The "Balance" Problem (Survey Feedback)

Discuss the campaign and all things BF.

Moderator: Executive

User avatar
Jokerle
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Posts: 1986
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:13 pm
Location: latest crashsite

Re: The "Balance" Problem (Survey Feedback)

Post by Jokerle »

RazY70 wrote:
Bock wrote:How soon can one decide a campaign is bad and one-sided?
We have 2 scrims and a BFI, add 2 more battledays and you should get a pretty good picture. At that point you should at the very least discuss the option to scratch the campaign with the HC's of both armies.
Squad play and army interactions can take a long time to come online (3-5 saturdays maybe), but things like forum activity and the overall interaction between the officers can be judged fairly well when the BFI comes up (IMO). A dead forum should be a big warning.
Wat ne Wuchtbrumme!
Kilo
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:26 pm
Location: California

Re: The "Balance" Problem (Survey Feedback)

Post by Kilo »

I'm going to write from a perspective on recruitment from how different tournaments do things. As of now, GC has the lowest numbers and activity of the 4 English-speaking tournaments (The Brazilian one has us all beat in terms of activity). The biggest difference from GC to the other 3 is the way it handles recruitment.

At both 21CW and LevelBF it is expected of the leadership to recruit their own players and not rely on the "community vets" who will always play no matter what. The main reason is in all of the tournaments there aren't enough hardcore players that will return campaign after campaign. DSG does the same to an extent, but like GC it relies on the admins to choose where the new players are going. More often than not, they will be allowed to join the team of their friends unless one army is getting their asses completely handed to them.

So let's go over the join processes for these tournaments:

Global Conflict
- You sign up for a draft before the campaign starts.
- You sign up in the "late draft" and the TA's choose where you go.
21CW
- If you are a new member you can choose which side to join regardless of balance
- If you are a returning vet you can either pay a fee to choose a side or go random
- General gets a certain amount of free picks for Officers
LevelBF Open
- New or old, you get to join the side you want.
LevelBF Veteran (which hasn't existed for awhile due to lack of people taking leadership roles)
-All Draft, first by groups then by single players, must've played in Open Tier or have prior experience in 32s. And then the sign ups are closed. There's a second draft mid-way through the season.
DarkStar Gaming
-You sign up in a thread and state your preference of team and it may or may not be honored depending on balance


So how does this effect numbers and balance?

Numbers:
In 21CW/LevelBF, seeing as the teams are responsible for their own numbers, both sides will go ham in recruiting. Before the first battle of the LevelBF Season, each team had 100+ people. Before the first scrim of the 21CW Campaign, each side has 70-80 people. Throughout the campaign and season, some numbers will be shed due to inactivity, people finding out 32s isn't for them, scheduling issues, etc. However, both sides are constantly recruiting new people.

Balance:
At LevelBF, one of the teams was completely crushing the other. Instead of saying, "the balance is terrible, we surrender" they went out and recruited more players to replace their rage-quitters. Their team ended up winning the season.
At 21CW, most campaigns usually end up with 2:1 win ratio, so it isn't like you are losing every single round. The more one sided campaigns usually are the result of one team's leadership not doing their job of recruiting more players.
At DSG, well the balance is kind of like here. One team will dominate for a bit, then people volunteer to switch to the other side and that team will dominate for a bit and it goes on and on. However, there is a steady flow of new people due to both teams recruiting players.

So basically the idea I wanted to put forward is make the army leaders responsible for bringing in more people into GC and that will solve both balance and numbers if done right. As in: don't go just recruiting MLG players, both sides need to balance recruiting your normal BF4 player along with some of the more skilled ones and I think the GC leadership is mature enough to have both sides do that.

TL;DR - New blood via army recruitment is the key.

Wow, I didn't mean to write that much. Time to go back to studying for finals.

