101 replies to this topic

[rdKNIGHTMAREZ]

Here is a typical situation.

you are getting ready for a 3v3 game of tdm or siege or missile assault.

and then a 7th player comes along, an odd one out

now its 4v3. and you start losing right from the off.

Well i have a simple easy solution.

how about , the first one to die on sentium side (in this case) can't respawn until there is an 8th player or death on their team_

same would go for 2v1, 3v2 etc etc.

A simple solution to a complex problem.

EDIT: PLEASE GO TO PAGE 4 FOR NICE LITTLE ASCII PICTURES.

Edited by rdKNIGHTMAREZ, December 02 2012 - 03:08 PM.

[ArnieF4440]

rdKNIGHTMAREZ, on November 29 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

how about , the first one to die on sentium side (in this case) can't respawn until there is an 8th player_

well thats no fun for the first death ... at the rate of people joining games in this beta, it may take the rest of the game

Edited by ArnieF4440, November 29 2012 - 06:07 PM.

[Necro]

It would be mutch simpler if the game only added 2 people at a time if the teams are balanced.

[h0B0]

I do dare dream of a world where humans are responsible and mature and do not require strict rules and regulations, but rather they will change sides if and when they notice the situation getting out of hand.

[Necro]

he is talking about matches going into 3v4 after being 3v3 because someone joined.

players can't do anything about that.

[Beemann]

Honestly I don't notice 3v3's being any more balanced than 4v3's
If anything the skill discrepancy on some skill level in each of the matches promotes the idea of having a single man advantage for one team

[Urvanis]

I think you're on to something. Instead of an out right lock out till even, I would propose a spawn que system. if teams are uneven the last person to ready or join the match has to wait till a teammate dies, then they spawn in while the teammate that died waits. So on and so forth till teams are even.

I imagine this could get quite annoying when people rage quit and teams are something like 5v2 but they've still got the option to switch teams.

[rdKNIGHTMAREZ]

Quote

Honestly I don't notice 3v3's being any more balanced than 4v3's

oh wow that's amazing, because one extra guy on the other team has no effect.
oh...its steel killers....trolls of hawken forum.

[AsianJoyKiller]

rdKNIGHTMAREZ, on November 29 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

Quote

Honestly I don't notice 3v3's being any more balanced than 4v3's

oh wow that's amazing, because one extra guy on the other team has no effect.
oh...its steel killers....trolls of hawken forum.

Please don't use personal grudges as a method of trying to invalidate posts, and launch personal attacks against our entire clan to try and smear our reputation.

Both Beemann and and I argue with on a thread to thread basis, and we don't have any sort of personal vendetta against you.
I'm fairly sure other Steel Killers do the same.

[h0B0]

rdKNIGHTMAREZ, on November 29 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

Quote

Honestly I don't notice 3v3's being any more balanced than 4v3's

oh wow that's amazing, because one extra guy on the other team has no effect.
oh...its steel killers....trolls of hawken forum.

I do not like your attitude.

[Titzilla]

rdKNIGHTMAREZ, on November 29 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

Quote

Honestly I don't notice 3v3's being any more balanced than 4v3's

oh wow that's amazing, because one extra guy on the other team has no effect.
oh...its steel killers....trolls of hawken forum.

This type of attitude is what got the other thread locked. It's not that one extra guy on the other team has no effect. It's just that considering how skill levels are often very uneven in this game, a game of  4v3 may be more balanced than a 3v3 in reality. For example, if there are three extremely good players while the rest are only decent, but would get destroyed in a 1v1 against any of those three, then any 3v3 scenario would automatically favor the side with more of the 3 best. On the other hand, if it were 3v4, with the best players all on the same team, then a team of 4 mediocre players may actually provide a more balanced game than the previously mentioned 3v3.

Even if the three best players aren't on the same team, if the 4 player team consists of 1 skilled, 2 decent, and 1 newer player, that would be more even than a 3v3. 4v3 matches are definitely not guaranteed to be more balanced than a 3v3, but there is still the potential for it to be better matched. Please do not disregard all views just because of a prejudice against Beemann, AJK, and Steel Killers as a whole.

[Beemann]

rdKNIGHTMAREZ, on November 29 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

Quote

Honestly I don't notice 3v3's being any more balanced than 4v3's

oh wow that's amazing, because one extra guy on the other team has no effect.
oh...its steel killers....trolls of hawken forum.

Skill discrepancy and the flaws with the machmaker (putting new players in on Sentium even if Sentium is stacked skill-wise/winning) mean that unless you've got a 2 man advantage or more, it's quite possibly negligible
Again, I've actually played matches where the other team having an extra person has balanced the match out considerably better than any combination of 3 people, just due to the erratic nature of the matchmaker as it stands right now
TBH I think removing pre-mission team switches would help to a degree. Too many people hop onto one side or another (we've done it a few times, though generally to test out how broken particular weapon combinations are. We usually try to spread ourselves out between teams, though sometimes the matchmaker tries to stack us up)
For the record, your idea basically makes one person not want to play any more, and would likely lead to more ragequits

[rdKNIGHTMAREZ]

fair play, but the system suggested would work either way.

