Autobalance serverside setting

[Nitro_R]

I truly beg for this...

[Bobby]

Yea it would be nice...

[AlfalphaCat]

Or get rid of the silly Auto-Join option...then you would know that ppl are just being dicks when they join the winning team that has more players.

[Bobby]

Lol, that's not a bad idea either alfalpha. But other than a few choice words for the offenders, unless the other team continuously commited fratricide, it'd be hard to stop them from widening the score gap. :/

[Blu C]

How about a simple fix?  After some fixed time into the game (10 mins?) your team is automatically assigned to the side with fewer peeps, and in the case of both teams being equal sized goes to the team that is behind in score?  You could also perhaps put a lock on joining one team in the first 10 minutes if there is some sort of numbers disparity that is looking suspicious (10 on side A and 5 on side B for example).

Some other measures could be done but these two seem easy enough to implement.

[Planedev]

But this does not fix the problem with ppl rage quitting on one side because the team is loosing, making it look like the one team is stacking against the other

[AlfalphaCat]

How about a simple fix?  After some fixed time into the game (10 mins?) your team is automatically assigned to the side with fewer peeps, and in the case of both teams being equal sized goes to the team that is behind in score?  You could also perhaps put a lock on joining one team in the first 10 minutes if there is some sort of numbers disparity that is looking suspicious (10 on side A and 5 on side B for example).

Some other measures could be done but these two seem easy enough to implement.

If that could be made into a server setting, I"D BUY THAT FOR A DOLLAR!!!


Edit: Wait!  It's fun to play against a team when there is a 2:1 ratio?  Even an, one or two more ppl, advantage can be a huge factor.  In my experience, anyways.

[[IPA] Bravo Cadett]

How about a simple fix?  After some fixed time into the game (10 mins?) your team is automatically assigned to the side with fewer peeps, and in the case of both teams being equal sized goes to the team that is behind in score?  You could also perhaps put a lock on joining one team in the first 10 minutes if there is some sort of numbers disparity that is looking suspicious (10 on side A and 5 on side B for example).

Some other measures could be done but these two seem easy enough to implement.

If that could be made into a server setting, I"D BUY THAT FOR A DOLLAR!!!


Edit: Wait!  It's fun to play against a team when there is a 2:1 ratio?  Even an, one or two more ppl, advantage can be a huge factor.  In my experience, anyways.

yeah it makes me happy if i see enemy lances or pairs in every base while my team runs around like chickens and do shit.
or see 8 people take a point with some "heavy" id's on the radar -.- facing them with a raven and 2 parti's ...

if i join a serve i look what people play in what team ... how are clantags and points

[Blu C]

Edit: Wait!  It's fun to play against a team when there is a 2:1 ratio?  Even an, one or two more ppl, advantage can be a huge factor.  In my experience, anyways.

I was exaggerating for effect.  More practical would be for a 2 or 3 person difference.  The reason for that existing at all is because I could see something going on where people are just joining and happen to pick the same side at once through no fault of their own.

Another thing I came up with is that if numbers reach some certain unbalance threshold people could be forcibly reassigned... but honestly I don't like that very much because I don't see a good way to do it.  Personally I would be pretty steamed if I had been playing on a side from the beginning and working hard to secure a win, and then because a bunch of people came in late and joined the 'winning' side I am force-moved to the losing group.

Don't see that you can do too much about people rage-quitting (or leaving for any other reason).  It isn't like you can FORCE them to keep playing.


Also, I recently thought of another method to handle this, rather than hard coded rules go in through game mechanics.  Give multipliers to the money earned by the side with fewer people and have it ramp up really fast.  It would probably be best to have this be based on the overall ratio of players in addition to the absolute gap.  Maybe have it affect point accumulation and ticket usage as well.

That way new people joining the 'winning' side end up tipping certain factors in the favor of the people who are getting stomped on.  They are getting points faster for the same actions, they are getting more money, allowing them to buy bigger things, and when they die their team tickets don't drop so much.  Obviously this would require a lot of tweaking to get working properly, but it seams feasible.