EDIT: Also, this is only in response to the recruitment part...I have no real experience or opinions on how the draft is done.
Last edited by Kilo on Thu Dec 11, 2014 5:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
Battlefield Tournament History
BF3C4: STAR Infantry Private 2Image
BF3C5: LOD Infantry Private
BF3C6: UNSC Infantry Private First Class
BF4C1: USSR Infantry Conscript
BF4C2: GoCI Infantry Private First Class
BF4C3: LN7 Infantry Private
BF4C4: JANUS Armor Private
BF4C5: KTSS SAS Captain
BF4C6: SAD Infantry CorporalImage
BF4C7: GC Infantry Captain
User avatar
RazY70
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Posts: 1134
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 12:24 pm

Re: The "Balance" Problem (Survey Feedback)

Post by RazY70 »

Jokerle wrote:
RazY70 wrote:
Bock wrote:How soon can one decide a campaign is bad and one-sided?
We have 2 scrims and a BFI, add 2 more battledays and you should get a pretty good picture. At that point you should at the very least discuss the option to scratch the campaign with the HC's of both armies.
Squad play and army interactions can take a long time to come online (3-5 saturdays maybe), but things like forum activity and the overall interaction between the officers can be judged fairly well when the BFI comes up (IMO). A dead forum should be a big warning.
But 5 Saturdays is exactly the time I suggested (2 crims + BFI + 2 battledays) :)

A dead forum is also a good indication for a lack of interest. Our (SAD) forum was pretty dead as well.
Image
StarfisherEcho
Executive
Executive
Posts: 3037
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:24 pm

Re: The "Balance" Problem (Survey Feedback)

Post by StarfisherEcho »

Kilo, thanks for the analysis of the other communities. If we really want to improve, we have to look outside for ideas.

If other communities can pull in big numbers, then we ought to be able to as well. We have to change how we look at recruitment and how we sell ourselves.

That starts, of course, with getting a strong campaign going to pull people in.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Divine-Sneaker
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:26 pm

Re: The "Balance" Problem (Survey Feedback)

Post by Divine-Sneaker »

Gwynzer wrote:
Spoiler: show
There's a few requests for transparency here and in the survey. To that all I've got to say is we (execs) have certainly taken that on board and for now, "stay tuned."

I can walk through what the General Selection Process has been so far for our BF4 Campaigns. I'd like to point out now that the overall goal of choosing generals is to pick two people who are of somewhat similar skill, temperament and attitude. There is no point in pairing a "relaxed" general with a Do-or-Die-Super-Extreme-Effort-Win-At-All-Costs general. It's obvious to everyone where that campaign is going to go. If there's a single "Super Competitive" applicant and two "Will put in effort but not go OTT" applicants, we're going to match the latter two against each other.


BF4C1
Cheesy (Soviets) vs Shrap (Allies)
We wanted to start this off with a bang. The development group agreed on choosing tried and tested Generals who are both competitive and dedicated, as well as fairly competitive. The idea was to continue this at the very least into the HC of the armies, who were chosen too. The choice to give the Generalships to Cheesy and Shrap was pretty much a no-brainer to anyone who has been around GC for a long time. I think that campaign skewed to one side a bit due to some bad timing with Shrap and his work. I thought that the campaign wasn't too bad though, but in saying that I was on the winning side.


BF4C2
Hitman (9MEU) vs Fields (GoCI)
I think everyone involved from the beginning knew that this was not an even matchup. Fields is chillax to the extreme, and Hitman is... not. :P At the time, it felt like all we had available. I've just went and looked at the survey results and at the time we had ONE person sign up for General. I'd normally not divulge names, but shall this time due to my later point, this one person was Necromancer. At the time I believe Necro had no "significant" form of leadership experience, I don't think. Perhaps armour captain? I'm honestly not sure, it was a while ago. As such he was dismissed from the selection. There are usually a few people every campaign who we immediately dismiss from being General, quite often there are people who sign up who have only played for a small part of the previous campaign. Within that campaigns development group, Fields and Hitman were the only two people willing to step up and do the role.

I think, with hindsight and learning Necros abilities, Necro V Hitman would have had the potential to be very competitive and balanced campaign. Both people are admittedly not teddy bears and that could have caused some raised tempers and angry people. Or the campaign could still be going right now. We don't know, and there's no point dwelling on it - I think that, given the information we knew at the time, we made the best of a bunch of bad choices.


