PDA

View Full Version : Should players be forced in the smaller team?


Mountainforest
03-08-2004, 03:15 PM
I'm wondering, should players be forced to play in the smaller team? As seen in another forum, the seperatist are less popular then the republic. And it wouldn't be a nice game if one faction is outnumbered. On the other hand, it would be nice if you could play your favourite faction...

Alegis
03-08-2004, 03:43 PM
hopefully it will have some features like Enemy Territory,where you can enable 'balance team', with this feature on you will not be able to join a team with more players than the other

Mountainforest
03-08-2004, 04:28 PM
But it isn't nice to play with the faction you hate, especially if you want to play a faction wich is very popular, because the chance you can play the faction you like then is very small.

Maybe it's an idea to make the players in the faction with less players stronger then the players on the other site, that would also encourage other people to play another side (because they will be stronger then), and it would give a fair game without forcing players to one team.

Sounds Risky
03-08-2004, 06:00 PM
I'm sure there will be an option when someone starts a server to force even teams or the ability to activate team balance mid-game, like in Battlefield.

Wai_TungLeung
03-08-2004, 10:27 PM
Its a matter of what options are presented to the host. Two factors will be the change team option and the balancing team option.

Team balancing will put incoming players into the team with least numbers. However the teams can still become unequal if a lot of players leave the game.

Then there is the team changing option, which can result in you team mates abandoning you while you lose the game, but also allow people to swap over to unbalanced teams.

Any servers with a large number of decent players will automatically pressure someone to change teams when possible. My thoughts are if you want to join a certain side, then good for you, but you should not be too stubbon if the team asks you to change side.

pink lightsaber
03-09-2004, 12:15 AM
I think that the their won't be team balancing because the outnumbered team can have cpu players to play. If u are badly outnumbered then the cpu should be stronger or harder to beat.

My.02cents

eastcoast2895
03-09-2004, 03:29 AM
as long as the teams are balanced somehow i'll be happy. although i'll admit i always have fun being on a team w/ less ppl than the other for the challenge. it just gets annoying when i hear ppl saying their team rules when they have twice as many ppl.

Mountainforest
03-09-2004, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by Wai_TungLeung
Any servers with a large number of decent players will automatically pressure someone to change teams when possible.

Sometimes there aren't decent players. And when only one swappes team, somebody else should 'sacrifice' himself to çounterswap'.
I agree that the teams should be balanced in the fitrst place.

Mountainforest
03-09-2004, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by pink lightsaber
I think that the their won't be team balancing because the outnumbered team can have cpu players to play. If u are badly outnumbered then the cpu should be stronger or harder to beat.

My.02cents

I'm goining to play the game online to fight real players and not AI players.
Why are you goining to play the game online?

pink lightsaber
03-09-2004, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by jasperw
I'm goining to play the game online to fight real players and not AI players.
Why are you goining to play the game online?

Yes very true what was i thinking doh.:p You are right, if i wanted to play cpu i would just play galactic conquest by myself. Duh i can be so dumb some times.:(

Mountainforest
03-09-2004, 04:12 PM
ok ok, it's al aright (don't comit suicide...)

Dr.Davidson
03-11-2004, 08:36 AM
i think it would be best if there was a server option to auto-balance teams. thus you can manually dis- or enable it.

i think its generally quite good to have this auto-balance, but suppose there are tow or three god-like guys who want to play it "realistic" as there are 3 rebels vs. 10 imps... the three good play together, and the not-that-goods play imps. i think then you shouldnt force auto-balance...

Glacius1
03-11-2004, 10:44 AM
I dont really like the idea of forcing an auto balance. Sometimes in BF42 you were outnumbered, and you end up getting pushed right back to your main base or spawn point. It was kinda fun defending the base against a bigger enemy.

BF42 rarely ends up with teams that are uneven enough to affect the outcome, but like I said, sometimes it adds a different spin on the map, and startegies must be rethought. The only time I can see things getting out of hand are when the federation plays the clones, that or the hoth level, Im guessing lots of people will want to cram the AT-AT's. But then that would be half the fun again, defending the trenches against the stronger imperial force:monkey4:

Mountainforest
03-11-2004, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Dr.Davidson
i think it would be best if there was a server option to auto-balance teams. thus you can manually dis- or enable it.

i think its generally quite good to have this auto-balance, but suppose there are tow or three god-like guys who want to play it "realistic" as there are 3 rebels vs. 10 imps... the three good play together, and the not-that-goods play imps. i think then you shouldnt force auto-balance...

