Team Balance - It'll be the death of me.

[Machine]

Ok, no need to explain in great detail because I'm pretty sure you all know what I'm talking about....

Guarding on the last round, I want to thief the next... BUT NO... Guard again.

Its gotten to the point where i'm regularly guarding 3 - 4 maps in a row and it sucks.

Guards have been beefed up now, so let the teams be equal at least, rather than Guards = Theifs + 1, It's pushing me away from the game now, and I know it seems kind of selfish, but I want to play theif and guard near equally.

The way the maps are at the moment I actually enjoy playing Guard just over half of them, so I'm not asking for something unfair. Just that when I choose to guard one map, I want a greater garantee that I'll be able to thief the next one!

So to summerise, IMO ideally :-

On map balance after team selection, Theifs can equal Guards + 1 (like in 1.2)

The guards have been beefed up enough IMO to handle this, there are of course issues with Deathmatching but thats NOT the point I wish to address here.

[PhaeThorn]

You are right. I suggest some "that guard must thief, NOW!" thing if he has been guard for the second time. It's like a rank. People with rank 3 get to be thief sooner then people with rank 2, 1 or 0.

Guard for the second time = rank 3
guard for on time = rank 2
thieved before = rank 1
thieved more then 1 time = rank 0

[LaughingRat]

TM, in your opinion, does this occur because people are delaying choosing a team until after team balance has been applied?

[-=V12US=-]

TM, in your opinion, does this occur because people are delaying choosing a team until after team balance has been applied?

Yes, there are still alot of people who intentionally sit out the balance thing and join guard or thief after it. Which is highly annoying, because even though they join guards themselves, the player who deserves to be a thief is often made a guard as well. There should be an option that puts all players that haven't chosen a team as spectators.

There's a second reason though. People who just joined the server allways have higher priority for playing thieves than people who allready played a round as guard. And there are lots of people joining games, playing thief and then leaving after they die... sometimes making players play the guard team upto three times in a row since there are way more guard players postround than thief players.

I don't think the last reasson can be fixed though... you can hardly forbid people to leave after they die.

[LaughingRat]

That's interesting. I didn't think that players having just joined got higher priority for playing thief. In my experience, I usually have to guard when joining a server, before I can go thief.

I also know the server keeps track of who played on which team last round. As of mapchange, the names of people in the server are written to a .ini file, and anyone who was a guard last round is usually given priority for thieving the next round, and vice versa. It only keeps a one round history, though, and I don't know how it treats people just joining (or who leave, and then rejoin).

[BiG_D]

Probably not worth coding, and it has some flaws, but what if the game kept track of the actual time you spent on each team... That way, if you join near the end of the round, you still have a chance to be on that team again next round, because the time you spent on that team is less than others... Flawed, but I figure you people can make it work...

[Entropy]

What if the client tracked total minutes so far spent playing each team (internet matches only), and the difference between the two is the order in priority that the server uses to assign players to teams.

For example, someone who had 113 minutes as a guard and 100 minutes as a thief (13 diff) would get preference for joining thief team over someone who had 110 minutes as guard and 105 minutes as thief (5 diff), and they in turn would get preference over someone with 110 minutes as thief and 90 minutes as guard (-20 diff). The opposite would apply if the three players were trying to join guards.

[DarkProject]

i agree...team balance was nicer in 1.2

[Master-Builder]

What if the client tracked total minutes so far spent playing each team (internet matches only), and the difference between the two is the order in priority that the server uses to assign players to teams.

For example, someone who had 113 minutes as a guard and 100 minutes as a thief (13 diff) would get preference for joining thief team over someone who had 110 minutes as guard and 105 minutes as thief (5 diff), and they in turn would get preference over someone with 110 minutes as thief and 90 minutes as guard (-20 diff). The opposite would apply if the three players were trying to join guards.

Wouldn't be hax0r proof...

Besides, dont take this to the extreme and forcing every player to play as much thief as guard.

[Machine]

TM, in your opinion, does this occur because people are delaying choosing a team until after team balance has been applied?

Yes it does somewhat, but to redefine...

If all goes fairly and everyone picks theives on one match, and the same happens on the next match either one or two people will be forced to guard for a second time, u see my point?

Thinking about it myself it seems really petty but I'd just like to be able to think to myself, 'ahh, i'll guard this map and theif the next' with little chance of failure, I like to plan what maps I will thief, and the goal that I will be a theif next round drives my guard killing instincts!!! ROAR!!!.... sorry... :?

OK, I've looked over what others have suggested, here's my idea which I have tried to keep workable and come the end of may when uni finsihes I'll code if no-one else is up for the task!

(Server Side)
- A log of the past X amount of games is kept, in this log are the IP's of all players involved in those games, along with which team they were on and a boolean value (True or False) which defines if they picked a team at the start of the match (before the timer expired).

X would be defineable in serversettings, and would remain serverside to avoid hax0rs. I would think a value of 10 or = the amount of maps in the cycle.

At the start of the match, everyone is allowed to pick their team, after the timer expires the people are balanced taking the following into account...

-What they have been in the past few games, and if they joined late (after the timer expired)

Once the timer has expired everybody who was a theif last round is blocked from picking thief, and is only given the option to guard or spectate. Others who have guarded last round are given full options. (this will be defineable, so servers can select how many times before a theif is locked out)

So, if your a theif one round you can still be a theif the next round IF you pick before the timer expires, it's a harsh system but one that should be fair on people.

It's open to suggestions, and like I said if nobody else does it I'll try to script it and make it as flexable as possible.

Edit--->

This is by no means a complete specification, obviously there would have to be things for spectaters which from the tope of my head I would prioritise as above theives but below guards.

[KewlAzMe]

ehhh.... of course...

Problem Solved HERE: http://www.thieveryut.com/bb/viewtop...asc&highlight=

particularly this part:

3 players (2 Guards/1 Thief)
5 players (3 Guards/2 Thieves)
7 or more people should allow more thieves: (3 Guards/4 Thieves).

[Kwil]

..every time you play a guard, you get one "choice" point. Every time you choose to play a guard, you get an extra "choice" point.

Every time you choose to play a thief, you lose one guard point. Negative values are possible.

Whenver too many people are choosing one side or the other, priority for thieves goes to those players with the highest number of points, priority for guards goes to players with the lowest number of points.

Leave the server and your points go back to zero.

Want to play a thief on a certain level? Choosing to play a guard on the level previous will almost guaruntee it.

[Machine]

Thats the biggest point in my eyes really, just that if you guard on level then you should be damn near gaaa-ran-teeeeed to thief the next *IF* you choose to.

[Occam]

..every time you play a guard, you get one "choice" point. Every time you choose to play a guard, you get an extra "choice" point.

Every time you choose to play a thief, you lose one guard point. Negative values are possible.

Whenver too many people are choosing one side or the other, priority for thieves goes to those players with the highest number of points, priority for guards goes to players with the lowest number of points.

Leave the server and your points go back to zero.

Want to play a thief on a certain level? Choosing to play a guard on the level previous will almost guaruntee it.

Simple, yet effective.

I hope to see this implemented.

[CrouchingDork]

You know what I want?

KEEP TEAM BALANCE ON AT ALL TIMES, ESPECIALLY MID-GAME!

I'm sick of being the last thief on 7 guards. Or, the last guard against 5 DMing thieves.