It’s a complicated issue because whatever system is created there will be people trying to break it; people are jerks that way. My solution is simple: Ensure the same number of human players start on either side each game!
I see it working like this:
37 people que up for Berlin axis, and 8 people que for allies. One game starts with 8 allies and 8 axis. The remaining axis slots can only be filled if more people decide to join the allied team, since the game will now only allow people to join the game on a 1:1 basis. Until then bot teams will replace them like normal.
The remaining 29 players hoping to play a game of Berlin axis are notified that they can play sooner if they decide to switch sides and play as allies. Some will and another game can start as soon as a minimum threshold of even players is met.
Should the obstinate axis mains of this hypothetical que persist in waiting, they’ll be next in line to play the 8 allied players once they’ve wrapped up their first game.
This should help motivate players to self-balance teams by virtue of their own impatience and possible sense of fairness
i don’t think this is necessary the case. from my experience small inequality of players in the team does not have such a big impact on the course of the battle, i had plenty of custom matches in which we had little inequality and we still managed to win.
and if people can’t play their axis mains, joining the other side is last thing they’d do.
There’s too many variables to guarantee a perfectly balanced match every game. Of course sometimes a team with one or two human players can beat a whole team of human players, that’s not what happens on the whole though.
The probabilities are skewed more by darkflows use of tickets and capture times to balance overall match outcomes. These sometimes extreme ticket balancing moves only makes the player imbalance problem worse, and can only be reactionary.
As a matter of percentages; having a balanced number of players is going to lead to more matches that are balanced than matches having an imbalanced number of players. It might also give players incentives to try teams that they otherwise wouldn’t, and finding they enjoy it more than they thought.
It could be so easy - and again Verdun/Tannenberg is the example:
Ingame-Browser.
Players are able to pick the most crowded servers and will be forced to join the weaker team as far as there is an imbalance.
Also, pings will be shown.
Easy solution, but unlikely to happen with Enlisted since ingame browsers reveal the actual count of current active players and bots. People would shout “Game’s dead. Not enough human players!”
I disagree that this would work. I think it would likely drive people away from the game.
The thing is, FORCING players to play on a certain side, or making them wait a considerably longer time is not a good solution.
Incentivizing playing as the underdog faction, but not making it a REQUIREMENT is the only good solution that I see when it comes to matchmaking.
It works perfectly in other games - really no need to question it.
Problem here is the pathetic grind and premium system - THAT’s why people want to play a certain side. Regardless of how much this premium nonsense adds to a proper working game.
Lowering prices drastically, skip the battlepass bs and people will come. Lower prices → much more likely that people will buy it. The less you pay, the less you care about the faction to play for, because any faction and its “merch”-stuff is affordable.
More players, less problems with matchmaking.
But hey, here comes brother Greeeed.
Nobody is forcing people to play one side or the other this way. In the case of imbalanced campaigns one side is already forced into changing sides because they never have enough players to win a match.
This method gives everyone a better game because they aren’t forced to choose to play a match that’s 2v10 or to quit and try again. Many players in this forum have said they’d rather wait 5 minutes to play a full game of players than be dropped into a pve bot match after 90 seconds.
Until then bot teams will replace them like normal.
I interpret it as: if one fraction is short of players, then the fraction with players queuing would have an option play a bot match. In addition, I think players should be allowed to join the underdog bot side mid-match and receive the xp boost you suggested.
That’s a good idea and I’d like to see implemented, ideally in addition to balanced teams of players per match start. It would incentivize players even more to move away from overpopulated factions.
The cynical among us would point out that exploitive players will use join any faction to gain the bonus and game the system by just quitting any match that puts them on the wrong team.
Well, waiting 5+ mins to be thrown into a pewpewpew and AI-bullsh*t match doesn’t appear to be a profound option as well, I’d say.
I have a wild guess which players stated to rather wait instead of playing against bots: Starts with a P and ends with ewpewpew-player faction. Because they like to have that moment of dominating human players with their ridiculous style of play rather than mowing down meaningless bots.
Playing against bots wouldn’t be much of a thing if they’d fuckin start to code a real AI instead of that idiot-lemmings joke.
I love a good pve bot match, and I’d like the ability to choose when I get to play one and which side I’m on. Last night I played 5 or 6 pve matches, unfortunately for me I kept getting put on the e side and it did not end well for me.
The dream of many of us, and hopefully darkflows too, is a strong ai that can be as challenging as the average human players. Until they master that I think the best course is a matchmaker that starts balanced matches with 1:1 player counts.
To be fair, there have been games for me that are AI that CAN be strenuous. Just due to sheer numbers, and the magical arty strikes from bots against rally points. It could still use work, but its not as bad as one might think (in some areas.)
Your suggestion sounds fair and great, although there are going to be many challenges in actually doing it.
I’d love to see this game, because it would be incredibly interesting if both teams were equally competent.