115 replies to this topic

[[HWK]ZamboniChaos]

On Thursday, October 3 we will be implementing a small change in order to address issues with team balance. This is just the first step in a series of planned improvements, and we're continuing to work towards a permanent solution.

Currently when team imbalance is detected, the autobalance system will wait 30 seconds before taking any action. This was originally put in place to allow new players to join and balance the match, as well as to give the autobalancer time to select the most suitable candidate to switch. However, we are removing this restriction in favor of having balanced matches faster. Now, as soon as a player on the larger team dies they will be switched immediately.

This change will not require any patch or downtime to implement.

Now, let's talk about another change that we're working on. As it stands, players currently cannot switch teams at will. We are planning on implementing a system that will give players an option to voluntarily switch teams whenever the match becomes imbalanced. This system will effectively mirror the functionality of the "Switch Team" button. The difference is that the game will proactively present players with the option to switch teams, instead of having a button that simply sits on the UI.

This new feature is expected to be implemented in our next major content patch, which is currently targeted for the end of October.

We are also continuing to troubleshoot other team balance related issues, such as new players being added to the wrong team. As always, constructive reports from our players regarding these issues are very helpful.

Thanks for your continued patience as we work on solving these problems!

Click here to view the article

[Krellus]

sounds good to me, appreciate the update

[Silverfire]

Good to hear you're all hard at work, and what specifically you guys are working on. Keep it up, and keep us posted on the specifics on what you're all doing over there! I wait anxiously...

[h0B0]

[HWK]ZamboniChaos, on September 30 2013 - 06:02 PM, said:

Now, as soon as a player on the larger team dies they will be switched immediately.

I see 2 issues with this.
1. the potentially worst player on team stomp gets switched because he died first.
2. Team stomp is stacked and doesn;t die therefore no switcheroo

Looking forward to the teamswitch icon, especially if it is noticeable in the hud(but not too much)

[eth0]

Thank for the update! When can we know more about the October patch_

[TimeForAdventure]

h0B0, on September 30 2013 - 06:08 PM, said:

[HWK]ZamboniChaos, on September 30 2013 - 06:02 PM, said:

Now, as soon as a player on the larger team dies they will be switched immediately.

I see 2 issues with this.
1. the potentially worst player on team stomp gets switched because he died first.
2. Team stomp is stacked and doesn;t die therefore no switcheroo

Looking forward to the teamswitch icon, especially if it is noticeable in the hud(but not too much)

Please read that answer and think through this one more time about your band aid solution. If you scrap the "auto switch" and just bring back the team switch we will be fine for now.
You have to be more careful about the stuff you are implementing. Seriously, you are scaring away so many new players with your experimental fixes/patches/updates

Edited by TimeForAdventure, September 30 2013 - 06:33 PM.

[Culex]

I'm a bit surprised that currently it's just a matter of taking 30 seconds to take any action.

The question is, is it performing the right actions_ I've seen stacked, and I mean stacked games start from the get-go, and then 1-2 good players on the enemy team lose their pubs over ragequits, and then I see the game take one of our team's less experienced pubs INSTEAD of breaking up our 3-4 good player formation (and I'm not talking about parties). I think Jeff Magnum might remember this game which occurred on Prosk where he ended up 1v5 against us, lol.

The current system seems questionable, not so much about the length of time it takes.

Let me throw in another example which occurred in a game I was in. Game starts with 9 players. It sorts the players by giving the team with less players the more experienced players/higher overall average mmr as a team collective (Team B ), at least that is what is intended. So Team A=5, Team B=4. Understandable.

Now, a high mmr player joins the game, and gets put on Team B. So now not only was Team B better overall in terms of skill, but they've just picked up another strong player. Team B now definitely has the edge, if they haven't already had it before (most would argue quality over quantity, and higher quantity usually ends up giving away more deaths anyhow).

Now, as I've seen in happen in this example, Team A loses a pub over ragequitting. So Team B has 3X benefit from the system's, or lack of system's actions. Team A is now down a man, has less-skilled members, and was most likely already losing in terms of score. What happened next_ Nothing, the game played through with Team A being short a person for the last few minutes, being picked off by a zerging death-ball of Team B. End score was something like 13-40 with team B winning.

Sometimes I just scratch my head and say wtf_

Edited by Culex, September 30 2013 - 06:45 PM.

