HAWKEN servers are up and our team balance update is live!
Forgot Password? SUPPORT REDEEM CODE

Jump to content


Game balancing via variable respawn times

Community

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 WearisomeOrphan

WearisomeOrphan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted January 07 2013 - 05:28 PM

I have really been enjoying the silo control and the battleship modes, but it seems that when a team starts to get far ahead there seems to be little to stem the tide.

A soft, subtle way to balance uneven teams or to at least keep it competitive would be to remove the re-spawn delay for the team losing. It'd be just as easy to add more time to the team winning, but that might slow down an otherwise fast and furious match.

It could be done as a percentage of how badly you're losing, so a 2 second delay becomes a 1.75 second delay or whatever, or it could simply be if one team is winning by more then 10% the losing team as no re-spawn penalty.

There used to be a feature like this in a HL mod back in the day (Frontline Force) that did something like this.

#2 Whiskey_Tango_Foxtrot

Whiskey_Tango_Foxtrot

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 93 posts
  • LocationI'm on a boat!

Posted January 07 2013 - 05:38 PM

I think this is a very interesting idea, I'd love to see Team Hawken try this out at least on an experimental basis.

#3 JNastay

JNastay

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted January 08 2013 - 06:22 AM

Totally think this is a good idea.  Same can be said for the Silo matches.  Like if you get joined to a game where half your points are gone, kind of just sucks that you can't do anything to stop from losing.
JNastay

#4 RedVan

RedVan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,268 posts

Posted January 08 2013 - 06:38 AM

So, penalize the winning team for playing well?  Not a good idea.  Lets keep this game skill based.

Edited by RedVan, January 08 2013 - 06:39 AM.


#5 Cypherhalo

Cypherhalo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 237 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted January 08 2013 - 07:47 AM

Hmm, an interesting idea . . . Makes more sense in Missile Assault then Seige to me.  In Missile Assault it's pretty clear who's winning or not based on the health of the base so you can start triggering a lower respawn whenever one team gets "x" percent ahead and then balance them back out if the other team manages to catch up.  Seige is harder because the base health doesn't steadily decrease and you can go from your base being at only 500 health to wiping out the other team's base in one battleship so I don't see a way to do this in Seige.  

Other issues I see, one - is it really fair to the winning team?  Two - would it even make a difference?  When your team is doing badly and the other team is working well together, it can become hard to score a kill and I'm not sure respawning faster would make a difference, especially as the delay in MA is short.  

Still, a good idea to consider at least.
You don't win a war by dying for your country.  
You win a war by making the other guy die for his.  -
sanitizing the great George S. Patton
Posted Image

#6 Snacuum

Snacuum

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 177 posts

Posted January 08 2013 - 08:09 AM

View PostRedVan, on January 08 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

So, penalize the winning team for playing well?  Not a good idea.  Lets keep this game skill based.

How is giving the winning team more to shoot a penalisation? After all I thought they were so skilled...

#7 Dread_Lord_Pitr

Dread_Lord_Pitr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • LocationColumbia Internet

Posted January 08 2013 - 08:28 AM

View PostSnacuum, on January 08 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

View PostRedVan, on January 08 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

So, penalize the winning team for playing well?  Not a good idea.  Lets keep this game skill based.

How is giving the winning team more to shoot a penalisation? After all I thought they were so skilled...

On the losing end of such matches a lot, i presume ?
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. -George Orwell's Animal Farm
BEGIN Pitr's GEEK CODE BLOCK
GCS d? s: a- C++++ UL++++ P+++ L++++ E--- W+(++) N++ o+++ K+++ w--- !O M-- V-- PS+++ PE+++ Y(++) PGP+++ t* 5(-) X R- tv- b- DI-- D- G++ e++ h* r% y?
END Pitr's GEEK CODE BLOCK

#8 Frenotx

Frenotx

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • LocationAlpharetta, Georgia

Posted January 08 2013 - 09:18 AM

I think what would help more is a respawn wave system, ala tf2.

http://wiki.teamfort...om/wiki/Respawn

In all of the team modes, the thing that I see fuzzy bunny a team over the most is when their respawn times get staggered. Unless people wait for teammates to respawn near them (neigh impossible to coordinate in pugs), the loosing team's mechs end up getting into the fight one by one. Its difficult to break out of the cycle if the enemy team us grouped up. The duration of the match just turns into a series of gang bangs. A respawn wave system would greatly reduce the chances of you spawning alone, and would help break out of the gang bang cycle.

