Consolation bonuses?

Just played a game on Lazer Razor (which btw was the second time it turned up in a row when it probably shouldn't have) and before I crashed again on the moneyball I found out I scored at the end with about $400 more than the MVP of the other team...

Despite spending almost the entire match 4 vs. 6, for a good 12 minutes or so.

Apparently though, my friend on the other team who was still on the server told me that apparently for winning their team was on par with my earnings (which are possibly lost thanks to the crash).

The problem is, if one team winds up with a huge disadvantage for the majority of the game (say, at least two less members average for up to 8 minutes) then it effectively becomes an Extreme Super Sudden Death Blitz game for the disadvantaged team as losing is guranteed.

Although they won't win and get a payout bonus for this mere technicality, what I'm suggesting is that if a team registers as having a team disadvantage for a large percentage of the match, then give them incentive for treating it as a Blitz game by giving a smaller bonus payment and possibly a new protag to go with it. This way the team with the advantage won't suddenly find the opposing team ragequit or stop playing so they can still excersise their tactical thinking and have some kind of challenge all the way to the end. It also rewards the disadvantaged team for sticking it out anyway to aim for lasting as long as possible, rather than winning the game.

This could also inspire some sort of new game mode: Blitz Rush of some description. Essentially a Blitz game but the bots can have two pros vs. the four pros defending, who may buy bots (but not juice to be fair) and they are given a large payout promise that decreases in value with each 5th wave or so until their match earnings overtakes it. The two attacking pros also have severely limited spawn frequencies, spectating most of the time, though you could allow them to choose where some bots will spawn e.g. gremlins or a single batch of blackjacks etc in a spawner that's temporarily activated to surprise the defenders.

winning 4 on 6 isn't all that hard, clutch defense to force into Overtime plus a coordinated juicerush.

Consolation solves what exactly? Oh I lost but hey I got this tag to make up for it how useful

Instead of promoting being a loser it should much rather punish people who leave, for example through a certain "protag", which would only make a difference if you could check the stats of players and even then: who actually gives a damn?

People leave, people join, people win, people lose; only thing that matters is if you did a good job.

He said it would be nice to be compensated... like with cash. Just because you lost, doesn't mean you shouldn't deserve a bonus, or so he is implying.

Now how would the game determine the difference between quitting and lagging out? The game does not track your loses btw.

Particularly during long periods of when a team is stacked. Either from teams being assigned when someone was quitting in the lobby and this wasn't autobalanced, or from certain players swapping teams manually to stack teams, and the game goes on for a long time without balance being provided to the disadvantaged team.

If it were equal teams, or only imbalanced for a short while, it wouldn't make a difference. It also prevents entire servers from emptying except for a few stackers and those on the winning team by trying to put an optimistic spin on their predicament, turning it from an impossible to win crossfire game to a semi-competitive Blitz game of endurance.

what's quitting have to do with what he is saying?

he wants compensation for playing an imbalanced game, and yet lost the match. I suppose the reward could be the same if you win even with the imbalanced teams.

So, would it be right for a team of 3 or 4 vs 6 to get an extra bonus for "playing" the match. I think he is also saying that it would prevent some people from quitting..... i think :|


I don't mind this idea, but I hope they add autobalance, or add a "switch team" button. Of course the switch team button would be greyed out if the team already has enough players.

The command is called switchteam and makes people rage, as it if was a bad thing to want to play with your friends.

Also: autobalance always makes the game worse. Mark my words

There wouldn't be any "particularly" long rounds if server hosts didn't have the option to alter a specific set of rules, for example: length of round, length of overtime, juice buying or not.

The game won't have a unified standard for pub play with possibilities like that, especially considering how games without juice buying slow down to a crawl and end up with cash excess.

Besides winning isn't rewarded more than just playing well from what I can see, at times having more earnings than the winner's team, any sort of bonus for "enduring" something which is nothing but a good situation to test your individual as well as team-coordinating skill is nothing but excess.

What you talking about? Bad Company 2 has a great balancing system. Global Agenda I think had a good system...

I just don't get how autobalance or switch teams is a bad idea to implement?


Oh yea, let's have a team of 2v6.

The autobalance in BC2 is so great it rips apart the only cooperating squad in a team to make the teams "more balanced", I played BC2 long enough to had my fistshakes at it for always ripping apart our 4-man squad; for most part the only players actually taking objectives even if it cost our ticket.

But yeah autobalance is just great, if you don't have any friends to team up with

No, i seriously dont get what you're going on about.

If you and your friends, say... 5 of you guys, vs a team of 3 guys, one of those players should come over to balance the team. You can't just expect a guy to join the server and fill that spot soon.

I don't mind splitting my team up, if it means that the other team has a fair shot of winning. I don't like winning because the other side is down 2-3 men.

And I don't like a game splitting up me and my friends only to not have us rejoin as squad the round of after.

If I feel like stomping on my own I'd do that but when I play with my mates I play with my mates and will continue to do so, no matter the system in place.

