Autobalance - bring your suggestions

[Espu]

Right now, other than having fun, there's no reason to play on the siege servers.

Quote of the year.

I say we remove xp and gold gain from all servers.

[Wookimonsta]

other than having fun, there's no reason to play on the siege servers.

GO HAVE FUN!

[Leiknir]

I have never had more than 2-3 rounds on a x5 multiplier in sieges, where my record so far on battle is 16 rounds on a x5 multiplier.

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.


Ontopic: I don't know what to change, it feels good right now (playing mostly siege and small battle servers with friends). Seldom you get a map with 4:0. I remember when the DRZ did clanstack half of one team, they went 4:0 first, but every round another good player of their team got balanced over, the map did end with 5:4, was quite nice seeing everything working that nicely.
Ideas like sorting by cav/inf/ranged won't really work. I got 5 riding and a charger, am I cav now? Not really, I only use them on few maps or when playing alone and music turned on to the max. And you can't balance me after I spawned with or without a horse, I think there are plenty people that got riding just for fun out there.
The idea about sorting by strategus faction is a nice idea, but what are 2 buddies that just want to play together, yet are in different factions, going to do?

[Spawny]

I play exclusively on the siege servers, so having fun is all I do

It's just annoying when clanmates advance generations twice as fast in the same playtime. They can try more different builds/playstyles/etc. Especially when I have a feeling it's being caused by the autobalance which is what this thread is about.

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.

You have the same chances to get x2 as battle and I have yet to get a 10 round or more x1 streak in battle. Unless you are really unlucky and hit a few 1:5 or 5:0 maps while being balanced to the losing team all the time. But that never happened to me.
The average multiplier is a bit higher for battle.

[Kalam]

With banner balance, we can usually guarantee a x5 for an hour or more. o.O

To most of us, of course, that's awesome, but I believe it might be a problem for pubs.

[Leiknir]

You have the same chances to get x2 as battle and I have yet to get a 10 round or more x1 streak in battle. Unless you are really unlucky and hit a few 1:5 or 5:0 maps while being balanced to the losing team all the time. But that never happened to me.

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)

[Tears of Destiny]

I am  happy with the banner balance.

I want this, and only this at the moment: Break the Spectator mode where if you die, you can only spectate members of the same team you were on when you died.

[3ABP]

Answer me those 2 questions (especially b):

a) what do you think of current autobalance (either by banner or the normal one - although they work on the same principle)
...

After "banner ballance" options implementation all other balance options for me and my friends - are no more acceptable.

Current autobalance is a very good step to the right direction (banner balance)
Very good, but only as a first step. Here is need at least one more.

I (and my friends) very like this new options "autobalance by banner".
Now we just can't imagine - how it is to play without "banner balance"

But here is a some "bugs" or "not exactly correct working things".
(see below suggestions)

Answer me those 2 questions (especially b):
==========================================
...
b) how exactly do you think a proper autobalance for cRPG should work? you can make up any variables you want, bringing a formula doesn't hurt either.

First of all - It would be nice to see a current Formula (not a joke).

Let’s define some variables and some rules (what developing formula must lead):
(Btw here will raise questions that could apply not only to the current problem, but also to a wider class of problems.
Such issues will be highlighted in blue.

Team_X (Team_A and Team_B) = quantity of players in one team (A or B)
TotalPlayers = Team_A+Team_B = total players in both teams
Banner_X = quantity of players with one banner on the server (Banner_HRE or Banner_STR or Banner_Merc e.t.c.)
RoundDmgByPlayer_A = Damage dealt by player "A" to the enemy team in one round. If it can be stored and displayed at the end of the round - would be nice.
MapDmgByPlayer_A = Damage dealt by player "A" to the enemy team in all round on the current map. If it can be stored and displayed at the end of the round and at the end of the map -  would be nice.
PlayerWeightGlobal_A = "weight" of the "A" player (global, in long run_. Weight = helpfulness (correct word?) of current player to the team.
It can be as just a simple variable = kill\death, but also can be a complex variable = function of more than 2 (kill and death) variables.
Overall weight on very long time period (whole player\character live - counted from birth or from "rebirth" if it is a "child" ).
PlayerWeightLocal_A = "weight" of the "A" player on the current map. This variable added to avoid big counting process and wasting resources on that.
At the every map end - all info about player (doesn't matter exactly what info - just K\D or much more) sending to the main DB and PlayerWeightGlobal_A(old) recalculating with just received from server PlayerWeightLocal_A. And when new map starts - on the new map now will be showed on old PlayerWeightGlobal_A, but recalculated. So we can use 2 different variables to make a team’s more balanced - "long run" variable and "short run".
It is very good, because players can be very weak at start of playing by this character (some weeks ago), but if he is very good playing right now - we will count this too (I mean this will effect on team balancing too).