Edited by Frenotx, January 08 2013 - 09:18 AM.

Your friendly otter-fox hybrid abomination about town.

To pronounce my name correctly, just pretend the 't' isn't there. You can also think of it as "Freno - [sodacan opening sound]"

#9 RedVan

RedVan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,268 posts

Posted January 08 2013 - 03:14 PM

View PostSnacuum, on January 08 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

View PostRedVan, on January 08 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

So, penalize the winning team for playing well?  Not a good idea.  Lets keep this game skill based.

How is giving the winning team more to shoot a penalisation? After all I thought they were so skilled...

FPS games are about puttin players on equal footing and seeing who comes out on top. Any artificial assistance to either side is unnecessary and unwanted.

Should we give an automatic aimbot to players that have low KDs?  Have it turn on once a player hits say, 0.5KD?

That would help the losing side amirite?

#10 WearisomeOrphan

WearisomeOrphan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted January 08 2013 - 05:52 PM

View PostFrenotx, on January 08 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

I think what would help more is a respawn wave system, ala tf2.

I think the respawn wave system works well if you have enough people still alive to continue the fight. I don't know what the map limits are, but I think that most matches have been 6v6. With 2-3 players waiting for respawn at once, the survivors are completely hosed. In a highly unfair math I think this would be a good idea, but in most other cases (90%?....) I think it might work against the balance.


View PostRedVan, on January 08 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

FPS games are about puttin players on equal footing and seeing who comes out on top. Any artificial assistance to either side is unnecessary and unwanted.

What's "unwanted" to one might be wanted to others. I think what's best for the community is something that balances the stochastic nature of what builds the teams in the first place. I don't think there is a solid automated way to decide player skill (maybe splitting the top scorers from the previous match?), so in lieu of that, why not put something in-place that might at least keep games competitive?

I hate being on the team that get's hammered, but it's almost just as bad on the other side where there is no challenge. Even though I think everyone benefits from closer matches, I still don't think the losing team should be given a "blue shell" or something. Some *small* perk doesn't seem like a terrible idea to me.

Edited by WearisomeOrphan, January 08 2013 - 05:53 PM.


#11 Gaizokubanou

Gaizokubanou

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts

Posted January 08 2013 - 06:30 PM

View PostRedVan, on January 08 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

FPS games are about puttin players on equal footing and seeing who comes out on top. Any artificial assistance to either side is unnecessary and unwanted.

Should we give an automatic aimbot to players that have low KDs?  Have it turn on once a player hits say, 0.5KD?

That would help the losing side amirite?

That's way too much of a straw-man and you know it... there is a huge gap between few seconds faster respawn time vs aimbot.

#12 Snacuum

Snacuum

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 177 posts

Posted January 08 2013 - 09:17 PM

I get it my post did make me sound a bit of the fuzzy bunny, so I understand that other posted in kind.

As a generality I don't give a fuzzy bunny about losing, but goddamn I've not interested in spending the last entire half of a match losing just cause one team had a good start. A good match is always one that keeps you guessing to last minute.

It's a game people.

#13 RedVan

RedVan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,268 posts

Posted January 08 2013 - 09:50 PM

View PostGaizokubanou, on January 08 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:

View PostRedVan, on January 08 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

FPS games are about puttin players on equal footing and seeing who comes out on top. Any artificial assistance to either side is unnecessary and unwanted.

Should we give an automatic aimbot to players that have low KDs?  Have it turn on once a player hits say, 0.5KD?

That would help the losing side amirite?

That's way too much of a straw-man and you know it... there is a huge gap between few seconds faster respawn time vs aimbot.

I could care less about straw-men.  I burn them.

The point remains:  You shouldn't give players an advantage of any sort, no matter how big (aimbot) or small (a second less respawn timer), if they are doing poorly.

Ever hear of the snowball effect since you want to throw out big ideas?  Lets not get a small wad of snow rolling down the hill eh?

