Locking in with friends

Your argument isn't any better. Does it sound reasonable to take potential teamwork out of a game that thrives on it? It doesn't to me.

Who is John Galt?

I'd rather find a game that will allow me to develop rapport, strategy, and teamwork with friends than roll the dice every match and I don't think I'm alone in this boat. Not to mention teams aren't inherently uneven upon friends playing together.

I was suggesting the balance be tweaked to prioritize fair teams while keeping friends together with some cusp where the friends must be split apart as opposed to an unnecessary permascramble every match. It would be nice to know where the developers stand with this stuff and what they can and can't do within steam friends and their coding. I'm sure they won't comment because it's a sensitive topic, but the silence is frustrating.

After some internal debate, Ive come to the conclusion that this is a much deeper discussion than the one we are currently having. I'll start off by quoting something that scratches the surface of the real issue:

I can't agree with this more. Teams are accidentally stacked by the matchmaker all the time since it doesn't seem to be taking into account any metrics about the players. The arguments I've seen thus far from both camps seem to dance around the idea that some people believe the following statement is true and some do not:

"Players in a group of friends that choose to play together will be more effective on average than a group of randomly selected players of the same group size from the total population."

This is a complex statement and it would require quite a bit of evidence to prove or disprove (none of which anyone is providing beyond testimony). Some posters may be concerned that if large groups of friends could group together that this feature could be abused to grief. Anyone that suggests this does not truly understand the mind of the griefer (and perhaps its best that you dont nothing wrong with that). Rest assured that there are FAR more effective methods of griefing than winning the game through playing by the rules with a skill advantage and true greifers will ALWAYS use these methods in place of actual play.

The real problem that will arise with the system wouldnt come from players trying to grief, but from players that like to win. These people are NOT griefers. There is NOTHING wrong with trying to win a game and these people are not sadists bent on causing the other team emotional distress. The problem is that people like this unwittingly kill games by driving out new/bad players that would have otherwise stayed if the level of competition were lower or if they werent beaten as often. This problem seems to imply a need for a matchmaking system that overrides the existing lobbies created in dedicated servers to match groups of friends against groups of friends of the same skill level BUT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THIS!!!

The solution for this problem lies in acknowledging something that we all already know and that we have already said together that it seems no game designer is (perhaps purposefully?) willing to admit: All gamers are not created equal. We have 12 slots in this game, so why do both teams have to consist of 6 players each? We know some players are worth 2 or 3 bad players put together, so why not create teams in the lobbies that reflect this? We already have a comprehensive system of data collection in place that could be used to rate players effectiveness. This game even has the unique benefit of having flows of bots that could be adjusted to create more or less difficult scenarios for teams that are deemed more effective than their counterparts. This game has so many different levers that could be adjusted to create games in which both teams have roughly equivalent chances of winning its just silly (money output, juice output, endorsements, etc).

Now Ill go into why any system like any of those described above probably wont happen. It acknowledges a few key things some of us wont admit to ourselves. It acknowledges the need for a handicap. It explicitly states that some people need a handicap and that some people ARE handicapped. This need for a handicap is derived from the belief (in some of us) that everyone should win about as often as everyone else. I think this is the real meat of the issue and obviously your opinion of this belief may provide a window into what you believe about some things outside of games (but I wont go into that!).

Setting aside some of the more glaring flaws with this belief we should acknowledge that it holds the best chance of creating the largest player base. If you believe that you should be able to choose who you play with and you want a system that keeps the player base strong then a handicap system of some type must exist along with the proposed feature of locking-in with friends. If you dont care about the player base and you only want to play with friends then we only need the friends locking-in feature. If you dont care about playing with friends and want to win about as much as you lose then you only need the handicap system. If you dont care about playing with friends and you dont care about the end result of the game then you need neither.

Now that I feel like that Ive taken the discussion where it should be, and ensured that in doing so no one will read this much to actually learn what should be being discussed, I can go to sleep.

