How to balance the game with leavers?

[TKF]

This is a problem which we could use your input to solve and we need to discuss this publicly.

The one of the big issues with balancing a game with leavers, is that leaver gold which is the current balancing system only gives a short term advantage to the team with the leaver. However as the game progresses a team with 2 less players than the other team has a very little chance of winning according to stats. This shows us that the current leaver gold solution isn't sufficient to the team with the leaver as in most games they lose. A team with 4 players still has good chances against a team with 5 players, but it's much worse to play 3v5, as it's quite pointless to play when your chances to win is unrealistically low. You waste time being on the team with less players and being the team with 2 leavers gives you almost an guarantied loss and is very unfair to the ranked league and gives you an undeserved loss.


I would suggest to also distribute the leavers gained xp by ( leavers earned XP / 2 + 100 / number of players) as a suggestion to the team with leaver so their tank level also improves a bit and it useful in long term until the team has reached their max level. But this is just my idea and it doesn't need to be implemented. If you have other suggestions how to balance the game with leavers which replace/improves the current leaver system you're welcome to come with useful suggestions and the mappers will consider your idea.

Another solution is to make the 5 min gold less unfair as it's current system provides a greater shared bonus to the team with more players. Should we reward the team with leaver, or is it good enough as it is? Discuss.

Your ideas? Your opinions?

[daCe]

can not continue to play a bot for the leaver?
One more player, would bring something. Even if it's just a bot

[AGGInator]

all 3v5 games i had last time was a win for us... (the 3 players..) its harder but possible.

[xXBehinderungXx]

Just add an !end command that needs more than 80% of all players agreeing.

Would also be cool for the 5vs5 endless titanwars

[Ger-Dyers-Eve]

The problem is not gold or xp. Its just one or two more tanks against you. These tanks have HP! and SKILL! Skills>Weapon and HP>Weapon also. So, with more gold you can only purchase one better tank, while you have at least 2 tanks against you in a 3v5.

I dont think, that can be balanced. Leave as it is. In a 4v5 or a 3v4 it works quite fine and those games are also in my point of view real league-games (remember soccore matches with 1 red card or 3 red cards (2-1)). Games with more than 2 players difference are quite fungames - but not a league-game.

[TKF]

The problem is not gold or xp. Its just one or two more tanks against you. These tanks have HP! and SKILL! Skills>Weapon and HP>Weapon also. So, with more gold you can only purchase one better tank, while you have at least 2 tanks against you in a 3v5.

Do you have a different idea about the problem? If gold and xp isn't good what is needed then?

[Ger-Dyers-Eve]

The problem is not gold or xp. Its just one or two more tanks against you. These tanks have HP! and SKILL! Skills>Weapon and HP>Weapon also. So, with more gold you can only purchase one better tank, while you have at least 2 tanks against you in a 3v5.

Do you have a different idea about the problem? If gold and xp isn't good what is needed then?

Thats stands right under this quoted sentenced. I have no real Idea how to balance such a gameplay-problem. Perhaps make REALLY short-range weapons, which are only accessable when you are in a 3v5 oder 2v4 :mrgreen:

[Aero]

Really, I pretty much feel like when you are down to 2 players in one team and started being 5, it's painful to keep playing, being overfed or not. This is not a pleasant way to win/lose at all, so why not just prevent the case. Arguably, 2vsY causing the game to end might seem excessive, and people might just use it when they are down to three to kick somebody and cause the game to end if they're loosing. But in the end, how can we blame that behaviour?

3vs5 is so disappointing, but I pretty much feel like the actual balancing system gets the best out of it. I don't like switching one player from one side to another, and kicking anyone with the lowest tank worth or such is, in most occasions, the wrong thing to do. Also, I really like the -giveup command which gives a breathing room when it comes to a pointless battle.

But here : If the amount of players in one team reaches 2 or less, then the game will end. We might want to check in the first time if the game started 5vs5 to avoid anything bad.