Faction_X_player_A - as today every person may choose any banner (and in fact all player may just come to server to see what are 2 biggest faction in current game and just to change own banner to one of the "biggest faction in the game" banner, and here will be only 2 ^) different banner on the server... and in this case "banner balance" will not work as designed.... so - to avoid this - read next...). So - we must have an info - does this player "A" with banner "X" really belongs to Faction "X". Before this BTW must be implemented "cRPG faction engine", what allow to players to send a request to join to faction, and allow to faction leaders to accept or reject this request. In this case only real faction members will be recognized as "players group", and "fake" members will be not counted (as it must be).


Here is 3 main procedures\algorithms oriented to split players\group_of_players into 2 teams.
1. Before first round - "first roster" splitting.
2. Some parts of algorithm may working at the every round end counting from the 2nd)
3. Full algorithm working only between round 1 and 2 - to let all player are able to join and all will be counted

=================================================
Lets start from this, because it is a "main" and other are only part of this.
Algorithm of splitting players between teams (banner balance oriented):
(3.Full algorithm working only between round 1 and 2 - to let all player are able to join and all will be counted).

Full Algorithm

(click to show/hide)

Step 1. Count (calculate) a faction count (how many) in current map, define what faction exactly presented on the server, define faction members list
Go through all players and if two or more players have the same banner "X" (and they really are in this "X" faction) - then faction X is presented.
Faction with only one member on the server ATM - counted as single player (not a faction player).
As result - there are:
- a list of faction what must be taken into account in splitting process (Faction list = {Faction_HRE, Faction_STR, Faction_Merc} - for example)
- a list of players in every faction (just to remember - REAL members, not just a "temporary banner takers").
- a list of factionless (counting as factionless) players

{
{Faction_HRE_player_X1, Faction_HRE_player_X2},
{Faction_STR_player_Y1,Faction_STR_player_Y2,Faction_STR_player_Y3,Faction_STR_player_Y4},
{Faction_Merc_player_Z1,Faction_Merc_player_Z2,Faction_Merc_player_Z3}
+ factionless players
{FactionLess_N1,FactionLess_N2,....FactionLess_M}
}

Step 2.Calculate or receive from DB every player (faction and "factionless") global weight.
Here is very important question -we may count first round results (calculate and count local weight) and we may not count.
As for me (by me) it must NOT be counted. Because ATM some players in first round (I mean "independent" players) trying
to choose winner command by special behavior - for example to kill many players or do not kill (even if they can)....
If it is needed (isn't clear) I can explain it later.

Step 3. Split larger faction by the teams.
Here is must be not a solid (one) function for all cases, but complex function what takes into account real (%) part of faction and factionless players,
number of big, medium and small (are numbers are not constant, but depends of current server players count) factions and etc.
Mainly - it is so:
Here is a 10 faction (1st faction biggest, 10th - smallest).
So 1st faction goes to Team A, 2nd to team B. E.t.c.
But it doesn't mean what 1,3,5,7 will be in Team A and 2,4,6,8 in Team B. 100% not so.

This procedure must be something like "Cluster analysis" or "mathematical analysis" with idea how to divide some amount of "clusters" of players
with own (cluster) weight  - in 2 teams and do not "brake" clusters and lets teams weight will be equal or not (depends of % factionless and faction players in total players count).
It must be complex process (and it can be implemented by many (all will be correct) ways).
If it will be needed to write specific\concrete\particular program code for this - it will be done.
ATM- it is idea how to. Implementation is only 2nd or 3rd problem. Main is idea.

This stem split or ALL faction by teams (all of faction players) or most of them.
I mean most of faction will be in one team. 9 of 10 factions will be solid 100%.
And may be only 1 or 2 (depends of roster) will be spitted. But IMHO it will be rare.