BF4C3
Insanity (TCF) vs Sloth (LN7)
Two Generals of similar temperaments and dedication. Both very committed to the GC community and good at the role. They were the obvious picks and frankly they were overdue for volunteering anyway. I think both armies had different strategies to the draft (I believe LN7 went for "skill", and TCF went for "Reliability) and that's what started the slow slide. It wasn't a great difference, and I think that the victory to TCF was really based on a "winning week" they had where they isolated everything they wanted on the Risk map. A lot of time, practice, and planning went into that week, I don't think it was an undeserved victory, effort was expended. Again for this one I was playing from the winning side, you'd have to ask a neutral (or Sloth/one of his HC) on their opinion.


BF4C4
Cog (SAD) vs Wild (JANUS)
There was quite a bit of discussion for this one as we had 3 serious applicants of the same level. Some more people signed up later, but by the time they did so the choice had been made. As I said above, we aim for getting generals who are the have the same kind of attitude and skill level, and I think Cog and Wild are pretty on par. As I was TAing and the campaign is still "fresh", I'm not going to make any comments on where thing's went wrong (TAs shouldn't have opinions :lol: ), but I think, especially WITH hindsight, that the right guy's were chosen based on the applicants.
I think it's certainly interesting to hear the thought process behind these picks, and I'd be interested to hear from more people actually involved in that since opinions and input will inevitably vary to an extent.

Can we just have more of this and similar discussion in general just out there in the open, instead of hidden away in secret lest a single person somewhere might feel offended?
"fraking game mechanics"
Shrapnel
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Posts: 3273
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:23 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: The "Balance" Problem (Survey Feedback)

Post by Shrapnel »

I've been mulling over some ideas on balance. I'm putting here just to discuss as I'm not convinced on any one of them. I've posted some other thoughts at the end.

Random Draft
Use a random number generator to decide army composition. Each player in the draft is assigned a number, a coin flip determines which army receives a player first and a random number generator is used to assign players. A generator that doesn't repeat numbers would have to be used, or some other work around, or TAs will sit there all day waiting for the next number to come up near the end of the draft. There would be separate infantry, armor and air drafts.

The main benefits of this method is that it removes human error and creates a more transparent "fairness" to the draft system. It has major downsides though, no accounting for availability, no accounting for skill, completely removes a General's ability to decide the composition of his army and there is really no way to ensure if it would create a more balanced campaign. It would just be pure luck if the campaign ended up balanced.

"Skill Quotient" Variance Limit
Draft is conducted the same as it is now, but at the end of the draft the TAs will add up each army's "skill quotient" and if there is too wide a variance will declare the draft invalid. HCs would then need to trade players until the variance is within the decided upon limit.

What's a skill quotient?
A players battle log skill rating, or another statistic from a player's battle log profile that indicates their skill.

PROS:
:arrow: Measurable statistic to balance campaigns.
:arrow: Only minor, if any, detriments to General's ability to decide army composition.
:arrow: Improved perceived fairness to draft system.

CONS:
:arrow: Does not explicitly take availability into account (HCs should take into account during draft but players may get switched based on skill quotient disregarding availability).
:arrow: Battle log numbers may not indicate actual skill, especially for air/armor players.
:arrow: Many GCers only play at GC which doesn't report on battle log.
:arrow: Creates additional work load for the TAs as they must look up every players skill quotient, or we must create a script to pull the information.
:arrow: Does not account for team work or leadership skills.

Variable Division Campaign
This one is a bit complicated and is a departure from the traditional GC armies.

First HCs are selected, then officers are determined with input from both HCs. Officers then draft players to their divisions. There would be four infantry divisions, two armor divisions and two air divisions. The campaign would proceed as normal except that each week HCs would pick which divisions will play for their army with the first pick going to the HC with the lower WCP. Divisions would be static, but which army (or HC) they played for may change from week to week.

