[Suggestion] Reduce auto-balance threshold to 2 over.
- 主题发起人 SteveO
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
obolus
Sergeant at Arms
just a quick idea - autobalance should also take into account the overall score of the teams. i think if you have battle that is 6:0, real ballance would be that loosing team should have more people.
also 2 people more or less sometimes matter a lot, sometimes a very little - dependds a lot on how many people are playing. the autobalance formula should be quite complicated, if it is here to "balance" the teams, not make them of same numbers.
also 2 people more or less sometimes matter a lot, sometimes a very little - dependds a lot on how many people are playing. the autobalance formula should be quite complicated, if it is here to "balance" the teams, not make them of same numbers.
DuckSauce
Sergeant at Arms
in my opinion it needs to kick it's lazy arse into gear. When the enemy team has a 3 or sometimes heck even more advantage(due to people leaving) and a new round starts in Battle(and possibly Siege) the autobalance won't kick in until next the round. Seriously have autobalance do the autobalance check at EVERY start of a round rather then check midway and balance the next round. It's too late then...
Oh and dying and be put about with cheap gear is idiotic, it's autobalance, not a suicidal maniacal evil balance system of doom. Punishing players for getting autobalanced is the worst that can be done(unless they were assholes and abandoned their team when it already had less players.
Oh and dying and be put about with cheap gear is idiotic, it's autobalance, not a suicidal maniacal evil balance system of doom. Punishing players for getting autobalanced is the worst that can be done(unless they were assholes and abandoned their team when it already had less players.
Johnny Morphine
Knight at Arms
Totally agreed. I've been in plenty of 3 v 5 rounds, and even a 1 v 3 round or two, and it would be nice to have things sorted out without people having to ask politely. Oughtta happen at the start of every round regardless to score, though it might be fair to try to autobalance based on record. So that if a team is losing woefully, perhaps one of the better players from the opposing team could be kicked over. In the interest of fairness, this suggestion is actually coming from someone who's near the top of the list most of the time. Likewise, if a team is already winning despite its lack of numbers, might as well toss them one of the players with the worst records - not like it could hurt them if they're already winning anyway.
And like Ducksauce said, getting autobalanced should never penalize a player. They should be given the equipment screen automatically with all their earned cash available (perhaps even a small bonus for being switched), as if they'd just joined the game.
And like Ducksauce said, getting autobalanced should never penalize a player. They should be given the equipment screen automatically with all their earned cash available (perhaps even a small bonus for being switched), as if they'd just joined the game.
Two good valid points. The balancing threshold should take into account:obolus 说:
1. Current score
2. Total number of players
If there are 33 players online, 18 vs. 15 is quire reasonable. In particular, there is no point in penalizing the team that is being rolled over again and again. I've seen several times when the score was 6:0 or similar against the larger team when the "auto balance" kicked in. Guess what was the score after the next round.
MagicMaster
Recruit
It would also be nice to see a feature that automatically scrambles the teams when one has rolled the other several times.
Or perhaps just the option in a poll.
Or perhaps just the option in a poll.
Commodore_Frank
Sergeant
Most games with autoabalance do balance when one team has two more and don't allow people to join a team that's a man up to prevent this from happening outside of people leaving. I always wondered why it was different in Warband.
MagicMaster 说:
The problem with that is that suddenly a ton of the players will now be on the team they've been fighting for who knows how many rounds. All sense of teamwork and accomplishment will be lost, because now they're working against their own (old) score. I think people would lose the "teamwork feel" at that point and probably just care about their own kill count. The end result of which team won the most battles would probably become meaningless to many players, much more so than if just a couple people are swapped around due to autobalance.
It's not a terrible idea though, maybe if it were a poll like you suggested, anyone who votes "yes" could be amongst those who are scrambled around. Maybe.
Johnny Morphine
Knight at Arms
seanparkerfilms 说:
Yeah that is a problem, but even with an auto-balance deal constantly running it's not like the teams would always be getting completely shuffled.
This would certainly be a server option, though. For clan matches and other organized events there'd be no need for some artificial balancing act (hence, organized).
But the people who join a public game don't expect to join something that's organized, and personally I wouldn't particularly mind if I got autobalanced now and then. I still say it's a good idea.
Johnny Morphine 说:
I was actually talking about a different poster's suggestion about shuffling around the entirety of both teams (which is what I thought was problematic), not the original post about the autobalance system. I agree with you and think that autobalacing wouldn't be enough shuffling around to ruin people's enjoyment. Mid-game shuffles of all the players would.
This was what I was responding to:
MagicMaster 说:
Johnny Morphine
Knight at Arms
Ach, sorry about that. My eyes are jumping all over the screen because I haven't slept in 30 hours. Though I guess what I said backed up your point in a weird sort of way anyway. Thanks for not tearing me a new one!
No problem! I understand completely.