Aero

[TKF]

The problem is that forcing the game to end when the team has 2 or more leavers is an unacceptable solution since this can easily be abused.


Leaver AI is totally out of question since they have no chance against skilled players.



The leaver gold kinda gives the team a short term advantage and doesn't really give the team advantage in long games. We need good ideas if you have any. We cannot control the players behavior ingame whetever they decide to leave. However we can make a working solution to make the team with leavers having a better chance against a team with more players.

[xXBehinderungXx]

what about more troops out of factorys? or some upgrades?

[TKF]

what about more troops out of factorys? or some upgrades?

That might serve as benefit for the team with a leaver, but more troops will provide more income and it's very hard to counter balance that so that's out of the question. In league balance is quite important as leavers is the most unbalancing factor and leaver gold solution has existed for extremely long ago. This has been little discussed and some very creative and good ideas which might replace or supplement the current leaver gold system which helps to balance it more is needed. However adding 2 levels permanent to a team with a leaver might also be an experimental solution, but it's also a short breath solution. Making something with the creeps spawns breaks the fine balance.



Ok this discussion had few inputs, I put my input and see what you think about it. (WARNING: A small wall of text)

I will suggest to balance out the gold distribution system as it's currently in disfavor against a team with less players.

CURRENT FORMULA (unless this has been changed without my knowing)

Code:

FORMULA: ForceGold * 4 / (NPT * 9 + 15)

Force gold every 5 min:
5 players = 33.33% (6.67% for each player)
4 players = 31.37% (7.84% for each player)
3 players = 28.57% (9.52% for each player)
2 players = 24.24% (12.12% for each player)
1 player = 16.66%
________________

FORMULA: 32 / (NPT * 3 +5)

Gold income for every second for each player:
5 players = 1.6 gold every second for each player (100%)
4 players ~ 1.88 gold every second for each player (~94%)
3 players ~ 2.28 gold every second for each player (~85.6%)
2 players ~ 2.90 gold every second for each player (~72.7%)
1 player = 4 gold every second for each player (50%)

As you see, both formulas favors a team with as much players as possible. Being less means less being distributed and thus teamwork will easily break a team with less players. Leaver gold just gives a short breath and temporary fills the penalty hole. Both systems will over time punish the team with less players which is unfair system in league game.

__________________ __________________
__________________ __________________

force gold every 5 min
Suggestion 1

Code:

ForceGold * 4 / (NPT * 11 + 3)

34,48% (6.89% for each player)
34,04% (8,51% for each player)
33,33% (11,11% for each player)
32,00% (16,00% for each player)
28,57%

More balanced value that gives a team with less players much more force gold advantage. More balanced than old formula in player favour. Slightly shortening formula which keeps about the same gold rate as the old formula. Barely noticeable ingame and benefits the team with leaver. I like this solution best as it kinda keeps the current gold levels the same in 5v5 games and increasingly gives the team with a leaver better force gold share. However this will also impact the -kick player culture as well. This formula is a bit close to linear balancing.


force gold every 5 min
Suggestion 2

Code:

ForceGold * 4 / (NPT * 9 + 5)

40,0% (8.00% for each player)
39,0% (9,75% for each player)
37,5% (12,50% for each player)
34,8% (17,40% for each player)
28,51%

More flattened value that gives some disadvantage against a team with leavers. More balanced than old formula in game favour. Gold increasing formula which increased the amount of gold in the game. This will change the 5 minutes cashflow ingame and will increase the gold received from force gold. Some players refers this as "noob gold" which also benefits the less skilled players. This formula is a a bit less linearly balanced than the first suggestion, but more linear than the old formula.