It will be iteration process.

Step 4. Now we have two teams with some factions inside.
And now we putting factionless players (depends of players weight) into the Team A or B.
And at the end Teams weight must be the same.
BUT.
If here is a problem to put factionless players in both team and receive equal teams,
then go to stage "3" and do faction balance  so - let it will be NOT equal (for example 45:55 weight of A:B).
And then again stage "4" (this stage).

This will be iteration process. If needed of course.

But it will NOT TAKE a lot or processor time or memory. It only looks complex in many words (in plain text), computer code will be easy and simple.
And fast (for today PC's arrange and split in 2 pieces 100 players by some criteria - isn't a job at all...)

Main algorithm ended.

P.s. it is important - determination who is faction and factionless players doings only between round 1 and 2.
All players who come later will be counted as factionless due to limitation of calculating process.

But, if this process (algorithm) will be really fast and will not be a problem due to processor time and etc.,
determination may be done every round. But personally I like an idea to do it once pro map.
It is easy to program.

=================================================

What must be done after 3rd and all next rounds
2. Some parts of algorithm may working at the every round end counting from the 2nd)

(click to show/hide)

First of all - this algorithm will work (frequency) depends of algorithm settings, and players will be moved from one team to other or:
A. every round (are possible to be moved - not will be moved in 100%).
B. every 2nd round.

In case "A" to move or not to move will be defined by "tolerance limit" between teams.
It's needed to avoid every round "jumping" players (by algorithm, not by himself) between teams.
In case "B" this "tolerance limit" can be a little lower. But with the point like in "A".

Step 1.
Because some of faction players may leave server - check - if faction members still the same and balance between factions is still the same (inside "tolerance limit"). If yes - go next, if not (if it is REALLY big difference) - here are some ways: rebalance all server or compensate it by factionless only players.
In case when it is need to rebalance all faction again (due to dramatically players count change) -
this step is almost the same as "Step 1" from "Full algorithm".
Step 2.
Taking into account PlayerWeightLocal_A (every players weight on this map) - rebalance factionless players by teams while faction players (their place) are frozen.
This step is almost the same as "Step 4" from "Full algorithm".
P.s.
It is very important to increase "tolerance limit" after every balancing to let be next:
first balancing (after 3rd or 4th round) - 5\10\15 players are moved.
second balancing (after 4th or 6th round) 2\5\7 players are moved
third balancing  0\1\2 are moved. I think my idea is clear.
Digits are just for example to small\medium\large populated server.

=================================================

1.Before first round - "first roster" splitting.

(click to show/hide)

This step is almost the same as "Step 4" from "Full algorithm".

That’s all.

A concrete realization (the exact values and other details) are not important.

[Devilize]

Answer me those 2 questions (especially b):

a) what do you think of current autobalance (either by banner or the normal one - although they work on the same principle)

I think banner balance works well overall, however, could use some work.

b) how exactly do you think a proper autobalance for cRPG should work? you can make up any variables you want, bringing a formula doesn't hurt either.

• Method of considering skill point allocation

              When the balance system doesn't seem to work giving way for map scores of 4 - 0 before the next map rotation I find in large part that the team that won had a flood of a particular class that suffocated the enemy team. whether it be archers or cavalry I find that if the teams do not have a balanced ratio of classes and the conditions are right (cavalry map) one team could end up being slaughtered.

              Is there a way we can have the stats checked so that if 10 players have points into, for example, cavalry the majority of them are not placed on the same team. Yet at the same time keep the priority below banner balance.

• Method of considering Long-term K/D

              I've been given info, not from you chadz, but from people that work with you that player lvl is considered for balance. I think in some ways that's ok, however, in a game that puts more focus on player skill over player lvl I'm not sure that balancing lvl's would do much of anything. After all there are several players at lvl 15 that could put the beat down on a lvl 30 and many of them do. I also don't think that K/D alone can balance the system but it may be more accurate when added as a varible along with others.

              Instead of just considering the current K/D during the map rotation perhaps an added variable of long-term K/D pulled from the web host.

• Method of considering Assists

              I understand that since the latest taleworlds patch it may be possible to add a new stat, assists. Now that damage instead of just deaths can be recorded. If this is truly available the assist stat could also benefit the balance system as, namely, the archer class makes its living off of assist that are unaccounted for.