The idea behind that italicized argument was not to create a better one, only to show that it is a poor one and assumes that the objective is to keep people from playing with friends. It is not.

You misinterpret my entire argument, I am not against removing teamwork from the game. I am for teamwork, but not at the expense of gameplay and balance. I support the ability to change teams and play with friends, what I do not support is the ability for people to "lock in" with each other and play on the same team even if it were detrimental to balance. Two good players working together can severely imbalance games and cause steamrolls regardless of whose team they are on. Three and four good players? That's just going to be CONSTANT shut outs. I've seen it all the time on games like CoD 4 on the 360. I've abused it on the 360. My group of friends and I were excellent on CoD 4. We played, and don't judge me by this, MLG, and we were pretty good. We would steamroll games left and right. I can't imagine the other team enjoying it too much.

This is something I fear would happen to MNC. It has already happened to the 360 version - just read some of the posts in the main forum. Lots of people say that playing without a party is incredibly frustrating as the other team has one group of people that stomps all opposition due to higher skill level and higher coordination.

Don't get me wrong - auto-balance and other balancing mechanics frustrate me as well. When I would play TF2 and got team-switched I wouldn't like it, but I recognized that it was necessary.

What?

I don't disagree with this at all, I believe this is a viable solution to the problem. Maybe it gives friends a higher priority to be balanced together or something.

While I appreciate your effort put into your idea, I don't know if it would be as effective at creating as large a player base as you think.

People don't like change, this is a radical change. Another problem I have with it is the fact that while one person may be worth a few players, that doesn't mean they can take a lot of players on them at once.

While your idea is very good, I'm not sure many people would like it. I don't think I would enjoy it, at least not on every server. Maybe a few servers that were clearly labelled. The only issue with this is it would split the community into people who prefer those servers and those who do not. This is why I am in favor of a system that pleases everyone to a certain extent. When you split a community as small as MNC's you do a disservice to the players. It's hard enough to find a low ping server with empty slots as it is. If you have to filter out these other servers you dislike, then things become even more slimmer pickings.

If I missed out on something you said that may contradict what I have said or if my argument is awful please tell me.

I don't think this would create a large player base. I think it facilitates the largest possible player base.

Agreed that people hate change, and yes it would be hated by some. However, what I am suggesting is designing a system is capable of calculating how much a player is "worth". If an average player is worth "1" then very few good players would be "worth" more than 1.x of an average player. Having uneven teams was just one example of how to balance teams in particularly stacked scenarios. The other options I listed are probably better for almost all other roughly even confrontations.

Splitting the community is bad and this is why the decided-upon system would have to be universal. I'm not arguing that I was creating something perfect, simply that I was suggesting something that is fair for both teams AND allows anyone to play with anyone else they want to (with some limitations having more than 6 people playing together in this game would be problematic, so I would limit this # to 6 at maximum). The system you have been suggesting does not please me and obviously my system does not please you. I want to play together with my friends - it shouldn't matter how good or bad we are - this should be possible and enjoyable because what I am suggesting is technically feasible.

It sounds as if you dont like the idea of handicaps, yet you seem to want players to win as often as they lose. Have I missed something in my breakdown of why handicaps are the best option for someone with your beliefs? Perhaps you dont care about equal win percentages and just want people with friends to be forced to play against them for whatever reason. Im not sure, because you didnt say what was wrong with the idea. You said:

But you didnt say why. Lets hear whats wrong with the idea of handicaps (of some type not speaking as to specifics yet) and why they shouldnt be the solution to this problem.

Bear with my ramblings, it's late at night.

Keep in mind it's hard to argue against the vagueness of "handicaps of some type".

I don't like handicaps because it puts good players at a disadvantage that sometimes is not possible to work out of. If you are an excellent player but you are matched up with several different people all at once it is a lot more difficult. Some people are good because of different things. Some people are better at base defense, some people are better at bot killing. Some roles are cheapened when you have handicaps.

