9 replies to this topic

[Titanus]

so i was thinking today as i played a siege game (one of MANY that end this way) where our team had someone that left/dc'ed very early on, which of course made the game unbalanced after that point(hit for hit everything seemed equal with 5 players on each side before that).  so after that the other team had a man advantage and that made all the difference when it came to keeping the aa or trying to take it back.  

 

so my idea is that when this happens the first player that dies on the man advantage team will be stuck in the start zone until one of two things happen.  someone else on their team dies, which means that person will now be stuck in the SZ and the other player is free to leave OR the other team gets a new player to even things up.  either way that man advantage is a big deal even if they cant shoot worth a damn, just standing on the aa means the other team will never be able to keep their ship from being shot down or shooting down the other teams ship

 

let me know

[Rainbow_Sheep]

Hmm, I'm not sure that stopping people from playing the game is the solution to unbalanced teams. I think MM should just prioritise games that have a player disadvantage and have less priority on matches that don't. This might already be a feature in the MM, but maybe the weighting should be fiddled with, IDK.

[Superkamikazee]

I think it would be more beneficial to manipulate ship air time when there's a player advantage or disadvantage. By that I mean maybe the ship takes more damage or resists damage, depending on the situation, a team is a player or two up, or down. 

 

I also feel ships need a timer in general. Siege matches get extremely one sided more often than not. Perhaps there needs to be a EU usage gauge like a fuel gauge on the ship to limit how long it can be in the air destroying the enemy baase. In my situation the ship eventually runs out of fuel to reset the match back to gathering EU. I noticed many times that a team struggling to capture the AA is often not attacking at full strength due to respawns being off from each other and a lack to communicating effectively in battle (no voice chat). This "reset" could possibly give a team a chance to gather up with more ease to get a flow going again vs dying, respawning, and essentially attacking one at a time and getting slaughtered by the AA defending team.

[Rainbow_Sheep]

I think it would be more beneficial to manipulate ship air time when there's a player advantage or disadvantage.

 

Yeah, that's a much better idea.

[CounterlogicMan]

A man advantage in Hawken is very punishing. As rainbow sheep said, people will not like being kept from playing the game just because someone else has left. I'd like to see mmr scaling bots subbing into open spots in games. Maybe set them to follow teammates just to keep them from feeding. The scaling of difficulty is already in the game with coop tdm.

[Pastorius]

This is actually quite novel idea  but it would no doubt lead to more people leaving the game as they want to play HAWKEN rather than sit in a lobby.

 

It would probably end up more of a vicious circle than we already have. By that I mean that people leave games because they perceive them to be unbalanced looking for a more balanced game thus throwing the last server into more imbalance and probably wrecking the next one too.

 

The thing is that there are many more factors than MMR that can account for the throwing of a siege game.  Basic knowledge of the game, tactics, teamwork, mech choice and load-outs are huge factors in Siege. A perfectly balanced MMR game can be thrown by any one of them.

 

A lot of players don't stop an think why it is they might be loosing. They just cry imbalance game, blame the matchmaker and quit the server. The fact is that the match making system can work and does. We use it often in our private servers. The big issue is that the matchmaker has no chance of working at all if a). The server isn't full and b). People constantly quit.

 

Of-course, the other thing that the matchmaker can't balance is experience and communication. If you have one team with a party of 3 using TeamSpeak. You're going to struggle full stop. 

 

There really is no quick fix for this. People are impatient, rarely look beyond the fact they aren't winning and move to try again somewhere else.

 

Great that you are thinking about this though Titanus ;)

[Superkamikazee]

Yeah, that's a much better idea.

 

Pffft, and your bright MM idea is? The only problem with MM is player population. At peak hr last night there were only a dozen or so populated servers, a quarter of which were 3 star, with 2 being siege, the rest were TDM (North America). What changes to MM will improve Siege balance when there's limited player pool, and even more limited looking for a siege match?

[Rainbow_Sheep]

Pffft, and your bright MM idea is? The only problem with MM is player population. At peak hr last night there were only a dozen or so populated servers, a quarter of which were 3 star, with 2 being siege, the rest were TDM (North America). What changes to MM will improve Siege balance when there's limited player pool, and even more limited looking for a siege match?

But I wasn't even being sarcastic...

Edited by Rainbow Sheep, 22 April 2015 - 12:42 PM.

[EM1O]

The leveling by fill-in bots avg at human team-members mmr is functional, as witnessed by the constant flow of players through the Coop-TDM mode.

The burn on that will probably be along the line of "If I wanted to play with/against Bots, I'd have gone to Coop."

You can 't please everyone. Siege, with its faults, is no different from other categories of play, for which similar or divergent proposals have been made. The solutions don't involve diddling with the basic Siege mode itself, nor by jacking with the MM (barring eliminating it): they are in the population base or lack thereof, of this game.

But we all know that

:)

[KilleR_OrigiNs]

Redacted.

Edited by KilleR_OrigiNs, 30 April 2015 - 09:59 PM.