Autobalance - bring your suggestions

[Torp]

i like the banner balance, but i hate the fact that auto-balance only kicks in after first round.
this is what happens 3/5 times:
team 1 wins
auto-balance makes the other team far better
team 2 wins
team 2 wins
team 2 wins
team 2 wins
team 2 wins

then people say its balanced cause both teams have one, but in all the rounds one team was better than the other.
i know that this gives us better multipliers, but i would like some close rounds that end with 1 vs 1 and stuff like that

[Cyclopsided]

Ok, just putting this out here.
I really do prefer playing with my friends over all other things and I just don't want to somehow be punished for playing well with them. I currently am ok with the system now although it is really erratic with player distribution on one team vs another.
For example, it is normally pretty close with player count, say, 30 vs 33. Then, with balancing it will either end up 31 vs 32 with all the first-round-high-K/D players mashed up OR it will end up 27 vs 36. It is not consistent one way or the other. Now, most people are lobbying towards the even player count teams and they have their reasons. However, I very much prefer the uneven player count teams (exaggerated example: 20 vs 35) and let me explain why.
Here is a scenario that is really common when I play with my clan members that happens all the time. We start off and thanks to team work and playing well as a group and playing smart we will beat a lot of players and have a high K/D. We will then get split up to opposing sides due to K/D balance and be punished for using teamwork. We have fun working together but if we do too well we can't play together. We will get split up so that we can't use teamwork anymore and we turn into the random pub slashers everyone else is and the game is less fun. The game ends up really close and more fun in the high player count vs lesser player count scenarios as more players on both teams are banner balanced together with their friends. The higher the disparity there is often more teamwork and it adds a really nice dynamic to the game you often don't get to see.

Ah well, This is an appeal just saying "don't punish team play" and that is it. Whatever changes get made, keep teamwork in mind. Thanks!

[EponiCo]

I'd really like a class based system.
VictheBear's idea looks good, but you could go another way. If and only if he picks archer as class he gets access to bows. He can have them in inventory but he just doesn't get to pick them. If he said his class is infantry he has to relog.
Side effect - people can't switch every round, while technically having the skill they just didn't take the item with them on campaign. They could still pick up stuff, though.

[Vibe]

I'd really like a class based system.
VictheBear's idea looks good, but you could go another way. If and only if he picks archer as class he gets access to bows. He can have them in inventory but he just doesn't get to pick them. If he said his class is infantry he has to relog.
Side effect - people can't switch every round, while technically having the skill they just didn't take the item with them on campaign. They could still pick up stuff, though.

That would also kill hybrids, wouldn't it?

[weight]

Banner balance is the best thing that has happened to this mod. The ability to be able to play with your friends on the same team is what makes this mod so fun.

[Prpavi]

Banner balance is the best thing that has happened to this mod. The ability to be able to play with your friends on the same team is what makes this mod so fun.

agreed, banner balance is a must, but sometimes the balance works in mysterious ways.

often banner balance works in a way that it stacks same banners (clans) on one side and randoms on other, witch leads to 5-0, 5-1 maps pretty regulary.

if there were a way to balace the balance...

[Delro]

(click to show/hide)

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)

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.

I hope chadz takes the time to parse the google translated grammar here. This method is well thought out and I believe it would be absolutely ideal, even were it not to take into account things like assist damage.

[Ganon]

I'll contribute with a small suggestion.

First off, banner balance is good but it should be limited by opposing two different clans. That means, if you put x players in team A with the same banner, you need to put y players in team B with the same banner as well (to be clear, banner x is different from banner y). If a clan has too many players, they will be balanced normally between the two teams. This way if there's only one zerg clan, if won't be one clan vs all on a public server which equals pubstomping and isn't balanced by definition.

The proper balancing must take into account a few things to calculate the weight, an algorythm has been suggested already, but i'll make my own suggestion. Take into account: level, equipment, character's k/d ratio, and also the k/d ratio in the current map. If he has 0 kills, he doesn't equal to 0 value. Should be something like this ((character KD + map KD)/2)*level_equipment_value. The last variable must be calculated and adjusted after some tests, you can start with something like level * equipment cost/1000.

Then you distribute players evenly, which means you sort them by strength and place one in each team (this is the maior flaw of current autobalance, it doesn't do it), and after this, the algorythm can do some last adjustements (like shifting players, as i'll explain now), this is before the first round. Later on players can be switched after 3 rounds (no switching before that), switching is easy, calculate the difference between the teams and switch a player (or more players) worth that difference, from strongest to weakest. Repeat every 3 rounds. The formula can be adjusted, for example we may want map kd (which is kd in the current map) to count more than character kd, or equipment count more than level. Only live testing can tell what's best here. We may also want kd to count more than level+equipment factor (which is of course easy, for example multiply the kd factor by 3, divide the level_equipment_value by 2). So the more complex formula might look something like this:

(3*((character_KD/2 + map_KD*2)/2))*(level_equipment_value/3)

with
character_kd = kd ratio of the character (as reported in the crpg website)
map_KD the kd ratio of the player in the current map (will be 0 at start of course)
level_equipment_value could be something like level/3 * equipment_cost/500

As i said testing will suggest the correct formula. I've bolded what i think is the maior flaw of the current autobalance and my suggestion to fix it. The formula can be written in a shorter form, but i suggest to leave it like this for better readability. It's easier to adjust when every constant has a meaning.