PROS:
:arrow: Allows dynamic army balancing during the campaign.
:arrow: Could create stronger ties between division members.
:arrow: Improved division identity/competition

CONS:
:arrow: Wins would be virtually meaningless to all but the HCs.
:arrow: Completely removes ability to plan and organize as an army prior to battle.
:arrow: Battles will be almost completely skill based.
:arrow: Removes General's ability to decide army composition as there is no permanent army.
:arrow: Eliminates army identity for all but HC.

Ladder squad draft
This idea is built off of the 8v8/10v10 tournament idea discussed in this thread

First we pick HCs who will not participate in the tournament, or will have matches against each other to determine first pick. The HCs then determine, together with TAs, who in the officer draft they would like to lead their divisions. Those selected will then select people to join their "squads" in a draft. There would be 8 infantry squads, 4 armor squads, 2 jet squads and 2 helo squads. Those numbers are based on a typical army set-up of two infantry divisions, one armor division and one air division with one Captain and one Lieutenant in each division.

Those squads would then face off in a single elimination tournament. Battles would be best two of three on two maps, one chosen by each squad, "defender" picks side. Infantry squads would fight infantry only, armor would fight tank v tank and air would fight jet v jet or helo v helo. Match-ups would be decided by random number generator or by using the "skill quotient" to split squads between sides of a bracket (top two quotients are split, then the next highest, etc).

Squads would then be drafted to armies based on when they were eliminated from the tournament. First round eliminations are split between the armies, second round eliminations are split between the armies, etc. Pick of squads based on coin flip or HC match-up victory.

PROS:
:arrow: Army composition based on actual in-game team based performance.
:arrow: Exciting new "mini-game"?
:arrow: Generals get to see their perspective officers in action before drafting.
:arrow: Streaming fun.

CONS:
:arrow: Doesn't take into account availability.
:arrow: Players have to take part in the tournament or results will be skewed.
:arrow: General's ability to decide army composition limited.
:arrow: Difficult to integrate new members until completion of tournament
:arrow: "Odd man out" issues if numbers don't match (or TAs skewing results).
:arrow: Less effective for Jet/Helo/Armor match-ups due to lower numbers (only one match-up for jets/helos :-/). Possible fix: Make those match-ups 1v1 or 2v2, but that limits HC ability to gauge officer leadership skills.

Three Armies
Probably the most complicated and would create real confusion for new members.

Essentially everything would be run the same except we would split the players between three armies. A third color would be added to the campaign map. Armies would continue to rotate attack weeks but it would be a three week rotation.

The army who is neither attacking nor defending would be split between the other two armies and integrated into their divisions during battle days. The HC with the lower WCP would get first pick for selecting integrated divisions.

If/when one army is eliminated the eliminated army's divisions would be split between the remaining two armies with the army possessing the lower WCP getting the first pick.

PROS:
:arrow: Improved army balancing as third army divisions would augment the other army's
:arrow: Dynamic balancing during a campaign as HCs alter third army division picks from week to week.
:arrow: Improved strategic match-ups. (Possibly)

CONS:
:arrow: Requires three HCs
:arrow: Weakens army identity.
:arrow: Could be very confusing to new members.
:arrow: Complex. Adds additional steps prior to each battle which could delay start times, especially if the defender changes between attacks.
:arrow: 1/3 of the army would have no prior knowledge of the strat.
:arrow: Could create problems with leadership in the loaned divisions.
:arrow: Could create issues with loaned division members throwing battles so the attacking army does not make gains.
:arrow: Increased complexity in campaign system and administration.

Other Thoughts:

Neutral Group
We had a neutral group for quite awhile and it was mostly effective at countering availability issues as the campaign progressed. It was disbanded because that group was always made up of veteran members who were much more needed in leadership positions in armies. It was draining us of 6 or so potential officers so we decided to tell them to stop hiding in the neutral group and start leading again. Some said ok (one even became a general), but others we haven't seen since. I don't think it's time to bring this group back for the same reasons we disbanded it.