[Pap]

TimeForAdventure, on September 30 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

h0B0, on , said:


[HWK]ZamboniChaos, on , said:

Now, as soon as a player on the larger team dies they will be switched immediately.I see 2 issues with this.
1. the potentially worst player on team stomp gets switched because he died first.
2. Team stomp is stacked and doesn;t die therefore no switcheroo

Looking forward to the teamswitch icon, especially if it is noticeable in the hud(but not too much)

Please read that answer and think through this one more time about your band aid solution. If you scrap the "auto switch" and just bring back the team switch we will be fine for now.
You have to be more careful about the stuff you are implementing. Seriously, you are scaring away so many new players with your experimental fixes/patches/updates

exactly. it feels like meteor has no idea what they are doing and after reading that post i got so many more questions cuz so many things are not well explained:
1. what is a "TEAM IMBALANCE" is it teams being 5vs6 for example or is there some other SMART thinking behind it_
2. how a newly joined player could change the game in 30 seconds_ or is it really all about number of players in a team_
3. if the newly joined player "balances" the game how long will it take the system to recognize an imbalance (if it is somehow now based on the players numbers only)_
4. in this new system, which player will be switched from the better team_ the best, the worst, the one that dies first_
5. in this new system, what about people in party_ will you break it_
6. in this new system, what if nobody dies from the better team because..the other team is simply worse.

there is a free game that is old as hell, SOLDAT. the game had all those balance, partying, team switching balanced in a matter of seconds and it was made by a couple of guys.. working in their homes SRSLY..much disappointed

[h0B0]

Pap, on September 30 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

1. what is a "TEAM IMBALANCE" is it teams being 5vs6 for example or is there some other SMART thinking behind it_
2. how a newly joined player could change the game in 30 seconds_ or is it really all about number of players in a team_
3. if the newly joined player "balances" the game how long will it take the system to recognize an imbalance (if it is somehow now based on the players numbers only)_
4. in this new system, which player will be switched from the better team_ the best, the worst, the one that dies first_
5. in this new system, what about people in party_ will you break it_
6. in this new system, what if nobody dies from the better team because..the other team is simply worse.

HWK will most likely never make their entire equation accessible to all, but i think it is fair to state that they are working on balancing both skill and numbers within the game.

They have mentioned in the past that they do not wish to split parties but might be forced to look into it. The pitfalls relating to the parties could easily be fixed with a party vs party "Q" and a seperate pub "Q".

I still think that autobalance is a flawed idea. It only ends up penalizing players when their opponents leave. I would rather have a system that looks towards ending the game after "X" time of unbalance. This would limit the frustrations of both team and give a better/clearer understanding of who won/lost.

[Amisto]

Please take pings into account, being on a team with 3 people that have 400 ping is pretty silly when enemy team is all under 150.

[Krellus]

Culex, on September 30 2013 - 06:44 PM, said:

I'm a bit surprised that currently it's just a matter of taking 30 seconds to take any action.

The question is, is it performing the right actions_ I've seen stacked, and I mean stacked games start from the get-go, and then 1-2 good players on the enemy team lose their pubs over ragequits, and then I see the game take one of our team's less experienced pubs INSTEAD of breaking up our 3-4 good player formation (and I'm not talking about parties). I think Jeff Magnum might remember this game which occurred on Prosk where he ended up 1v5 against us, lol.

The current system seems questionable, not so much about the length of time it takes.

Let me throw in another example which occurred in a game I was in. Game starts with 9 players. It sorts the players by giving the team with less players the more experienced players/higher overall average mmr as a team collective (Team B ), at least that is what is intended. So Team A=5, Team B=4. Understandable.

Now, a high mmr player joins the game, and gets put on Team B. So now not only was Team B better overall in terms of skill, but they've just picked up another strong player. Team B now definitely has the edge, if they haven't already had it before (most would argue quality over quantity, and higher quantity usually ends up giving away more deaths anyhow).

Now, as I've seen in happen in this example, Team A loses a pub over ragequitting. So Team B has 3X benefit from the system's, or lack of system's actions. Team A is now down a man, has less-skilled members, and was most likely already losing in terms of score. What happened next_ Nothing, the game played through with Team A being short a person for the last few minutes, being picked off by a zerging death-ball of Team B. End score was something like 13-40 with team B winning.

Sometimes I just scratch my head and say wtf_

but in this scenario, when a pub quits, shouldnt one of the good team guys get switched to the other team_ Ie it will be a 5v4 again, but this time the less experienced team has gained a more experienced player when their pub quit. Isnt that how its supposed to work - if the teams get uneven, the autobalancer will give the less experienced side the extra man. Which should help more often than not.