Brings me on an idea. You're absolutely right, three good players vs 10 others good be fun. But this can be done in combination with a balancing system: one that also has the option not to look only at the numbers, but at the skill too. The system should look at the player stats and use that as base to define the player to a team.

StormHammer
03-12-2004, 09:10 PM
I think the key to this issue is having a range of 'options' for balancing - that way you can toggle them on and off on the server to get the game style people want to play. I'm sure there will be plenty of servers to go around, so it should eventually be just a matter of finding a server that supports the play style you like. Switching teams at each map change can help to even things out as well. Let's just hope they've looked long and hard at options for balancing...

Mountainforest
03-14-2004, 06:03 PM
Looks like most players would like it if players are forced in the smaller team. But when I'm playing online, most servers don't have this option enabled. Anyone knows why?

Dr.Davidson
03-14-2004, 06:32 PM
because they suppose the players are going to balance teams on themselves. and when they dont, they dont do it on their own will. who doesnt accept this, simply changes the server.

thats what i suppose.

lukeiamyourdad
03-15-2004, 01:26 AM
While playing BF1942 I've already seen people switching to the winning side in mid-game and that keeps pissing me off. My teams was once outnumbered 31 vs 9...

That's when auto-balance should come in, so people won't be facing a larger army then yours and god-like players won't be all on one team.

VanLingo
03-15-2004, 04:24 AM
I say NO for one reason:

BOTS!

This game will have bots that will balance the teams. Not quite the same, but it makes it way better than unbalanced.

-- Lingo

Dr.Davidson
03-15-2004, 12:37 PM
uh-oh. bots aint as good as humans in any case, and they are not that unpredictable that humans are. you would also be pissed off if you were in a game where 9 human players including you+22 bots played against 31 human players.

cuz you cant communicate with bots that well, cuz they ... simply aint human. and at all, this game is - i hope so - NOT designed to play vs or with bots in the first playce...

lukeiamyourdad
03-15-2004, 08:48 PM
There are games with prettty smart AI like Far Cry but it really doesn't equal itself to any human players. Although in certain times, some bots seem smarter then certain human players.

Wai_TungLeung
03-15-2004, 10:03 PM
I don't regard bots as the way to go for the future of gaming, it is far easier just to just to use humans than bots so that is what I reckon all future games should base themselves upon rather then all this AI stuff.

What certainly shouldn't happen is for players to be automatically shifted from one team to another while playing. That would just be confusing and unfair.

Host should have the option of auto-balance at the start of each game and the option of a reshuffle of players. But afterwards it should be left to fate how the team numbers change. I agree it can be fun defending your base to the last minute waiting for a new player to come in to help.

A good host will ask for a player to swap if there is great unfairness and they should definatly make some noise if players unbalance the teams on purpose.

And I have doubts over a stat related method of balancing teams as it can if handled badly lead to errors.

Dr.Davidson
03-16-2004, 06:05 AM
@ lukeimyourdad

maybe theyre smarter, but thats not the same as human. you will always be able to differ if the guy in front of you is a human player or not.

lukeiamyourdad
03-16-2004, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
There are games with prettty smart AI like Far Cry but it really doesn't equal itself to any human players. Although in certain times, some bots seem smarter then certain human players.

Please, before you try to correct me, actually read my posts.

Dr.Davidson
03-17-2004, 08:50 AM
didnt try to correct you. just ... added another aspect.

tFighterPilot
03-17-2004, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Glacius1
I dont really like the idea of forcing an auto balance. Sometimes in BF42 you were outnumbered, and you end up getting pushed right back to your main base or spawn point. It was kinda fun defending the base against a bigger enemy.

BF42 rarely ends up with teams that are uneven enough to affect the outcome, but like I said, sometimes it adds a different spin on the map, and startegies must be rethought. The only time I can see things getting out of hand are when the federation plays the clones, that or the hoth level, Im guessing lots of people will want to cram the AT-AT's. But then that would be half the fun again, defending the trenches against the stronger imperial force:monkey4: No way dude, I'm taking the Snow Speeder :biggs:

Mountainforest
03-17-2004, 01:23 PM
In Jedi Academy Siege, it's a;ways the case that players change party after one round, so they could play that partie again the second round. I always have to change teams (and others too of course) to keep it fair.
That doesn't mean I don't want to play the other team for a while. So those players are ruining the game for others. I think you have similar players in other games.
There should be a option that players can't switch teams.