__________________ __________________
__________________ __________________

Gold pr sec
Suggestion

Code:

FORMULA:  43 / (NPT * 5 +2)

5 players ~ 1,59 g pr turn (100%)
4 players ~ 1,95 g pr turn (~98%)
3 players ~ 2,53 g pr turn (~95%)
2 players ~ 3,58 g pr turn (~90%)
1 player ~ 6,14 g pr turn (~77%)

This formula will decrease the gold income in 5v5 games for every player by about half percent below current standard which is barely noticeable and have small impact on gameplay. However the team with less player will notice this slightly over long time. This will benefit the team with less players than the current old formula. By playing with the number I found this acceptable, but it can be tweaked since the +2 modifier close to linear numbers.




_

I think this in addition to leaver gold would make a team with less players slightly stronger gold wise, but the numbers. Having a leaver shouldn't give your team such a long term overpowering advantage in gold income AND being 1 or more players. Balancing the force gold/ gold pr sec will provide a more fair play imo to battle tanks. Being in numbers is advantagous, also being punished with less gold distributes over several players is more unfair. Even with this it won't impact gameplay quite much, but it's somewhat noticeable.

What do you think of this revolutionary suggestion?

[Ger-Dyers-Eve]

I prefer at most the gold per second-idea which provides you a linear advantage in relation to the current system. Also, it has no realy "impacts", instead its a flow, which suits better to the game I think.

[TKF]

I prefer at most the gold per second-idea which provides you a linear advantage in relation to the current system. Also, it has no realy "impacts", instead its a flow, which suits better to the game I think.

I suggest both the gold pr sec AND force gold every 5 min to be implemented. Gold pr sec has much less influence that the force gold every 5 minutes and only fixing gold pr sec and players ingame won't notice the very very small gold increasement. Gold pr sec has less and less impact as the game lasts longer since it doesn't increase such as the force troops bounty does.

[Ger-Dyers-Eve]

I prefer at most the gold per second-idea which provides you a linear advantage in relation to the current system. Also, it has no realy "impacts", instead its a flow, which suits better to the game I think.

I suggest both the gold pr sec AND force gold every 5 min to be implemented. Gold pr sec has much less influence that the force gold every 5 minutes and only fixing gold pr sec and players ingame won't notice the very very small gold increasement. Gold pr sec has less and less impact as the game lasts longer since it doesn't increase such as the force troops bounty does.

I would just suggest a long beta-phase with these changes. What do you think?

[TKF]

New version always comes with beta testings periods but how long is up to mappers. The bot can record the game length statistics and such. The change I propose will most likely increase the gametime a bit in games with leavers.

[GEN_Schwarzkopf]

I agree that both sides should be getting the exact same amount of resources (gold) no matter how many players there are.

The problem with balancing for leavers is that early leavers (within first 5 or 10 minutes) is actually an advantage for the short-handed team with leavers and late leavers (after 25 minutes) is a huge disadvantage for the short-handed team.

Thus if you are 3v5 from the start and the team of 3 actually has a good chance of winning due to less XP sharing and more gold. If they can get some kills and an early decent tank the effect snowballs like it was a game in HB mode.

If there is going to be a balancing formula it needs to take into consideration what time the player left. I'd suggest a not giving any advantages to a team who has a leaver within the first 5 minutes.

- Rob [GEN_Schwarzkopf]
I'm not scron2, scron2 is my brother.

[TKF]

That's mainly because leavers later ingame only distribute 50% of what their had and their xp gained is lost forever, thus leaving earlier is kinda to their teams advantage if you look at that perspective, but that player did also put an effort while he was playing so let's not forget that. My suggestions might be quite a bit, but it can be adjusted if the mappers find a need to tweak it.


However being 3v5 from start really depends that the other team has worse teamwork than your team. The team with 5 players will usually lose on 1on1 situations so without teamwork they lose.

[GEN_Schwarzkopf]

I think your idea is good TKF.

