Autobalance - bring your suggestions

[Camaris]

I think most of the new people believe that a heirloom makes a good player ;)

[v/onMega]

Oh they don't?... :-C

xD

Quirian, stop flirting, your filthy austrian widely spread ass belongs to HRE...

Btw, didnt u notice...Vic = red hair = a witch = upcoming barbeque? (lil roleplaying as the drunken king of bohemia)

About the balancing. It needs changes and I red plenty of proposals that all sound better than the current system.

Not bad for a witch (RP again)

[Kharn]

@chadz

This can be solved with simple science.


Every player has a starting persistent autobalance score of 1000

If you are on the winning team your score goes up by 1%.  Losing team, down by 1%
This will in time eventually balance the game.

---------------
Placing players on teams.
---------------

The plan is to give the player to the team with the least autobalance score total.
Unless that team is the one with less matching banners, in which case multiply the less-matching-team score by 1.2 before deciding which team to place on.



PS: Make autobalance scores available on website ( Ppl want to know theirs)

[Heroin]

@chadz

This can be solved with simple science.


Every player has a starting persistent autobalance score of 1000

If you are on the winning team your score goes up by 1%.  Losing team, down by 1%
This will in time eventually balance the game.

---------------
Placing players on teams.
---------------

The plan is to give the player to the team with the least autobalance score total.
Unless that team is the one with less matching banners, in which case multiply the less-matching-team score by 1.2 before deciding which team to place on.



PS: Make autobalance scores available on website ( Ppl want to know theirs)

Good ideas, except, with your +/- 1% deal, you wouldn't really have to make any special circumstances for the banner balance. Since people tend to play with the same people all the time, their % score, and thus their autobalance score, will already reflect the fact that they play with those people/banners.

[Diomedes]

I really like autobalance right now.  There is the rare 4-0 round but it seems good in most other cases.

EDIT:  Could we pick some IPs with a higher preference of being on opposite teams?  As in, Goretooth, Carebear, Leman, etc.  It's frustrating when the only foil for Leman's hammer is more peasants.

[Cepeshi]

I am running into games 5-1 or 5-0 quite often, but might be caused by the fact my gametime now usually happens during late evening/nights, early mornings, and if there are few decent clan members on one side, the battle is quite meh, but hey, happens, and sometimes i am lucky enough to be balanaced to the winning side:)

On the other hand: HRE, king of Bohemia? What the ?

(and yeah, i am from the Bohemian/Moravian region)

[Dom.Miguel]

Is it possible to tag people by theyre wpf points? Example: If you have more wpf points in arch you'll be tag as an archer and if you have any points in riding and/or ha you'll be tag cav and/or ha. Then making more balanced teams so no more one sided rangefest.

[El_Infante]

I have a suggestion. On the first round of each map, sort players by skill points in order, for example (1º Riding, 2º Powerdraw, 3º (PS+WM) / 2), 4º Athletics). Each team have similiar builds. If team A have 10 guys with riding 6, and team B have another 10 guys with riding 6, you won't see again 15 cav on a team and 0 cav on the other. The same on archers. You can do the same with athletics or powerthrow. On the second round, apply the formula of Kills/Lvl to change between teams the most "skilled" players to keep the game balanced.

This is compatible with banner balance. I think this idea will improve a lot playing balanced on battle and siege servers.

[HarunYahya]

I think , in battle servers autobalance is working .
In siege servers....
For siege i think this could work:
1)People should choose teams like Mount and Musket mod.
(If there is a free spot you can get in,if there is no free spot you can either wait or switch to other team.)
2)After you chose a team you cannot switch to other.
3)Divide max rounds per map to 2 , the number you got is the round number to switch all attackers to defenders and all defenders to attackers.

The current system is like anti multiplier . This system would work way better imho.

[Nasturtium]

Banner balance is good but sometimes it fucks up and makes teams unbalanced say 1 team having 90% of the archers/cav while the other team having very few.

 I played a round last night where on one team of 34 players, 28 were either archers, throwers or xbowmen (yes I counted) I know there is probably no way to take into account what class a player is, but is kinda gets screwy like this sometimes

[Beauchamp]

I played a round last night where on one team of 34 players, 28 were either archers, throwers or xbowmen (yes I counted) I know there is probably no way to take into account what class a player is, but is kinda gets screwy like this sometimes

i think you never can really balance all the players according to everything (banner, classes, kills, levels). you just have to choose something that will have a higher priority.

if i could choose i'd like to see the same banners fighting ALWAYS together including the 1st round. for the rest i don't care so much. even if a team where almost everybody would be with the same banner would be loosing and fighting against superior numbers, archers, cav...

[Beauchamp]

btw i quite like balance on siege servers, it keeps rebalancing every few rounds keeping people with the same banner together and switching the sides which is good (as not only the siege maps are unbalanced). why don't we have this kind of balance in battles?

[Keshian]

i think you never can really balance all the players according to everything (banner, classes, kills, levels). you just have to choose something that will have a higher priority.

if i could choose i'd like to see the same banners fighting ALWAYS together including the 1st round. for the rest i don't care so much. even if a team where almost everybody would be with the same banner would be loosing and fighting against superior numbers, archers, cav...

+1, love epic battles of all your clanmates agaisnt another team with 15 more guys to balance it out.

[Tydeus]

Pure statistics, why should the % chance to get a 10 rounds winning spree be any different than the one of a 10 times losing spree? (not counting in GTXs, ofc)

While some poor guy had 16 rounds of x1 in battle. I think it is fine in siege, you are able to get the x2 and x3 easier, but x5 is more scarce.

Both of these comments don't wholly take into account "statistics" as stated.

Twenty rounds of back and forth wins between each team is nowhere near as profitable to EVERYONE had both teams gotten a 10 round win spree. One averages a 1.5 multiplier while the other averages a 2.5 multiplier.
With the current system of multipliers, it's in everyone's interest to have teams as unbalanced and random as possible. That way every map becomes 1:4/0:4. When has anyone ever seen a team that consisted of only a clan? And I mean that specifically, not a team of 50-60% one clan, where the rest are randoms, because this(teams consisting of 50% clan members on each team) is optimal for xp/gold with the current system. This means that with every map change you have either a 1/3 or 50% chance to be on the "stacked" team, if you're not attached to others by a banner and assuming teams will be stacked.

I don't have a clan, the only people that use my banner are the extremely rare randoms who tend to be absolutely atrocious and the guys from my vent that play about 10% as often as I do. This should show that my opinion isn't biased favoring banner balance.

My point here is that
A) Banner balance specifically is fine aside from needing some minor tweaks.
B) Balance needs to also look at assists and where players have their wpf allocated or, not look at K:D at all (Thus increasing the random factor for teams at the start of each map, making them more imbalanced and nearly completely random with who gets on the stacked team, maximizing everyone's average multiplier).

Siege is a bit different because the majority of the maps are completely imbalanced and break further when people bring mass numbers of ladders. Spawns for siege tend put defenders nearly as far from the flag on their respawn as attackers, not to mention the static 30 second respawn timer rather than a timer that causes defenders to respawn in waves, like every good multiplayer ctf mode. Hell, even WoW battlegrounds have wave respawns.

[Tydeus]

accidental post, no idea how to delete it.