Online game balancing - think of the little guy! *spawn

[Shifty Geezer]

(From SWBF2 thread)
...
That said, it does suggest even more one sided matches where the winning team gets more points and better gear for more dominance. That could be very nicely offset by dynamic objectives where a completely overpowered team could be given attainable objectives to get some points and push back. eg. In walker Assault where the Empire are totally on top and have all the points and gear and have locked the rebels out of the Y-Wing beacons, Rebel players could be given other objectives like take down an ATST or secure an entry point the Empire are using to send reinforcements to the beacons.

Sadly online gaming never factors in the losing team to ensure everyone's having fun. Decades of online gaming, everything's written to the same formula still. I doubt we're going to see any changes because the developer mentality/approach seems entrenched.

 

[BRiT]

Thats one of the things that was extremely enjoyable about the original TitanFall, everyone got their titan regardless of skill which meant everyone could have fun even if on a team that was extremely overwhelmed. Now if you were a skilled player you typically got your titan much faster. The other means TF used to keep the game fun was the burn cards that players could use to change up their load-outs. They were picked up using game credits that were not purchasable for cash, so the pay to win was never there.

I really wish Shifty had more direct input into the game designers, as being able to have auxilary dynamic objectives to keep it fun for the losing team. Perhaps in BF2 they could have a "destroy all the computer systems to keep info out of the empires hands" or cause a cave-in to block them for a bit to keep it fun.

 

[Rangers]

Sadly online gaming never factors in the losing team to ensure everyone's having fun.

Thats one of the things that was extremely enjoyable about the original TitanFall, everyone got their titan regardless of skill

I'm sure it's not the first game but, Destiny supers are about that niche? the idea is you get a overpowered move to burn for a few seconds, so that almost anyone will at least get SOME kills. As I understand that was maybe the idea, to allow lesser players a moment to shine.

And it's a tradeoff though, as you can imagine. The issue is high skill players and gameplay, or competitive, dont necessarily love being killed with little way to fight back. It feels like random chance, and ability spam is an issue. You can fight supers in Destiny, for example a headshot snipe will kill them, but it's very difficult. But, the best players do not want chance to play a role, nor is it good for competitive/tournament gameplay.

About this game, as expected the graphics are fantastic! I'm pretty sure the best of E3 that I've noticed. Not too surprising given BF1 was a looker. This should look amazing on scorpio (I'm going to enjoy saying that LOL). The OG was 720 on XBO right? So I expect checkerboarding something on this for Scorpio. 4K too demanding.

I'm super excited this has a campaign. That singlehandedly takes it to a purchase most likely for me. I can blast through the campaign and enjoy the pretty visuals (where they will be at their best anyway). Should be great to showcase my Scorpio and 4K TV planned purchases this fall.

 

[Billy Idol]

Sadly online gaming never factors in the losing team to ensure everyone's having fun. Decades of online gaming, everything's written to the same formula still. I doubt we're going to see any changes because the developer mentality/approach seems entrenched.

Titanfall 2 solved this issue to some extend. When you lose, then a new last minute mode begins: getting to the rescue ship. The losing team still can escape...that is imo a genius move by Respawn, as even when losing you get a chance to win In fact, losing and than trying to escape is at least as fun and exciting as the main game mode!

 

[RenegadeRocks]

well BF1 gives a superpowered behemoth to the losing team to turn the tide.
I find that a lot of fun as the winning team knows there is a higher challenge waiting at the end of the match and the losing team gets a chance to make a comeback.
i think thats a great solution which might not make it to fair play competition but is very thrilling and exciting as a Mp game and does not write off the match in the opening minutes.

Sent from my SM-N920G using Tapatalk

 

[iroboto]

Sadly online gaming never factors in the losing team to ensure everyone's having fun. Decades of online gaming, everything's written to the same formula still. I doubt we're going to see any changes because the developer mentality/approach seems entrenched.

I feel like my response will spawn a new thread, but I'll try to keep on topic. I do want to add another perspective, if at the very least to add some pros/cons with what they've done with BF2. So my history of competitive gaming ended with CS 1.1 regionals at which the difference between actual professional teams and amateur teams started to get very apparent. That being said, growing up playing Quake, CS, SC, red Alert and other games that would become eSports, the common theme is actually to reward the winner of each bout.