Making the campaigns more interesting
The key to making campaigns more interesting is to have active and engaged people, especially in the officer corps. Yes the main event of the campaign is the battleday, but keeping people engaged in the forums during the week greatly improves the odds that they will show on battledays, or at least will tell you if they can't make it. Also, that all important organization we promise is created on the forums. If we're organizing on TS five minutes before the battle then we aren't delivering a truly organized battle.
[sig]Broken due to link being older than I am (in internet years at least) and laziness[/sig]
User avatar
Ghoul
8.Lord
8.Lord
Posts: 1128
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:23 pm
Location: Mesa Arizona

Re: The "Balance" Problem (Survey Feedback)

Post by Ghoul »

Kilo wrote: TL;DR - New blood via army recruitment is the key.
Can you give some examples of how these other communities recruit? I've personally attempted to talk to people while playing on other servers for years trying to get them to check out GC with no success. Our server can spam advertisement if we can populate it but unless I beg people to hang out on the server with me it doesn't happen. Not to mention that Dice broke the adaptive server size plugin on purpose never to be fixed which helped to populate the server. In ancient history we bought google advertisement for several hundred clicks a month to show up when people were searching for battlefield tournaments and that didn't pay out. The only thing that has ever produced notable results were our two redit rushes using a bait click to get people to click on the link. (You wont believe what happens in BF4 when you add risk to the equation....!!!)

So I am very interested in how LevelBF manages to find 100 new members per side for each campaign. I know things were better when we had Daskro youtube-ing our matches.

As for the transparency requests. Yes this thread is the first of many topics that will be discussed that are normally somewhat back channeled. Please understand, never have these discussions been purposely hidden in some 'good old boys' club just for the sake of it. Its not been secret just to be secretive, its just that discussing things in a place where everyone can chime in adds a massive amount of delay to the already long process of getting a campaign rolling. I've heard the Generals selections seemed just out of the blue for some people, but the truth is that there are usually only two to four guys that are even willing to step up and take the position (after much peer pressure) and often times we've had to beg someone just to step up into the second position. We will be starting a General Nomination Thread shortly, hopefully we have more than a couple people who want the job and and are capable.
Image

BF3C3 • DARK • Sergeant
BF3C4 • Gladius • Sergeant
Image
BF3C5 • Legion of Doom • General / Lord
Image
^^^cause the only way I can get medals is to give them to myself^^^
BF3C6 • IMF • PFC
BF4C1 • Allies • Corporal
BF4C2 • 9th MEU • Sergeant First Class
Image
BF4C3 • Lucky Number Seven • Chief Warrant Officer
Image
BF4C4 • SAD • Private
Image
BF4C5 • EVIL • 2nd Class Minion
BF4C6 •TCF • Made Man
Image
Kilo
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:26 pm
Location: California

Re: The "Balance" Problem (Survey Feedback)

Post by Kilo »

Ghoul wrote:
Kilo wrote: TL;DR - New blood via army recruitment is the key.
Can you give some examples of how these other communities recruit? I've personally attempted to talk to people while playing on other servers for years trying to get them to check out GC with no success. Our server can spam advertisement if we can populate it but unless I beg people to hang out on the server with me it doesn't happen. Not to mention that Dice broke the adaptive server size plugin on purpose never to be fixed which helped to populate the server. In ancient history we bought google advertisement for several hundred clicks a month to show up when people were searching for battlefield tournaments and that didn't pay out. The only thing that has ever produced notable results were our two redit rushes using a bait click to get people to click on the link. (You wont believe what happens in BF4 when you add risk to the equation....!!!)

So I am very interested in how LevelBF manages to find 100 new members per side for each campaign. I know things were better when we had Daskro youtube-ing our matches.


Filling up a public server and recruiting is USELESS. 21CW insists on doing it for some reason no matter how I hard I convince them not to, and they will get 20-30 people on to fill up the server and they get at most 2-4 people per "recruiting session".