Edited by Krellus, September 30 2013 - 08:27 PM.

[EliteShooter]

nice ! looks very promising

[SpeeDemon]

I think there are other or better solutions for "team balance" that are being ignored.  I've been in plenty of team death matches where both teams are "balanced" 6 vs 6, each team having pretty equally skilled players and the match still results in a one sided domination.  The issue is that once a team gains forward momentum they are very hard to stop.  In a game where team work and staying together is most important it is very hard to regroup with your team once you have all died.  The team with momentum strolls around the map in a pack picking off the other team one by one as they spawn.  I have been on the receiving end of a blow out many times knowing that the friends in my party and I have the skill to win or at least make it a close match.  But as soon as one of us dies we re spawn clear across the other side of the map and somehow have to sneak past the enemy to regroup with our team.  I know it's not the perfect solution but if there was a system set up to re spawn near a team mate it may balance out game play.  There will always be unbalanced teams and some teams will get wrecked at times, but at least give them a fighting chance by letting them spawn near a team mate so they aren't easy prey.

Any thoughts_  Or am I the only one that sees this as an issue.

[Py687]

[HWK]ZamboniChaos, on September 30 2013 - 06:02 PM, said:

Now, let's talk about another change that we're working on. As it stands, players currently cannot switch teams at will. We are planning on implementing a system that will give players an option to voluntarily switch teams whenever the match becomes imbalanced. This system will effectively mirror the functionality of the "Switch Team" button. The difference is that the game will proactively present players with the option to switch teams, instead of having a button that simply sits on the UI.

This new feature is expected to be implemented in our next major content patch, which is currently targeted for the end of October.

I've already experienced being switched upon death ... but maybe that's because my player level was the highest on the winning team. Idk.

Also, I never used the "Switch Team" feature pre-Ascension, but I hope you guys are severely limiting the option to switch from a losing team onto a winning one. I know most Hawken players are good sports, but there are undoubtedly some who are in it to win, and that's all that matters to them, no matter how imbalanced the game is. It'd be a shame to see this feature abused. Again, I didn't play much pre-Ascension so these may just be mistaken worries.

And we can expect another major patch in one month's time_ That's amazing work, guys. Keep it up~ \(^ω^)/

Edited by Py687, September 30 2013 - 09:14 PM.

[davek1979]

I say ditch all these attempts to be more clever than a human brain. You will never come up with an equation that takes into account everything relevant and there will always be complaints about imbalance.
Give us a straight team switch button that works ALL THE TIME and let nature take its course.
It's worked well for the last 20 years, don't reinvent the wheel.

Edited by davek1979, September 30 2013 - 09:19 PM.

[KejiGoto]

Glad to see something is changing and soon because honestly the current system has been killing my drive to play with matches being all over the match. In my opinion it isn't fun to be on a team getting crushed nor is it any fun to crush a team. While I wish matches would be more evenly matched based on skill if we can at least get even numbers down that will hopefully cut back on 12 minutes of 2v6 because some players aren't good enough to actually want a challenge when they play an online multiplayer game.

The system isn't perfect and it's going to be flawed for some time. At least at this point we've got an idea on when we'll be able to switch teams to hopefully even stuff out even further though sadly that won't take into account those who live to pub stomp or just simply don't care.

[flimsy]

Can you just limit parties to playing with other parties_ I believe the overwhelming consensus is that solo players don't want to be in games with parties.

[defekt]

maschas, on October 01 2013 - 12:01 AM, said:

Can you just limit parties to playing with other parties_ I believe the overwhelming consensus is that solo players don't want to be in games with parties.

^ That.

The player base is too small to force Pre-made vs Pre-made without those parties sitting there for a long time waiting for other teams to show up in the queue.  Also, no sensible designer would ever allow Pre-made vs Pubes to occur; evidence for why is evident.

The Party system needs to be changed to only be Pre-made vs Pre-made -- if you want to party up you must accept that whilst the game is not well populated you will be sitting in the queue for a while -- or it should be shelved until the game is populous enough to cope with it.  To allow Pre-mades to go up against Pubes is sheer lunacy that will, if it hasn’t already, damage player retention.  The team balance routines will have zero impact upon this issue whilst parties are not allowed to be broken up by it.

[UnDeaD_CyBorG]

Can't parties just be calculated as +10% rating /player, or some such force multiplier_
Also, I commend any effort made into making teambalance more effective, though the problem hasn't been speed so far.

[Joebeans]

Thanks for the update.