Another reason I'm against matchmaking (handicapping is a form of matchmaking, in the literal sense at least) in general is that it is almost always inaccurate and easily griefable. There are certain players who contribute a lot to the team that do not contribute in numbers. A support or sniper may lock down a lane all game but not get that much money. That doesn't make his role any less important, but it is far less quantifiable. Certain classes in general don't get the same kdr as others. Some people may be better (or worse) as a certain class and when they play said class they eschew the so called balance. People can (and no doubt will) go into servers to purposefully lower their "ranking" in order to cheat the system as well.

The value of a SINGLE player in a 6v6 game is massive. With one of your ideas the gap will always be two+ people. I also don't believe game balance was designed around the idea of a handicap. A complex algorithm that takes into account unquantifiable contributions has not been made yet. It's also a huge strain on the developers. I doubt they could do this in a few weeks time.

I apologize if this breaches some logical fallacies,but, consider this: I have never seen a FPS or TPS implement handicaps and be successful. I have never even seen one attempt it.

This is absurd. I never once insinuated that and I had trouble taking your argument seriously after this line.

How does "not favoring friends or only favoring them lightly when considering balance" equate to "I think friends should be made to play against friends. No being on the same team." I'm not that much of a misanthrope.

I believe game balance should be done very liberally. A small auto balance may roll around every now and again that switches a player that it deems will stop the steamroll to the opposite team. If they want to, and a slot is available - they can switch back. I don't really believe it necessary, but maybe it would attempt not to switch people who are friends.

My main concern with "locking in" (as I find myself constantly repeating) is a large group of very skilled friends locking in and steamrolling. Whether on purpose or because they just want to play together. Regardless of their intentions - it is not fun for the other team.

Also, keep in mind I don't want equal win percentages. A better team should not lose because the other team has a handicap that allows them to take more bullets. The other team should lose because they were outplayed. I am only in favor of balance until a comfortable medium has been achieved, where sometimes the underdog wins and where the game isn't a steamroll, one way or the other.

Another reason I don't want handicaps? I don't like them. I don't believe everything has to be so strictly regimented. The only handicap I even moderately support is giving people small bonuses when they are being killed over and over as soon as they step out of their spawn. I believe someone else mentioned something like speed pickups or churros being thrown from fans to their players.

Well this is counter-intuitive because you are taking away from the gameplay by removing teamwork in the name of fairness.

Nothing comrade.

Well I will say you are much more reasonable than most the people on your side of the fence. I'd really like feedback from the developers on what is and isn't possible w/ steams friendslist and if they would have to create an entirely new interface allowing you to join in a group versus a way for the game to recognize who is on your friendslist. (Maybe a common Tag is the easiest solution, even if it's a bit more limiting)

I wanted to quote this first, because it seems we are going to arguing quite a bit about the concept itself.

Im very glad we agree on this. I dont like handicaps either. They leave weak players in state of limbo, where their weakness in skill is never allowed to improve because the game always keeps a crutch for them.

Ok, good. We agree again. Im assuming that you are referring to win percentages for the average player.

I wasnt trying to insult you, but Ive known gamers that honestly hold the opinion I presented. I had no way of knowing you werent one of these people because I didnt know your position. I apologize if I offended you.

You have explained your position completely now, although in a slightly incongruous way.
Lets talk about the definition of a handicap where it applies to gaming (or at least competition) before we go any further. Dictionary.com I CHOOSE YOU!!!
noun
1.
a race or other contest in which certain disadvantages or advantages of weight, distance, time, etc., are placed upon competitors to equalize their chances of winning.
2.
the disadvantage or advantage itself.
3.
any disadvantage that makes success more difficult



You dont like a handicap because:

And yet:

This is very obviously a handicap for the player that is switched, as it will clearly hamper their chances of winning the game. You go on to say that this person may switch back, but this still hurts their chances of winning as time will have been wasted in which they are useless to their former team that was winning.

