's not as useful metric in this game as it is, for example, in Counter-Strike (though even there, some roles are expected to die more than others) but if you really play a medic with 0 kills, you're not being even close to as useful to our team as you could be. There has to be times in the game where you saw an enemy before no one else did and could have shot them first. Has to be times when instead of running in to heal someone, you should have had your gun up instead.

 

And like paragonid says, I'm thinking of this only as an initial balancing when a new map starts and the first players join. Wouldn't enforce anyone to stay in a team, so nothing would really change for players in that regard.

 

2 hours ago, Bahrein said:

But the type of balancing like in Battlefield that switches you to the loosing side in the middle of the game just because of the enemy rage quitting is out of the question.

 

100% agree.

Edited by tzaeru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×