How to recruit is easy: All or most of the leadership add people on battlelog, talk to them and sell them the idea of 32v32 organized gameplay and get them to sign up. When I really tried recruiting when I was an infantry Captain I would be adding at least 10 people a week, sometimes even more. Say you add 10 people, 5-6 of those will probably accept your request. Of those 5-6 people, 2-3 people will sign up. Of those 2-3 people, 1-2 will play. Of those 1-2 people, 0-1 people will stay for the next campaign. How to improve these rates? I'll talk about it further down the post.

They key is you have a LOT of people doing this recruiting and the way Level's and 21CW army structures are set up allow you to make sure they are not only in your army, but always in your squad on battle day. At GC its 1 infy division, 1 armor division and 1 air division. At 21CW/Level its 4 separate infy companies who always play together so Capt/Lts are responsible for recruiting for their company and keeping it full during battle-day. Plus the people they recruit are guaranteed to play in their squad.

So having company leadership in charge of recruiting for only their company helps relive the strain of the HCs thinking they have to recruit for the whole army. Of course, the HCs will still be focusing on recruiting for the company with the least people. For example, if we don't have jet pilots they will focus on trying to recruit jet pilots.

Now the hard part: Actually finding people to recruit.

Let's go over some recruiting methods.

1) Adding people you see do well or work together in pubs. This is my least favorite because it is the most time consuming to do and least efficient. However, it is viable in the fact that all of your members can do this.

2) Word of mouth. Asking your soldiers in your company if they know anyone who would be interested or know of any jet pilots, heli crew, tankers, etc. This one is viable when you are running into a recruiting slump. You can only use this method once or twice during a campaign.

3) Making posts on reddit. MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE AN ADVERTISEMENT. In fact, don't even mention the name "GC". Make a post like this. I got around 20 battlelog adds and 10 PMs from that post (which only had 5 upvotes - imagine if it had more)

4a) Make up some arbitrary stats depending on what you are looking for. Looking for tankers? Go to bf4stats.com, go to leaderboards in tank kills and go to like page 50 and then start adding people. You don't really want the type of players at the very top.

4b) This is something I did when the reddit platoons were first created. There's were around 7 of them with 200+ members each. That's 1400 players to go through. So I sorted by a kd of 2 first and added every infantry player with a kd of 2. When I got to the end of that, I added everyone with a kd of 1.5 or above. (You don't have to do it by kd, its was just an easy stat for me to look at to see how good a player may be)

Some other things to look for when looking at stats:

1) Try to get level 100's and above, because that means they actually enjoy playing the game. Nowadays, level 130+ would be even more ideal.

2) Class/weapon usage. Do they only snipe? Is their kd high but SPM/KPM super low? Big sign of a camping sniper there!

3) Quit percentage. Now this isn't foolproof as some people have high quits because of game crashes but if they ragequit a lot in pubs, they may ragequit a lot in battles.

4) Game-modes they play: You don't really want to recruit people who only play tdm, although sometimes it has worked out for me and I converted them to playing conquest :D

Retention: How to Improve Retention Rate

Once you add them and recruit them into GC, now what?

1) You have to keep talking to them after every practice and match. Ask them how they felt about it, what they liked and didn't like. Make them feel involved. THIS IS HUGE. If players feel welcomed and recognized consistently, they WILL come back. I have a second monitor so if during battle someone from my company joins TS, I will instantly drag them down, say what's up and that I'll get them in next round.

2) This is more relevant for division leaders. Organize pub sessions with your newly recruited division members. Hell, that's how tK got formed. Almost all my recruitees from over a year ago still pub together to this day even though half of them don't play organized 32s anymore.

3) Make sure you introduce them to other leadership and each other. Even if you aren't on, they still have people to talk to and play with and talk to about tournament stuff so they feel part of the community.

So in conclusion, the biggest difficulty to overcome with these above methods is actually getting your leadership to do all the above. It is actually a bit of work but its something that I required all of my company-level officers to do at 21CW. If one of your captain's fail to do the task, HCs can always step in and help out.


TL;DR - You have to make recruiting a personal 1 on 1 thing. That has given me the best results and the best retention rates.