Not allowing people to play with friends they choose is also a handicap. It equalizes the chances of winning because it is a disadvantage for the players that already have friends and are already capable of working well together, making their chances of success as individuals more difficult because they are separated. Note that a handicap need not be deliberate choice by a games creator to exist.

Teamwork is a skill much like twitch skill or strategic skill, except that for the skill of teamwork to be utilized to its fullest potential it must be used by players that have used it together before. This skill is severely disadvantaged when it is used with unknown individuals that may not have the same speech patterns or knowledge of the game (or interest in teamwork for that matter). If you really dont like handicaps and you also understand and agree with the ramifications of what I am saying here then this discussion is over and there is no need to read further; the ability to play with any number of friends should be implemented to remove this handicap. If any of these conditions are not met, as I suspect is the case

So, if win percentages for the average player dont matter then you are arguing that both teams should be having fun. It seems quite clear from the implications in your post that these two arent related and that a team can have lots of fun and still lose. I would agree with this, but Id like to hear your definition of fun, because it now seems as though it is vital to your argument.

I *think* what you are saying here is that you want games to be close, as in, neither team wins too quickly or too efficiently. If I am incorrect feel free to dismiss the following.

The problem with this idea is that we MUST have handicaps of some sort to create this kind of environment. As I said some time ago now, the game is already creating ridiculously unbalanced teams by accident because it doesnt take anything into account about the players. The lower player count in this game (as you have already mentioned) has a huge affect on the way the game plays out. Its a very simple matter for the lobby to accidentally group 2 or 3 good players and leave the other team with only average players. If you really dont want this to happen then surely you must acknowledge that a handicap system of some stripe is necessary to prevent this, unless you dont care about the people it happens to all the time accidentally. Im sure if youve played very much online youve seen these rounds often.

I have to say that after reading your post it sounds like you really do like the idea of handicaps, you just arent willing to admit this to yourself and you definitely dont want the game to let you know that it will be enforcing handicaps. The fact is that the game is currently creating a handicap (unintentionally?) for players who have skill in working with their acquaintances to increase their chance of winning. Perhaps this is the kind of handicap you are willing to accept because you dont value working with others as a skill. Speaking personally, this particular skill outpaced twitch skill or any other skill as my favorite many years ago. Even though I hate the idea of handicaps, teamwork means so much to me that I would gladly accept horrendous handicaps if they permitted me the simple (evidentially luxurious?) ability to play with my closest friends. I would always rather lose together than win alone.

tl;dr

These are great suggestions. I support quite a few of them; from GA system of having 1 friend be with you, to having a custom setup where I guess it would be like the IWNET matchmaking system from MW2 where pretty much every match was either random people, or random groups of people.

I'd say either way, it could work. The teams are 6v6, right?

Let's say, 2-3 people want to be on a team together, and 2-4 people want to be on a team together. You just pit them against each other. Is it really a bad thing?


As long as I have a choice to play with ONE friend all the time, that would be nice. We talk on teamspeak sometimes, and having them on the other side is kinda stupid. Most of the chat is like "god... my team is HORRIBLE."

People should be able to play with their friends. The balance of the arguments that I have been to hear the first one-half God and I hate it. I've seen a bazillion times of occurrence of this argument. Stardock the company was eventually put in a familiar-meter race, it destroys people's ability to play each other.

the WhiteHawke/Fuffles argument is why there should be an option server-side to allow server hosts to choose how team selection works on their server. One guy wants it one way, the other guy wants it the other way; allow servers to accommodate both.

It does seem quite obvious that he and I have different thought processes on the matter, as it is likely that many of us do. A server side option is the very definition of compromise, and I would be happy enough with that as long as I can play with my friends on my server. As a depressing aside, I don't know how this whole matter will turn out but I would be willing to bet that neither fluffles nor I will like the final result.