What do you expect from smart balancing?

[Ghost Wolfe]

Well, I have read the comments other people wrote, I'm fairly experienced in PR, fairly new on the forums. But wouldn´t it be a nice suggestion if people get switched from squads with the least points, because im often in one of the top squads ( looking at points, kills-death ratio. And I get switched . While some shave tail louis squad with such bad kill death ratio is left untouched.

Just because they have a bad K/D it doesn't mean that they are trying. It could just be some newbies trying to learn the ropes or someone who got ambushed 1 too many times. Other than that, I agree with you.

Squads that are actually doing something or contributing to the game should stay together, those that just sit at main or do nothing should be switched.

[Spec]

I'm against making it depend on score. If one team is doing well, they deserve the victory. Just taking all the good players over to the losing side will just make many of them leave the game, and I don't think we want that. One should not be afraid of doing well.

Little idea: Coalition troops who killed civilians should have priority to get switched over to insurgents side in insurgency games. That might not only help the auto-balance problem, but could also help against civie-killing.

[tommytgun]

This is probably hard-coded, but maybe switching the people who are sitting around in main bases doing nothing and taking up slots first?

[Akagi]

- People who aren't in squads.
- Those with a minus score. They have probably lost an asset, so to balance this, they can lose assets on the other team.

But nah. I don't think there is a "balancing" to please everyone because in the end it will piss off someone. However it is interesting hearing some of the suggestions.

I agree, especially pay a lot of attention on those who have minus scores, its not that easy to get a minus score. I think this is one of the best solutions to make a choice, which people to switch to the other team, vica versa for both sides.

[maarit]

it would be good if you have been same side maybe hour or something,you dont get switched.

[X1 Spriggan]

I think its as simple as kicking the guy with the worst KD ratio. Usually there's always a guy with 2 kills 16 deaths.

[whatshisname55]

I agree, especially pay a lot of attention on those who have minus scores, its not that easy to get a minus score. I think this is one of the best solutions to make a choice, which people to switch to the other team, vica versa for both sides.

But then that's like anti-balancing, by switching them to the other team it's just making the other team even worse... of course it would definitely be nice for the team that they would be moved from.

[AfterDune]

it would be good if you have been same side maybe hour or something,you dont get switched.

Interesting thought. At least you don't suffer twice within a certain time-frame. Though I don't recall being switched twice on the same night..

[Teek]

I think its as simple as kicking the guy with the worst KD ratio. Usually there's always a guy with 2 kills 16 deaths.

I actually have to agree here, there really isn't an excuse for having a terrible K/D ratio, even if your medic, you shouldn't be dieing more than say 10 times and your squad shouldn't be letting you die that often.

Now couple that with a check for low point score to find the lone wolfs and plane waiters and you have yourself a winner.

An entirely seperate idea, is it possible to scramble about a 1/3rd of the server or swap a 1/3rd of the squad leaders every 2 or 3 rounds? This would especially help when one team is steamrolling

[killonsight95]

An entirely seperate idea, is it possible to scramble about a 1/3rd of the server or swap a 1/3rd of the squad leaders every 2 or 3 rounds? This would especially help when one team is steamrolling

no cuz then for poeple on mumble they have to swpa teams on mumble, or they'll just swap back.

[Teek]

no cuz then for poeple on mumble they have to swpa teams on mumble, or they'll just swap back.

Only on what, one server? And anyone who uses mumble knows perfectly well how to swap channels when nessisary, it only take all of 5 seconds after all.

As for the swapping back, if the teams are even or anywhere approaching even it would not be possible for the vast majority.

Perhaps the one or two best performing squads should be switched to better balance the talent as you rarely get two opposing squads that are equally matched

[WelshManDan]

I think its as simple as kicking the guy with the worst KD ratio. Usually there's always a guy with 2 kills 16 deaths.

I completely disagree.