[IlPalazzo]

Honestly, I don’t play the game as much as I used to – but imbalance was a problem I noticed and was hoping would be worked on. As TFK noted, a 5v5 is ideal, a 5v4 gives the team a 4 an early game advantage, a 5v3 gives the team of 5 an advantage if they have some competent level of teamwork, and a team of 5v2/5v1 is almost impossible to deal with. I don’t have too many good solutions, but here what I think the problem is and maybe this post will spark an idea for you guys. I want you to take notice on a few things:

- The early game, middle game, and late game are different – in a sense that people’s playstyle change as the game progress, so we should consider each game phase separately.

- In the early game, players spread themselves out the maximize farming.
In a 5v4 - Generally the lanes split into a 1-3-1 split vs. a 1-2-1 split… For the team with 4 players, they are at an advantage in TWO lanes, but at a disadvantage in one. Of course, the two 1v1s in the side lanes favor the leaver-side team in this situation, simply because they will have more gold to buy another tank/weapons. In the middle, this is a bit more balanced – with the leavers-team having extra gold and experience, but the team of three having greater numbers.
In a 5v3 – To maximize farming the team of three will usually attempt to split in a 1-1-1 fashion, while the team of five will either stay as 1-3-1 or 1-2-2. As is the case that tends to happen - either the team of three is being overwhelmed in one lane by three players, or at a disadvantage by because they are in a 2v1 situation in two lanes.

- Tier 2 and Tier 3 tanks are much stronger than Tier 1. Players who reach these tanks first will have a window of opportunity to dominate their opponents and squeeze out kills. The faster they generate gold, the bigger the window. In order for the team of 4 (or 3) to gain the upper hand - they MUST use this window in order to win the game, otherwise they will lose in the late game.

- In the middle game, players spread themselves out to make their CP push or defend. If a player leaves in the early game, the team with less players will begin this phase at an advantage. However, if the player leaves in early-middle game, it’s generally not skewed to far to one side. On one hand – the team with less players still have a chance to capitalize on their extra gold and get a few kills on the other team, but at the same time their opponents are leveling up and things tend to balance at this phase when everyone begins to grab their ultimate/Teir 2 tank.

- In the late game, players COME TOGETHER to make their final push against the base. Most battles are usually not dictated by 1v1s, 1v2s, 2v2s, or 3v3s… In this case the team is usually close to each other and battles are a matter of 5v3 or 5v4. In this case, the players with fewer numbers are at a huge disadvantage – because late Teir 2 – Teir 4 tanks can push out anywhere from 3,000-10,000 burst damage on any tank. This fact is a huge counter-balance favoring the team of 5 when you compare it to the gold advantage the smaller team obtained in the early-middle stage of the game.

- Simply having more cooldowns/stuns/burst damage at your team’s disposal is an advantage itself. A huge part of the game is the tank's level - getting to level 10 is essential… As more and more people reach higher and higher levels – they're able to push out anywhere from 2000-10000 damage with their abilities in a matter of seconds. This outweighs and high tier weapon that you can buy in the shop.

- WHEN a player leaves plays a huge role. An early game leave may be an advantage to the team, but a person who drops in the late game can be devastating. Not only because 50% of the gold/100% of the experience is lost for good as TFK mentioned – but because the phase of the game is different. The early game window that the team of 4 can exploit is no longer there, nor did they ever have the chance to reap the benefits.

There's my wall of text - if you want to balance it you may want to adjust the experience and gold formulas to close off the early game advantage small teams have in the beginning of the game, and the tank skill gap when the bigger team starts getting their high end tanks. Or perhaps even making adjustment to tank abilities can alleviate this problem.

If they can get some kills and an early decent tank the effect snowballs like it was a game in HB mode.

GEN - Don't be join'n High Bounty hate wagon on me - I tested a lot of neat things and learned a lot from that mode, even if it isn't quite balanced. :wink:

[GEN_Schwarzkopf]

I like[d] HB mode iLPallazo. I was just using the mode as an example to illustrate how an small early advantage can snowball into a huge late game advantage.

I agree with your ideas and suggestions; you express you ideas with clarity.

- Rob