This is effectively the same as providing 'service' back to the player that just won the last round, ie Tennis (you must break to win the set), or volleyball etc. Few games actually have a pure restart, even with CS, the victors walkaway with being able to loot and start the next round with more money. In some ways, this plays heavily into momentum, and it forces players to learn both aspects of the game, which is offense and defense. And if you penalize a player for losing, they have to earn that much more back to bring the game back into balance. And that drives skill ceiling significantly higher than resetting the board, as defense is much more challenging to do then offense. Teams that are able to play defense also make it exciting to both watch and participate in. There is this struggle that happens and even though it appears as though defenders are at a disadvantage, in most scenarios, they have defenders advantage, and this has more to do with reinforcement distance.

On the flip side, when you give momentum to the winners of the last bout, each bout starts to add up to something significant. And the beginning of the round becomes as important as the last. Like chess, or SC, what you do at the very beginning of the game has large implications to the end result (ie build order, chess opener), the battle begins from the onset. And this happens in DOTA, LoL, CS, Starcraft, Halo.. etc. Because winning that first bout (lvl 1, pistol round etc) means you can snow ball it to earning more and more until you can dominate your opponents. And it drives intensity for the players at the beginning of the match. Basically it's 'playoff sports' from the get go, as opposed to having everyone being lazy until significant milestones are crossed.

Now I get that people get bored of being steam rolled. But it's important to not mix being steam rolled with changing the game so that you cannot steam roll. The real issue is pitting especially experienced players vs non experienced players. If you dumb the game down, then the game just gets boring. If they can focus on getting equivalent teams together, that makes for a really good match.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't particularly disagree, although we're talking about people playing for fun here rather than competitive play. Ultimately though I wasn't talking about 'kart game rubber-banding' to prop up losing teams where it sound like that's something some devs have tried, but just rewarding play and balancing the fun, not the winning. I've had fun at times in a few online games despite losing because you could get a good bit of play, say capturing their flag just once. What's abysmal and IMO inexcusable is games where the losing team is hemmed in and spawn killed. they have nothing to do and no fun, and have to spend their precious free time being cannon fodder. And typically these problems are compounded as players quit leaving the remaining players outnumbered. For the winning team to have fun, there have to be players on the losing team. If they're not having fun, it's a case of asking these people to sacrifice their free time for someone else to have enjoyment. There's absolutely no need for that. A fresh take on gaming would find other things to do as I suggested in my first post.

 

[goonergaz]

TBH I don't play online much because as well as the poor balancing and the fact I'm rubbish (because I don't get enough time to get good), I personally think the mentality of the majority of gamers who play online is to blame.

An example would be FIFA - where I would play players would would thrash me 7-0 and also score 'cheat' goals and claim they didn't know how they did certain things which gave them advantage (ie their attacking player might always be able to get in front of my defender and conversely their defender was always able to get goal side of my attacker.

My mentality is totally different, if I can help my opponent I will - oops, bad backpass let you in and you're back in the game. Sure I might 'keep the upper hand' but I don't totally demolish anyone, what's the point?

So what I feel we need is an attitude change in gamers, if the game is completely one-sided why not just take it easy for a bit - let the opponent get a few kills, there's nothing more frustrating than a kill-respawn loop and getting completely crushed...how are those guys ever going to improve?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

My mentality is totally different, if I can help my opponent I will - oops, bad backpass let you in and you're back in the game. Sure I might 'keep the upper hand' but I don't totally demolish anyone, what's the point?

That's how I play typically. Destroying people isn't fun. I recall a Warhawk game where the opposition were being spawn killed. I was on top of rock able to snipe loads of them, but I let them run away and watched (cheering them on) to give them a chance.

So what I feel we need is an attitude change in gamers...

It's a whole human attitude, not just gaming. People are just competitive and uncaring that way, as it were. Letting them have a chance means getting less points/money/unlocks/levelling/kudos. That's why game mechanics are needed to change behaviours. You can't just ask people to be nice - religion has been trying that for thousands of years and not got very far.