[Frostiken]

I for one hate autobalance. Forcibly take me from a team to stick me on one full of noobs ragequitting? It's one thing to balance the teams by switching teams. It's entirely another to die and then find yourself in the other hangar against your will. I used to play Battlefield 2142 a lot and servers there would run team autobalance. So you organize your team of retards into being effective, work your ass off to capture a lot of points and hold the ones you have, the scrubs on the other team start weeping into their tea and alt-F4, and then I wake up facing down my own team and have to do the exact same thing over again except take back all the stuff I worked for? I'd rather start teamkilling to continue to help my team. Might as well call it Sisyphus: Living Legends. Autobalance is literally a handicap saying "you're doing too good, we have to punish you." No, fapp that.

One thing that really annoys me are the people who moan about the team balance at the slightest opportunity. Last night we were playing on a 32 player server and every single time the enemy team had two fewer players than us (16 vs 14) people started whining about the teams. Seriously? 16 vs 14? In an 8v8, being down two players is 25% of your damn team. That's a pretty significant advantage. In 16 v 16, that's, what, 12% or something? It's really not a huge deal, especially since people are always constantly joining the most full games on the server browser.

[AlfalphaCat]

I for one hate autobalance.

Forcibly take me from a team to stick me on one full of noobs ragequitting?

It's one thing to balance the teams by switching teams. It's entirely another to die and then find yourself in the other hangar against your will. No, fapp that.

Well, I wasn't thinking of something that 'drastic', but most ppl don't even look at the scoreboard enough to know to switch.  If it is a ROFLstomp, as they say, it would still be in the power of some more fair/fun-minded players to switch, b4 the auto-balance takes effect.  I would hate to get switch, but sometimes I get on a team that is just mowing over the competition like no tomorrow, but we have less players, do I switch?  Even though it is hard to even contribute to the STOMPAGE?

[Frostiken]

I forgot to mention double the funny: The people on the team shrilling like banshees at every opportunity to cry about the team balance was beating our team by 100 tickets.

I might support the idea of a small multiplier representative of your team's disadvantage in terms of cash rewards - maybe just make it your team disadvantage percentage (12.75% in the 16 vs 14 example). However, the winning team shouldn't be punished for winning. 95% of the time the reason the teams end up like that is because people ragequit hard in this game.

[AlfalphaCat]

I forgot to mention double the funny: The people on the team shrilling like banshees at every opportunity to cry about the team balance was beating our team by 100 tickets.

Ignorance is bliss.  As they see it.

[Askis]

I think a team "scramble" like some TF2 servers have would be more appropriate.
For those who don't know what it is, if one team is massively superior to the other, even though they've got the same amount of people (or if they're unequal on players too, doesn't matter) a scramble vote can be started, if it's successful, players from both teams are switched around, hopefully ending up with more equal teams in terms of skill (no guarantee though )

Probably very hard to code though...

[Blu C]

I for one hate autobalance. Forcibly take me from a team to stick me on one full of noobs ragequitting? It's one thing to balance the teams by switching teams. It's entirely another to die and then find yourself in the other hangar against your will. I used to play Battlefield 2142 a lot and servers there would run team autobalance. So you organize your team of retards into being effective, work your ass off to capture a lot of points and hold the ones you have, the scrubs on the other team start weeping into their tea and alt-F4, and then I wake up facing down my own team and have to do the exact same thing over again except take back all the stuff I worked for? I'd rather start teamkilling to continue to help my team. Might as well call it Sisyphus: Living Legends. Autobalance is literally a handicap saying "you're doing too good, we have to punish you." No, fapp that.

One thing that really annoys me are the people who moan about the team balance at the slightest opportunity. Last night we were playing on a 32 player server and every single time the enemy team had two fewer players than us (16 vs 14) people started whining about the teams. Seriously? 16 vs 14? In an 8v8, being down two players is 25% of your damn team. That's a pretty significant advantage. In 16 v 16, that's, what, 12% or something? It's really not a huge deal, especially since people are always constantly joining the most full games on the server browser.

Your first complaint is actually why I do not like the idea of forcing someone to change sides during a match already in progress.  I have no problem forcing people to the losing side when they join though.

One thing that I will say is that a 1 person difference makes a much larger impact on Terrain Control, especially when the points are far apart and or one side has managed to set up a blockade near the enemy base.  Basically that 1 extra person run around capping undefended points while the rest of your team faces them down on fairly even footing, leaving the other side with not many options if the skill levels on both sides are roughly evenly matched.  I haven't played much Solaris Arena but it doesn't seem to be quite as much of a biggie there until there is a larger player difference.