EDIT: Also, Never try to recruit people in the middle of a pub round. They're in the server to pub, not to talk to people. Add them and talk to them afterwards on battlelog.
Image
Battlefield Tournament History
BF3C4: STAR Infantry Private 2Image
BF3C5: LOD Infantry Private
BF3C6: UNSC Infantry Private First Class
BF4C1: USSR Infantry Conscript
BF4C2: GoCI Infantry Private First Class
BF4C3: LN7 Infantry Private
BF4C4: JANUS Armor Private
BF4C5: KTSS SAS Captain
BF4C6: SAD Infantry CorporalImage
BF4C7: GC Infantry Captain
cancel_man
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Posts: 274
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 11:58 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: The "Balance" Problem (Survey Feedback)

Post by cancel_man »

Shrapnel wrote:"Skill Quotient" Variance Limit
Three Armies
I've been thinking about both of these as well.

The Skill Quotient- or more generally player stats- is fairly simple: Track score, K/D and attendance for each player over their GC career (don't use Battlelog, it's crap for us). It's as simple as screenshoting the end of round scoreboard on Battleday. This wouldn't be an end-all stats system, but it would be a good way to determine whether drafts are balanced for player skill and attendance. And just as you said- if a drafted army's stats are way out of balance, call for a re-draft.

Of course there are things that affect these stats (eg: commanders don't get kills), but averaging stats over a couple of campaigns tends to even things out.

Three Armies does seem like a stretch- especially when the other half of this conversation is low numbers/recruitment- but I agree that it can make sense. A strong army will be ganged up on by the 2 weaker armies and, like you said, one army could be "conquered" and folded into the other armies after a few weeks of play. Plus the Risk game doesn't get overwhelmingly unbalanced after just a couple bad weeks.

I'm in an airport right now; will be back later with more thoughts on this.
Kilo
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:26 pm
Location: California

Re: The "Balance" Problem (Survey Feedback)

Post by Kilo »

cancel_man wrote:
Shrapnel wrote:"Skill Quotient" Variance Limit
Three Armies
I've been thinking about both of these as well.

The Skill Quotient- or more generally player stats- is fairly simple: Track score, K/D and attendance for each player over their GC career (don't use Battlelog, it's crap for us). It's as simple as screenshoting the end of round scoreboard on Battleday. .
There are plugins that can do that for you instead of manually taking screenshots.
Image
Battlefield Tournament History
BF3C4: STAR Infantry Private 2Image
BF3C5: LOD Infantry Private
BF3C6: UNSC Infantry Private First Class
BF4C1: USSR Infantry Conscript
BF4C2: GoCI Infantry Private First Class
BF4C3: LN7 Infantry Private
BF4C4: JANUS Armor Private
BF4C5: KTSS SAS Captain
BF4C6: SAD Infantry CorporalImage
BF4C7: GC Infantry Captain
cairdazar
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Posts: 555
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:24 am
Location: sweden

Re: The "Balance" Problem (Survey Feedback)

Post by cairdazar »

Shrapnel wrote: "Skill Quotient" Variance Limit
...
What's a skill quotient?
A players battle log skill rating, or another statistic from a player's battle log profile that indicates their skill.
...
:arrow: Creates additional work load for the TAs as they must look up every players skill quotient, or we must create a script to pull the information.
...
I made a similar tool for the 2014-04 reddit promo, it splits a long list of signups in to 2 balanced groups based on k/d * play time. It is easy to change it to compare 2 groups and use any other combination of values (from battlelog).

It is fairly easy to make one that takes a platoon url instead and ranks players according to some value(s). If anyone whats to follow kilos advise and contact alot of people in battlelog.
Image
Image
Image
Kilo
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:26 pm
Location: California

Re: The "Balance" Problem (Survey Feedback)

Post by Kilo »

cairdazar wrote: It is fairly easy to make one that takes a platoon url instead and ranks players according to some value(s). If anyone whats to follow kilos advise and contact alot of people in battlelog.
You can also do it through http://bf4db.com/platoons