 

[BRiT]

Titanfall 2 solved this issue to some extend. When you lose, then a new last minute mode begins: getting to the rescue ship. The losing team still can escape...that is imo a genius move by Respawn, as even when losing you get a chance to win In fact, losing and than trying to escape is at least as fun and exciting as the main game mode!

That was already in TitanFall 1. The way TF2 plays is it has less game fun balancing than TF1 and is a step down. Also you win nothing by getting to the evac ship. It usually ends up being a caged slaughter and its more fun as being on the losing side to just hide and snipe away at the enemy side.

 

[iroboto]

I don't particularly disagree, although we're talking about people playing for fun here rather than competitive play. Ultimately though I wasn't talking about 'kart game rubber-banding' to prop up losing teams where it sound like that's something some devs have tried, but just rewarding play and balancing the fun, not the winning. I've had fun at times in a few online games despite losing because you could get a good bit of play, say capturing their flag just once. What's abysmal and IMO inexcusable is games where the losing team is hemmed in and spawn killed. they have nothing to do and no fun, and have to spend their precious free time being cannon fodder. And typically these problems are compounded as players quit leaving the remaining players outnumbered. For the winning team to have fun, there have to be players on the losing team. If they're not having fun, it's a case of asking these people to sacrifice their free time for someone else to have enjoyment. There's absolutely no need for that. A fresh take on gaming would find other things to do as I suggested in my first post.

I agree that lose conditions should happen earlier. Once a team is pinned in, the game should not drag on until all tickets are out. Players should be given a chance to forfeit the match. Generally speaking if a team has the other team pinned in entirely, without the two teams being relatively high skill there is no chance at a comeback.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's one solution. However, better game design would mean there's still something to play for. If sports allowed losing sides to forfeit, there'd be some pretty lousy matches ended in ten minutes. If you can't unlock points/cash by winning or meeting level objectives, give different objectives like kill a certain number of enemies. In SWBF, just taking down the hero in some of the levels would be a big win, so change the objective. I'm thinking of the death Star level where everyone has to pile into the same tiny room. When you can't win, the objective could shift to just trying to get something else (kill Vader) and still keep a viable objective for the losers.

 

[iroboto]

That's one solution. However, better game design would mean there's still something to play for. If sports allowed losing sides to forfeit, there'd be some pretty lousy matches ended in ten minutes. If you can't unlock points/cash by winning or meeting level objectives, give different objectives like kill a certain number of enemies. In SWBF, just taking down the hero in some of the levels would be a big win, so change the objective. I'm thinking of the death Star level where everyone has to pile into the same tiny room. When you can't win, the objective could shift to just trying to get something else (kill Vader) and still keep a viable objective for the losers.

If it can be done such that victory (match conditions) don't change, but secondary objectives become a priority, then I would agree that might get other people involved.
But a lot of these issues, at least imo, the map isn't designed to accommodate changing objectives, and depending on situation it's entirely that these secondary objectives aren't achieved.

I think what you're looking for exists in Battlefield, they are known as "Operations". Basically it's a larger scale game in which 1 team is constantly attacking and another team constantly defending. And if the attackers win all 5 areas they win the operation. The defenders must hold on as long as they can until the final objective, but if they are strong enough they can hold off their opponents in the first area.

It's not perfect, in fact, it can be quite boring for attackers if they can't breach.

 

[AlNom]

Halo 5's Warzone?

 

[iroboto]

Halo 5's Warzone?

Similar, yes, the objectives are constantly changing to provide the other a team a chance to catch up.
But players cannot escape being stuck in their base, there is no method of escape.

 

[orangpelupa]

Titanfall 2 solved this issue to some extend. When you lose, then a new last minute mode begins: getting to the rescue ship. The losing team still can escape...that is imo a genius move by Respawn, as even when losing you get a chance to win In fact, losing and than trying to escape is at least as fun and exciting as the main game mode

Titanfall 2 have shitty design for th escape part tho.

1. When you lose so bad, the enemy have lots of Titan
2. Enemy will camp the ship and or blow the ship
3. Even if you can ride the ship, you can do nothing to defend it.