4v3 is a problem.

first guy to die on '4' team having to wait for other teams '4th' to arrive.

Problem solved. the '4' team only get one mech-life extra,...first to die waits patiently in the launch bay....

the suffering of 'waiting patiently' is small in comparison to the suffering of unfair games. ive even seen the server pump out 2 v4 at one time.

As to my attitude_

Quote

I do dare dream of a world where humans are responsible and mature and do not require strict rules and regulations, but rather they will change sides if and when they notice the situation getting out of hand.

basically yeah.

Edited by rdKNIGHTMAREZ, November 29 2012 - 08:16 PM.

[SunshineSloth]

This is genius. Unless you're the one stuck waiting. Then it's not genius.

[h0B0]

rdKNIGHTMAREZ, on November 29 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

fair play, but the system suggested would work either way.

4v3 is a problem.

first guy to die on '4' team having to wait for other teams '4th' to arrive.

Problem solved. the '4' team only get one mech-life extra,...first to die waits patiently in the launch bay....

the suffering of 'waiting patiently' is small in comparison to the suffering of unfair games. ive even seen the server pump out 2 v4 at one time.

As to my attitude_ lets keep it on topic yeah_

Do not be mean to other people in my presence or i will be mean to you.
Its on topic, you have insulted my clanmates and I for no apparent reason.

Beemannn made a strong point and it seems relevant to the current population/skill level of the game.

I would rather have the odds stacked against me than being prevented from playing.

Hawken and matchmaking are still young. the game has yet to be released in open beta and furthermore the game has yet to grow in popularity and reach its potential player population. All these factors will alleviate the some of the current imbalances in matchmaking.

This change is drastic and reduces the amount of fun players will obtain from the game, i am against it.

LoL Devs have coined the term anti-fun. This mechanic is Anti-fun as it penalises a player for something he has no control over.

[Beemann]

People open the game up to play it, not sit and wait in the hopes that they'd get a chance to play what might be a steamroll anyway
What happens if a match stays at 7 people_
You could also exploit this by taking out the best player on the enemy team and then roflstomping the team with 4 people on it because now it's just 3 newbies
It also needlessly punishes new players if the enemy team DOESN'T target the best player to sit out. Imagine joining your first game, dying, and then not being able to launch after 10 seconds
I bet most new players would quit, go to the forums, and report a bug
If you put a message up or explained that's how the system works, a portion of them would probably stop playing uneven matches and just opt to re-queue

[rdKNIGHTMAREZ]

"penalises a player for something he has no control over." You had 1 life, first on team 4 dies gets the 'waiting'.

and honestly, it won't be so bad.

think about it,.

What happens when the teams get shifted 4v3........well '3' team gives up,.

they know whats comming, everyone wants xp

so they just quit

4v2

4v1

4v0 ..........

my suggested fix not only gives everyone on the '4' team an equal chance, but also results in player retention.

the 'dead'guy won't have to wait long half the time anyway.

and in a competitive environment, such subtle changes make a big difference. to the moral of BOTH teams,

that results in happier gamers, fighting fair.

.......

onto the next valid point people addressed.
what about when there is a skill difference_

with players not being force-fed into teams....at least keeping the numbers fair is good.

ive seen 5 lvl 15 players vs 3 level 0 players. it wasn't pretty..

Edited by rdKNIGHTMAREZ, November 29 2012 - 08:29 PM.

[Beemann]

You know that level has next to nothing to do with skill or output right_
In a level based system, I can swap from my Infil to a Grenadier, drop 10+ levels and then get counted as a newbie but use the same weapons
And in a competitive environment, teams are decided on beforehand

Edited by Beemann, November 29 2012 - 08:33 PM.

[SunshineSloth]

Quote

And in a competitive environment, teams are decided on beforehand

Exactly. These aren't real arguments in casual games. Fairness is not a priority over fun.

Edited by SunshineSloth, November 29 2012 - 08:39 PM.

[Titzilla]

While I still honestly think making a person sit out for dying first is silly, especially considering how a player can join in the middle of a match literally seconds before a person dies, I will still propose a better system than simply locking out a person.

Even if for some reason someone must be kept out to keep numbers even, this can be done through a queue where the person entering would not immediately join in. This however would result in more people quitting due to not getting to actually play a game. They would much rather hop out and find a new one that they don't have to wait for. If this system was used, the best method would be to cycle the waiting queue, where the person who dies must wait for another of their teammates to die before they can respawn, and then the person who just died would now be waiting. While this does spread out the waiting more evenly, this still is discouraging to the people who are actually waiting and not actually playing. There is still the very real possibility that as soon as a person dies on the 4 person team, they immediately quit due to not wanting to wait.

In other words, while there are potential ways to make it "balanced" (assuming 3v3 is always better than 4v3 for some reason), this actually would encourage players who want an actual game to quit and find another one.