Sometimes a player who cant shoot properly, yet is a better team player overall (teamwork, capturing points, destroying caches) who is a medic, would get switched due to dying and the team would then lose him.

I think it should be based on Individual player points, not KD.

E.g a player with a score of like 25 points, with 12 kills and 3 deaths, should get switched rather than a player with 600 points, and a KD of 3 kills and 12 deaths,

[Spec]

I don't think basing it on score is a good idea at all. As if switching a bad player to the losing team would help them.
It should mainly depend on how long he has played and how important his role it, not how well he does.

(In this context it might seem contradicting that I suggested switching civie-killers, but that's because of the asymmetry: That's a thing they simply can't do wrong on the insurgents side, and it's something even better players do, because it isn't even that bad for the team. A trigger-happy player is better off on the insurgent side than on the coalition side imo. That's nothing to do with skill or performance, just with the way each faction is played)

[Cassius]

Are you saying that those of us who have to work full time and do things other than sit in front of their computer playing games more than a once/twice a week shouldn't be a concern for the community or developers as a whole? Because I can't put a bunch of hours into the game and get to know players in a server, my enjoyment (or lack of it) shouldn't matter?

There are people that enjoy going up against a challenge (myself included sometimes), but winning a game every now and then sorta feels good, doesn't it?

Ganz und gar nicht, not at all. I play only once or Trice a week myself, usually on the weekend if I can. But I always try to play on the same server and I am active on the particular forum. Yes sometimes you might have to wait 3 minutes before a slot frees up, but becoming a regular on the server and playing with other people you played before, improves teamwork a lot and makes PR so much more fun. Actually most of the regulars are active on the weekend or a friday night on that particular server. For a random game with random people I would play something else. At least for me, PR just does not deliver for me in that particular department. If I cant have a good game with teamplayers PR is a big bore, unless you go sniping maybe, no offense to the devs.

[drkstr]

Being on either side of a steamroll is just not fun for me. I do not play on any server which encourages this kind of game play.

I have only seen a few suggestions that would actually do any balancing at all. Everyone seems to want this script to take all the "extra baggage" from the winning team and dump them off on the losing team. I mean, the reason why there is a problem in the first place is because the losing team has no cohesion and is rage quitting or switching to the other side, right? Most of these suggestions would only make that worse.


I would love to see an auto balance script that *actually* balances the teams. Doing so by score is probably the best way to go about it. Something at the end of the round would be good too I think (IE. a solid shake up based on scores). Although, that may be out of the scope of this module.


Just my 2 cents...

[Teek]

^
that does give me an intriguing concept, why does each team need exactly 32 players? You could have clan stacked team vs everyone else type of thing and have a much more challenging game for the clan players and more people who know what's going on on the other team, giving a more enjoyable experience and even distribution to both teams.

For example: 28 vs 36, but the team with 28 has two squads of clans.

Now, assets layouts are intended for 32 vs 32, bu that should only e a small price to pay.

[UKrealplayER666]

Personaly i think its fine the way it is, yes being switched mid round is a bit frustrateing, but if you know what your doing and youve been switched, start a new squad, get some guys in and lead a cohesive squad, maybe others will follow. this isnt a question of changing smart balance, its a matter of changeing the overall attitude of the community, afterall, one good squad in a team can meen victory, and if your leading it, all the better for your public image XD

[lucky14]

Is it possible to utilizie BF2's tracking system in PR (redirect it to a different server?) If yes, then a whole lot of possibilities open up.

[Murphy]

I disagree with a lot of posts concerning switching players with bad scores. Between rounds if the game could take the previous games scores and put players on opposing teams based on their overall rank. The players with odd numbers on one team and evens on the other. Not sure I'd like having to risk changing mumble channels all the time (i tend to crash when I alt tab out..ty pbuster), but I know it would make for more interesting teams.

As for mid-game balancing I think if the winning team is stacked the player with the highest score should be switched, otherwise I believe the balancing system is fairly solid.