ET Server Suggestion Including /scores when managing teams

[Cross Marian]

Currently, when you want to join a team, if they have the same amount of players, you can pick either. If one team has 1 extra player, you can only pick the other.

My suggestion would be to add a constraint based on the /scores.

 

Example:

If the scores are (in number of kills) 170 for Axis and 90 for Allies. Then, the game will calculate that Allies need to have 2 extra players to reach an equilibrium.

What will be the consequences:

> So, if I'm in Spectator, and Allies have only 1 extra players, I will only be able to join Allies and not Axis.

> Once Allies have 2 extra players, someone in Spectator, will be able to join either Allies or Axis.

> If Allies have 3 extra players, then someone in Spectator will only be able to join Axis.

 

Once the /scores reach a more reasonable level (for example, 200 Axis and 180 Allies), then the game will go back to regular settings where one team can only have 1 extra player.

 

Limits:

1) Technical limit.

Is it possible to implement such process to the servers?

 

2) Decision limit.

If it is technically possible, we need to decide what should be considered as a reasonable /scores ratio, and what is not. And for that, we should take into account the followings:

 

> Should it be a ratio? For example, if Axis have killed 25% more than Allies, then the game gives advantage to Allies (2 extra players as explained above).

Problem: at the start of the map, if the first 3 kills are from Axis, the ratio will already be off-balance. Ratio works best after a certain time, mid map and after.

> Should it be in brute numbers? For example, if Axis have killed 100 and Allies 20, then the game gives advantage to Allies (2 extra players as explained above).

> Which team is defending. The defending team usually has a better score.

> What map is being played. Some maps have chockepoints which create bigger differences in /scores.

 

 

 

I know that us admins and regulars are on the servers to help out with team balance. And I know that a game is never perfect 100% of the times.

This is just an idea I had after reading the post of a regular on Silent1 (cf. link below). It's open for debate and criticisms

 

 

 

Edited April 29, 2020 by Cross Marian

[LazyHippo]

Its a very nice suggestion imo, /scores gives you plenty of info at the actual teams and how they have develop themselves at map, once a min or two have elapsed.

Like you said some aspects should be looked at. I think technically is possible, all admins just need to know about this admin tool.

Now on the decision limit you have different scenarios to see like you said, killings are good to take into account but what about damage? Its also important.

I always check: kills, damage and final score of both teams. You would be surprised how much maps won on damage but not on kills totals with balanced teams.

Now I understood from you giving +2 players to one team because is low in kills? That has happened but its a very rare plan, seen it few times.

 

Overall I see is a good topic to talk about, specially when it comes to share it with new recruits or actual members, should be a skill polished in time.

 

 

 

[ktg0000]

I don't see the difference between the first and second option. But if there's a difference, I don't see how it would work. How would we use only brute numbers?

I think the best option is to use some kind of ratio (not only kills).

 

7 hours ago, Cross Marian said:

Ratio works best after a certain time, mid map and after.

I would use ratio to calculate the certain time too. For example, after 20% of the time has elapsed. I think 10% is too short on a little map. Beerrun is 15 mins, so 10% of the time  is only 1.5 min, while 20% of time is 3 mins. And on a bigger map. like oasis, 20% of the time is 6 mins.

 

7 hours ago, Cross Marian said:

What map is being played. Some maps have chockepoints which create bigger differences in /scores.

What do you mean by this? If it's create bigger differences, then the server let the players join the weaker team.

[Sunno]

I would say it's a good idea, but it is more complex and I'd still prefer to rely on people's decision. Before I balance the teams, I check /scores few times, to see if the gap between scores is extending, stable or decreasing and when I play I try to feel if it's unbalanced, like you said, there are some parts of map, where it's harder for one on another team push/defend. Sometimes one team focuses more on obj than kills and, despite worse scores, it wins map.

There are also variables like respawn times, players that joined recently (I know not many look at these, they're included in game sense, but I think it should be considered, when we try to estimate size of unbalance (hope you understand this part ^^).

 

Another thing is how to calculate how many players team needs, make a formula, compare result and accept that e.g  for each multiplicity of 50 the team needs 1 more player or prioritize some variables over other and decide if teams are unbalanced (e.g kills are more important, so when the difference is too big, lock one team, if not, compare damage, etc.).

 

As I said, overall this issue is interesting (and maybe worth considering), for sure it's not easy to decide how to balance teams (If we talk, that it should be automatic) and I don't know how about possibility of implementing that (I guess it should be possible).
 

Off-topic
I felt like I was writing an essay on my english lessons ^^

 

[Cross Marian]

@Sunno haha your essay is well done then 👍 and I agree with what you said ^^

 

Just wanted to point out that no suggestion will replace the role the admins play in balancing teams. As long as there are a couple of admins present on the server and who pay attention to the teams, things will be more or less fine.

This suggestion, if it is one day implemented, would just be a help when there are no admins around on a server or to make the jobs of admins a little more easy sometimes. It will not replace what we do.

 

1 hour ago, Sunno said:

Another thing is how to calculate how many players team needs, make a formula, compare result and accept that e.g  for each multiplicity of 50 the team needs 1 more player or prioritize some variables over other and decide if teams are unbalanced (e.g kills are more important, so when the difference is too big, lock one team, if not, compare damage, etc.).

That's an good idea.

I just think that there are too many variables. It would be too complicated to take them all into account at first. So we should maybe start with something more simple, like you suggested above.

If we only take into account number of kills and/or damage (like LazyHippo said), and add a rule that says, if Axis have 50 more kills than Allies, we give advantage to Allies, and someone in Spectator will be able to join Axis, only when Allies have 2 extra players, not before. If the difference goes below 50, then, back to normal settings.

 

Furthermore, I believe this will mainly be usefull in servers when they are very full. Like 15vs15 or 20vs20. That's the situations where map chokepoints become unbearable for a weaker team.

 

10 hours ago, ktg0000 said:

I don't see the difference between the first and second option. But if there's a difference, I don't see how it would work. How would we use only brute numbers?

I think the best option is to use some kind of ratio (not only kills).

Ratio is nice, but it's too precise here in my opinion, because there are so many factors to take into account. Like you said, for example, depending on which map is being played, we might have a ratio that is not significant, even after the first 3 minutes. So it would be hard to calibrate correctly.

 

10 hours ago, ktg0000 said:

Quote

What map is being played. Some maps have chockepoints which create bigger differences in /scores.

What do you mean by this? If it's create bigger differences, then the server let the players join the weaker team.

What I meant was that, sometimes, it's ok to have a bigger difference, because the map is designed that way.

So we should be careful to not mess up those maps too much.

For example, in Aldernest, getting the objective is kind of a chokepoint. Therefore, it's OK that Axis kill more Allies. If we give too much of an advantage to Allies, once they get the objective, the map is pretty much over. I don't want that to happen. So, all I was saying is that, we should also take into account such maps.

 

For example, if we implement a rule that gives an advantage to the weaker team after a 50 kills gap. We should maybe custom that rule on certain maps.

In Battery, for example, it will only give an advantage to Allies after a 60 kills gap (for example still).

Edited April 30, 2020 by Cross Marian