[Khalim]

I dont see the use of autobalance.

Why not just implement an multipliere of 2.2? This would just be the same.

I hate when I join a team in the first round, then win and then everything chances so I lose every other round..

[Beauchamp]

There are couple of problems with the banner(balance)

- 1st - if sbdy from the "banner team" scores high in the first round, he is usually switched to the other team. its stupid, i even tell ramess on ts: "Please stop killing or you won't again play with us!". even more stupid is that i'm serious about that... that sux.
- 2nd - very often happens that people from 1 banner team are continually switched to the other team. so after round 1 we all play together but when the score is 3:3 we have the same ammount of clanmembers in 1 team and the same ammount in the other team - this is absolutely stupid.
- 3rd - the problem with the balance also is, that some maps are just not balanced at all. i like the siege balance that changes you from team to team sometimes: i often get switched from attacking to defending side. i think for battles this should be introduced too, because most of the maps aren't and never will be equal for both sides. i experienced a few times when i kept my x5 for more than 10!!!! times!!! mathematicaly its almost impossible, however it happened (because maps aren't balanced and i got lucky to start at the "right" side)
- 4th - if some team is loosing 4:0 the balance doesn't put this to much into consideration imo - i saw many 4:0 maps (obviously those that benefit 1 team more than the other one just because their archers can camp village rooftops etc...) where in the last round the teams were quite equal. the balance imo puts bigger stress on K:D ratio of players and tries to keep it equall than on the score of the game.
- 5th - for some reason balance also tries to keep the ammount of players equall, this is stupid. lets bring on more variety and introduce such a balance, that wouldn't care so much about equalling the actual ammount of players - i think such a balance would bring even more diversity and fun to the game and most of all would be easier to script. because lets admit one thing: it is almost impossible to keep ammount of players equall, while having similar k:d ratio for all and having all banners grouped together at the same time while also considering the actual score of the game

my rough idea is:
- (banner)balance should be done at the start of every round - the (banner)balance should also switch people to different sides (also on battle maps)

- the formula could be like this:
1) the biggest team with the same banner goes to loosing team
2) the 2nd biggest team with the same banner goes to winning team
3) to the winning team there is added another team(s) to equall it out according to K:D ratio
4) etc etc etc...

if there would be to many of the same banners (like closing to 50 percent) the banner balance should be auto disabled and people split only according to K:D ratio

[VicTheBear]

Vics suggestion doesn't work because there are people that mix up classes my main is used as cav, or on foot from time to time with xbow, sometimes mounted xbow. I don't wanna choose a new class every time 

Still you are the most beautiful girl in cRPG right after Balton honey 

You could still hybrid; choosing the class doesn't effect anything other than balance so you could still use whatever weapons you could equip to begin with, it's not like if you chose archer class you wouldn't have a melee; if you are a hybrid you would just choose the one you think you're best at or have the most wpf points in.

Sounds like a good idea, but think about it: Why would you ever want to chose cav there, as it would lead to less other cav in your team...


But another thing I noticed: The modifier distributor should check for fair teams at the start of the round, not after. It's quite common on small servers not to get your modifier if you made some enemies GTX.

I suppose this is a pretty good point...
It's not like riding is wpf, so you could really just choose whatever class your wpf is and then the perfectly balanced teams would be unbalanced  D:

OHGODTHERE'SNOSUCHTHINGASPERFECTAUTOBALANCEWHYYYYYWHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY /cry

no really
/cry

[Quirian]

Marriage? @ Vic?

[VicTheBear]

Marriage? @ Vic?

Jeez, I'm not even worth a PM?

[Quirian]

I wasn't sure if mail was gonna make it over the sea to you, so I just made this lousy forum post.

I count that as a yes, amirite?

[Malaclypse]

As a player new to multipliers and generations in cRPG but not to the mod itself, I would personally like to see generation/number of heirloomed items being used as a factor in team balancing. People who have max heirloomed armor/weapons etc are well and good; they played long enough to earn those things. However, if one team has a significant number of players who have such gear while the other does not, it can be very frustrating. Each team needs some sort of comparable "champion pool" in terms of the heirloomed gear advantage. Just the thoughts of one peasant.