In titanfall 1, the general ship escape mini game design was about as shitty as titanfall 2 but at least in titanfall 1 I can

1. Use hacked turret to defend
2. Use nuke as last ditch effort to defend the ship (nuke is in titanfall 2 too but it sacrifices other more often used "perk" and th explosion is not as big).


All of this is exacerbated by the omissions of "rodeo" mechanic. So a losing team is basically doomed by multiple titans without the ability to fight back.

(the new battery rodeo mechanic is rather dumb because you can just let enemy stole your battery and you kill him her and install the battery back and you will get repaired AND a new shield)

Basically I really like titanfall 1 because there are lots of gameplay mechanics and level design to be exploited to balance the game.

Titanfall 2 is much more streamlined.

---

Now, destiny... Wow. It's such a huge mess.

This game is too heavily aimed for "50-50 win loss ratio". Win a couple times in a row? Here let me break the team and match you with super good guardians and accompany you with shitty guardians, and not with a full team.

Or how about when I love using vision of confidence, or thorn, or tlw, or anything? Bungie keeps fucking around with the weapons so I no longer care what weapon I have!

Heck, for PVE, I almost exclusively only use swords and grenades! Because the PVP changes also fucking with PVP.

You can see my heavy use of swords on my character statistics.

---

But for me, the best game experience even when losing was BFBC2.

Oh im in a losing team.. No problem! I can ride a helicopter and enjoy murdering them!

Oh my friend stole my heli? No problem! I'll sneak in, and put well placed c4 on enemy building. BAM! they dies. Hahaha

Oh in rush mode? C4 can be strategically placed on vantage points.

How about tank? Yay! I can snipe the mcom and other buildings!


---

BF3 and bf4 is rather nice too despite its a huge downgrade from BFBC2 in term of airspace, freedom of using physics.

Give me a helicopter and I can fight back another heli, infantry as dedicated stingers, jets, ships, anything! I don't even care if my team is losing badly.

I'll be here floating and happily murdering people, taking down jets, sinking ships.

Just check out my statistics for BF3 bf4 and BFBC2. Haha. Those were fun games even when losing.

My favorite part, parachuting from damavant peak, while killing enemy helicopter pilot, and stole it mid-air. The annoying part is my teammate who usually loooves to shot rockets at the helicopter

Also fun: bringing the helicopter into a tunnel. (I think this is another map, not damavant).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

staggered objectives happen in SWBF too. The problem is the scoring for success when success is impossible. If you can't progress past the first objective because the other team is totally overpowering, you spend 30 minutes just running and dying lots. And there's nothing else you can do because the map and level is structured so you have to complete objective 1. Players are funnelled into killzones time and again. What if there was something like an adaptive objective, 'unlock this other route through'? You could get points and progress elsewhere without changing the win for the opposition.

Ultimately the game design should present winning and losing, but should be balanced around giving every paying customer a fun experience. I'm sure that's not impossible. It just needs the investment.

 

[goonergaz]

Why not just have a simple solution that allows casual gamers to play together or competitive gamers to play together? Or maybe add a middle ground too?

If someone is abusing the system they could be voted off.

For me I enjoy playing games, even when losing provided it's not a bloodbath.

 

[iroboto]

Why not just have a simple solution that allows casual gamers to play together or competitive gamers to play together? Or maybe add a middle ground too?

If someone is abusing the system they could be voted off.

For me I enjoy playing games, even when losing provided it's not a bloodbath.

this is ideal, the issue comes to population levels. When the population isn't big enough, you can't play. So they've pooled everyone together.
The problem is a little more solved on games like Overwatch where the play base is massive on both ranked and unranked (also because you require a fairly high level to even play ranked).
Which imo, might be the way to go.

 

[orangpelupa]

this is ideal, the issue comes to population levels. When the population isn't big enough, you can't play. So they've pooled everyone together.
The problem is a little more solved on games like Overwatch where the play base is massive on both ranked and unranked (also because you require a fairly high level to even play ranked).
Which imo, might be the way to go.

There's already a workaround for thst: cross-play.

But Sony still adamant for not joining their population with anyone other han pc