If we empty servers by it so be it.

Surely enough my opinion would change if I actually get decent opponents that constantly keep me on my toes after release, players like Swainy who is as of now my favourite and also most hated enemy. Shoutouts to him

well, that's very thoughtless to the noobs playing their first couple games with a team of 2v6.

I had this happen a lot today and we kept owning the noobs on the other team and it kept happening. People would quit, and teams would just keep staying about 3v6 or so... it was pretty awful. However, if i had the chance, I would switch teams and help them out... it just isn't fair with teams like that.

the command you are looking for is switchteam.

there's a command to switch teams? :?:


also, no... there should also be autobalance. People aren't always going to switch to the other team to balance it up.

IIRC, didn't BC2 have a system to where it asked players if they wanted to switch? You didn't have to switch, but if you didn't it would randomly select a player. That seems fair enough... :?

Last time I played it (after Vietnam's release) it never asked me if I felt like switching the team.

And yes there is a switch team command, otherwise some people wouldn't be able to moan about stacking (Hi Wolf)

The problem with most autobalance algorithms I encountered is that they almost never create more balanced teams, they just create frustration; hence me saying it always makes the game worse.

I do not entirely condemn the OP's point but the way I see it, it will not work out. You cannot fix people, no matter the incentives.

BC2 had a server option or mod not sure how or what but my clan admin had it enabled and it worked fine.

I'm not sure where you think I was moaning about stacking, but I do feel that autobalance is necessary to keep people from emptying servers. I don't think it's right to be in a position of 2v6 or 3v6. Had I known about the switch teams command, I probably would have balanced the teams a little better in some of these games. I bet I've made lots of new players mad because the teams were unfair and they were pit again some higher lvl'd players.

Autobalance has worked in other games and it has been fine. Have you seen a better system? Because playing in servers with 2v6 and 3v6 is unacceptable. No one wants to play against a team with those odds.


...and I don't see anything wrong with giving players a bonus for playing against a stacked team. Money in this game means nothing, what's it to you if players that lost get a bonus for playing a unbalanced game.

Btw, if I understand this correctly, you don't want autobalance because of you wanting to stay in a match with your friends? You do realize that the game already implements this random choosing system? So how are you going to fix that? What would you say that could fix the system to the way you want it and make it fair, cause honestly I don't get how you expect to get what you want. No matter what you are going to end up separated from your "Team" eventually. It's just random of course.

I meant another wolf, some mikeysickwolfuktwolfwhateverwolf

I haven't seen a game where autobalance didn't create frustrating results for people who are used to play with people they know. "With" is the keyword, if I felt like playing against my mates I'd play Quakeworld or similar against them.

The proportions of this game are unlikely to be able to contain a weighted algorithm that balances the teams without taking apart friends, which is a shame since this is a teamgame and pubbing on the PC is nothing like teamwork for the most part.

Taking away the aspect of coordination from people who are used to each other and who actually talk to each other (Mumble) in favor of some artificial "balance" change might change something for people who are just checking out the game but will not create satisfactory results for other scenarios.

Thinking about it, if Uber were to implemented a filter with level thresholds one could create "low level only" servers that enforce this limit. This would help against the team-making of high levels versus low levels but it won't fix people from stacking (unless switch team gets disabled which opens another can of worms) and it won't fix people from leaving, at the end of the day it's a matter of just playing the game.

I edited my post above a couple times... but if i remember from bc2... autobalance wasn't bad.

A lot of times maybe it split players from their "A team" but, a lot of times I didn't get split from my team and I had a good time. Having switch teams available to get back over to the other team with your friends is nice, and should be available as long as the team isn't going to be unbalanced in doing so.

To be honest though, I guess MW2 had the best "buddy" system.


edit:

What I guess they could do, is have a queue system where parties, much like your own could enter a random server that needs to fill slots. Say, one game that has a 2v6, it could put your team in there on the spot, or... it could just create a game with you and your buddies, and anybody that autojoins a server (if this button existed) would be put into your game.

yeah it didn't split you, the games weren't autobalanced in that sense and people still left and sometimes moaned; just that you wouldn't see it since you go back to your lobby after the game ends unless you stick around after beating an opponent to death.

Edit: the problem with systems like you propose lies in the dedicated server structure in PC games, latency matters for most experienced PC gamers and unless you give us enough servers for it to accomodate that it will not be possible.

Right now I only play on one server in the MNC Beta because it has settings I can tolerate (that is default) and a playable ping (that is below 100, not gonna demand a stable 15 in a beta)

If by moaning, you mean ragequit, that's different. :roll: I don't think I've ever left from being autobalanced to the other team because the other team had players leave in the middle of a match. The problem with people leaving, is that new players that join start with the same ol starting money. That person will be behind...

Anyway, i know there isn't a direct fix, but there needs to be something in place; that we can agree on for sure.



edit: yeah, i realize that. But you would hope on release that the server count will skyrocket, no?