• Method of considering clan tag

               This is kind of an alternative method to banner balance. There are obvious cons to this method but the pros are that people cant switch their banner on the fly to play with a clan that is the majority within a server. The balance system considers the player's first three letters and groups it to player names that alphabetically match those three letters. I'm aware people could just change their name but I see that as being few and far between.

[SteelDevil]

another way is to put the ppl in classes on the site means let em choose infantry cavalry or archers
and have restrictions for these classes on the servers, means for instance 10 archers each side 10 cav 10 infantry

and in order to prevent the users from choosing the wrong class u wont let archers and infantry spawn with a horse, infantry wont be able to have bows

also give the 3 classes different colours in their names and game list.

that way at least u wont have 30 archers against 30 infantry for instance :d

[Heroin]

a.) I think the banner balance is awesome. The standard auto-balance could use a bit of tweaking.
b.) I think the current formula is good, but I think it would be better if it was tweaked slightly with the following adjustments:

I think it would be a VAST improvement to auto-balance if it didn't ONLY take level and K:D into account. If you can track wins:losses, I think pairing the current system with a 1:1 win/loss system would be ideal, and make auto-balance function very well. There are some types of players that tend to make their team win without having a high K:D ratio themselves(ie, archers that constantly stun enemies who then get killed by someone else.)

I think if the above system were implemented, we'd see much closer matches.

NOTE: If we DO get an autobalance system in place that works so well as to be nearly even every time, I'd suggest we alter the XP system. It's a serious grind to get to level 30 at x1 or x2, which would be the average if autobalance worked as intended.

[Immolarian]

Team balance is fine at the moment if you ask me.

[Cyclopsided]

With banner balance, we can usually guarantee a x5 for an hour or more. o.O

To most of us, of course, that's awesome, but I believe it might be a problem for pubs.

Yeah BRD (or any other coordinated group) takes a server for literally hours of x5 streaks unless an opposing clan shows up or the autobalancer breaks us apart, but that doesn't happen for very long. There are a lot of players who jut put our banner on when we are in and ride the train to 5x land. I think my current record is a 2 and a half hour X5 streak (at no point did I lose that multiplier) on the siege server, and I don't play that often.  I have only retired once after the new system was put in place. A normal day of CRPG consists of: Get on and get a 5x streak for an hour, get balanced away and lose it, get it back again for another hour. Repeat.

The current system is kind of flawed, but no matter what you do there will be some way that people will take an edge in the calculations over others. Having banner balance is absolutely amazing to be able to play with your friends and all -- but it doesn't guarantee it & it is a bit abusable with people who put on a winning clan's banner. The current balance system with banner balance favors small groups of elite players working together. period. Large clans can pull it off but to less of an extent -- they get balanced apart often. But a small number of say, 7 players or less, they will pretty much be guaranteed to be together. The random non-clanned player when a dominating force is in a server is relinquished to almost always having x2 or x1. It must really suck to play this game without competent friends unless you are some sort of beast that always goes 10-1.

I understand that we should be rewarded for doing well but it seems mean that everyone has to suffer such low XP gain while I'm almost guaranteed 5x for playing well with my friends. I honestly support a higher base XP gain (see: 2000 base EXP rather than 1k) but winning only makes it go to a 2x multiplier, and for it to not go any higher. As it is now I have hours of x5 when we play so if you made this change I personally would be getting less. However, the normal player would be getting more and the incentive to win IS STILL HUGE. This current system is mean to the average public player.

There really needs to be an internal 'buddy' or 'group' system in place where you can, for example, put in friends you want to play with or something. However, that would be quite a project to make so it won't happen. if you make the above change to the base EXP then the latter would be less important as banner balance wouldn't be some OP crazy thing. I like playing with my friends but this is... agh. I don't like feeling bad when we are killing them already.

[MrShovelFace]

http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,1981.0.html

there u go chadz

basics of the principle is a self adjusting timer that finds, adjusts, and saves the optimal times for individual maps

(siege maps and possibly other game modes in the future)


This system would allow castles of both small and large sizes to be put on one server

[Toffi]

I think the banner- balance works fine, that#s one of the good new things that you can finally play together with your friends. If you lose or not, it's just more fun.