Select a platoon - http://bf4db.com/platoons/297711997560507660

And then you can organize it by Score, skill, k/d, SPM, rank.
Image
Battlefield Tournament History
BF3C4: STAR Infantry Private 2Image
BF3C5: LOD Infantry Private
BF3C6: UNSC Infantry Private First Class
BF4C1: USSR Infantry Conscript
BF4C2: GoCI Infantry Private First Class
BF4C3: LN7 Infantry Private
BF4C4: JANUS Armor Private
BF4C5: KTSS SAS Captain
BF4C6: SAD Infantry CorporalImage
BF4C7: GC Infantry Captain
User avatar
Divine-Sneaker
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:26 pm

Re: The "Balance" Problem (Survey Feedback)

Post by Divine-Sneaker »

Unless you can find some way of sifting through armor/air players, then it seems like it might give some skewed results for those in particular. People who exclusively play infantry will generally have a pretty different set of stats than the players in specialized roles.
"fraking game mechanics"
Kilo
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:26 pm
Location: California

Re: The "Balance" Problem (Survey Feedback)

Post by Kilo »

That's why you're going to have to check each player individually to see what weapons/vehicles they use. Using the above tools is just to see who you should even look at in general. You're going to have to actually check all of them individually.
Image
Battlefield Tournament History
BF3C4: STAR Infantry Private 2Image
BF3C5: LOD Infantry Private
BF3C6: UNSC Infantry Private First Class
BF4C1: USSR Infantry Conscript
BF4C2: GoCI Infantry Private First Class
BF4C3: LN7 Infantry Private
BF4C4: JANUS Armor Private
BF4C5: KTSS SAS Captain
BF4C6: SAD Infantry CorporalImage
BF4C7: GC Infantry Captain
User avatar
bigdcowboys22
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:53 pm
Location: Fredericksburg, VA

Re: The "Balance" Problem (Survey Feedback)

Post by bigdcowboys22 »

Having been an HC member on a both a side that completely demolished the enemy and was completely demolished, I think it's fair to say I have no idea what's needed to help the balance issue. :lol:

To be completely honest, I don't really show up to GC for the BF. I find BF4 only mildly entertaining anymore. I show up because I've created a great bond with a wide range of people here and I want to play with them. I enjoy playing all ranges of games with the people here, and really only play BF4 anymore because that's what brought us all together. The community aspect of GC is what really separates us from any other "tournament" group out there. GC Rust anyone? Just my 2 cents, but I digress...
Tea-Assault wrote:...Have casters set up in the spectator slots to keep people in the waiting rooms entertained, casters who practice casting the clutch moments and are good with camera angles and talking about what is going on as it happens (ie. they are able to project an interesting and exciting voiceover whilst the battle is going on). Calloutman (oops, not him but the american with the name that begins with a 'C'), Daskro and the guys who did the BF4 Beta obliteration rounds are prime examples of this....
I think this is a great point, and I'll take it a step further. Twitch has become a massive beast. We should use it to our advantage for recruitment and retaining purposes. Streaming during battledays not only keeps people not in game entertained, it keeps people who may not be able to show up for a battleday involved. As I've gotten older (I'm sure a lot of the long time GCers can relate) I don't necessarily have every saturday open to play BF all day anymore. A lot of the time, however, I could flip my phone or laptop over to Twitch and watch a battleday happen while I'm otherwise obligated. This would go miles in keeping people involved (especially newer GCers). A lot of people in this community have beastly computers, we should make sure to have at least 1-2 people casting on battledays and ideally someone casting and commentating.

Taking that point further and mixing it with my previous comments about the community as a whole...we should do what we can to drum up excitement for the community as a whole. Twitch is a great platform for this. Are two or three of you playing a game together on TS? Cast to twitch and direct viewers to GC. Obviously playing BF will be most effective for our BF tournament purposes, but I don't think it needs to end there. If you're playing Insurgency, Payday2, or even Farming Simulator 8) , cast it to twitch and direct viewers to GC. We might be surprised at the effectivity of it.
Setting a goal is not the main thing. It is deciding how you will go about achieving it and staying with that plan.

Leadership is getting someone to do what they don't want to do, to achieve what they want to achieve.
Post Reply