#14 Gaizokubanou

Gaizokubanou

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts

Posted January 08 2013 - 10:46 PM

View PostRedVan, on January 08 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

The point remains:  You shouldn't give players an advantage of any sort, no matter how big (aimbot) or small (a second less respawn timer), if they are doing poorly.

I don't find few seconds shorter respawn time to "boost" the losing team a problem at all actually.  If they got aimbot that would be horrible but those two are just worlds apart there is no point of trying to make a point using such ludicrous example...

Quote

Ever hear of the snowball effect since you want to throw out big ideas?  Lets not get a small wad of snow rolling down the hill eh?

There can be a middle ground in a form of very tiny and modest buff for losing team... hence slippery slope (that "big idea" argument of yours) commonly referred as a fallacy, unless you can point out why it's more likely to become a slippery slope rather than finding a good middle ground.

#15 Snacuum

Snacuum

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 177 posts

Posted January 08 2013 - 10:57 PM

Quote

Ever hear of the snowball effect since you want to throw out big ideas?  Lets not get a small wad of snow rolling down the hill eh?

Hey how about you realise this is the suggestion forum and allow people to make and discuss suggestions?

You do realise that most people don't enjoy fighting an uphill battle where it's pretty damn clear you're gonna lose. If you're happy to trounce people so much that they stop playing then great! I for one think the game should flourish.

Also my point earlier was simply that: If you're winning that damn much then your opponent won't have an 'advantage'. The winning team already has all the advantages they need.

#16 RedVan

RedVan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,268 posts

Posted January 08 2013 - 11:21 PM

View PostGaizokubanou, on January 08 2013 - 10:46 PM, said:

View PostRedVan, on January 08 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

The point remains:  You shouldn't give players an advantage of any sort, no matter how big (aimbot) or small (a second less respawn timer), if they are doing poorly.

I don't find few seconds shorter respawn time to "boost" the losing team a problem at all actually.  If they got aimbot that would be horrible but those two are just worlds apart there is no point of trying to make a point using such ludicrous example...

It's not a ludicrous example, it's an expression of how much I object to such things in an FPS.

Why do you feel it's ok to change game mechanics based on player skill?  Shouldn't the player adjust to the game mechanics?

#17 Snacuum

Snacuum

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 177 posts

Posted January 09 2013 - 03:07 AM

I'd prefer it to be a game and not a sport. A game should be fun for everyone. Sports can sometimes be fun but not when the winning team thrashes the fuzzy bunny out of the other.

#18 WearisomeOrphan

WearisomeOrphan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted January 09 2013 - 06:35 AM

View PostRedVan, on January 08 2013 - 11:21 PM, said:

Why do you feel it's ok to change game mechanics based on player skill?  Shouldn't the player adjust to the game mechanics?

I don't think this is about player skill, it's about *team* skill. There is no skill required to be put on a better team because it's random. To balance the randomness of teams, we can give a team a small benefit if they are getting their teeth kicked in.

If that benefit happens to bring the game back to parity, they lose the advantage and then we see what happens next. This could only bring a game back into balance, you can't win by it if the advantage goes away.

#19 RedVan

RedVan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,268 posts

Posted January 09 2013 - 11:48 AM

View PostWearisomeOrphan, on January 09 2013 - 06:35 AM, said:

View PostRedVan, on January 08 2013 - 11:21 PM, said:

Why do you feel it's ok to change game mechanics based on player skill?  Shouldn't the player adjust to the game mechanics?

I don't think this is about player skill, it's about *team* skill. There is no skill required to be put on a better team because it's random. To balance the randomness of teams, we can give a team a small benefit if they are getting their teeth kicked in.

If that benefit happens to bring the game back to parity, they lose the advantage and then we see what happens next. This could only bring a game back into balance, you can't win by it if the advantage goes away.

I say player skill because a skilled player will work well with a team, and also be competent enough to kill.  If you have a team of skilled players, they will win.  If you have a team with unskilled players, they're not going to work as a team, and they're not going to be good at killing.

Player skill is the determining factor of "team" skill.

And I still think it's a terrible idea to change the game because player, or team, skill is low.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Community

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users