game desperately needs team balance

[gleaming crater]

Issues is that the game automatically puts the high levels in one team. Any since you cant team switch easily to balance it, you are stuck.

[sick juniper]

persisely they need at least a system that tries to make the average level on each team equal would be better than the no ballance we currently have

[rustic vigil]

I'm afraid this results in many people refunding the game. Chivalry-like games have such a big skill gap. I hope this gets better, otherwise Chivalry goes down a Mordhau path.

[gleaming crater]

Melee slashers like Chiv, Mordhau, etc have a small interest group. Many big devs simply look away when they see this genre, they rather make shooters and stuff.

[sick juniper]

b

[autumn linden]

"stacked with level 300+"
solution is just to remove the levels form the scoreboard easy, then yall should have to judge skill not scary 3 digit number

some high levels are complete ass, adn some low levels are demons

im lvl 800 on epic thats scary right?
On steam im lvl 55 not scary ah?

[mighty karma]

@autumn linden youre suggesting to take away showing levels instead of fixing the game? The average high level player regardless of skill will know more about to win than the average low level player, no matter how skilled they are.

Having many high levels on one team, again, regardless of skill level is a distinct advantage because they will know how maps play and certain objectives are won.

[autumn linden]

no shit? like any other game on the planet?

listen this game is heavy on mech skill

of course if i play 200 hurs i will pave a 3 hours player

[autumn linden]

bro this is how life goes, people who practice will be better

what are they supposed to do? make high levels spawn with no weapon to give less skilled player an even playing field?

i never played dota ever so if i start today i will lose and lose what am i supposed to do? go on discord and making a team balance post or try to improve?

https://tenor.com/view/think-emoji-thonk-meme-gif-11987870

[mighty karma]

@autumn linden youre supposed to make it so each team has an equal level of high level players, none of what you said makes any sense in regard to what I said

If youre teams are not balanced, no one will play long enough to improve

[autumn linden]

ok but what if all your lvl 100s just played TO and best they can do is dane axe slash and my lvl 100 are people who played a lot of duels or train with better playes?

we both have 8 lvl 100 but yours get demolished

what then hmm?

same levels different skill

LEVEL DOES NOE EQUAL SKILL

[mighty karma]

I literally said level does not equal skill, learn to read

I said the level 100s who play team object will understand how team objective should be played and will have a distinct advantage over the ones who do not

[autumn linden]

yeah i was putting it in big letters for the others that might read this : )

@mighty karmai had countless discussions just like this and i've never heard a solid solution to this """problem""", im sorry pal this is just how things go

but im sure you just had good intentions

but many before you tried and...failed

cant fix this

[mighty karma]

@autumn linden have a level threshhold, say one times max level is 1500 and the others is 3000, force an auto balance to make each teams have a max level of 2250. Unless some odd circumstance happens where one sides high levels are drastically better than the others, it will make the game much fairer

[autumn linden]

ok fine, fun what if... "player" is forced to play "attack/defence" but they want to be on the other side

but that side is LEVEL "full"

[mighty karma]

My opinion on players who will only play one side, generally attack, would likely get me banned here

[autumn linden]

ahhh ok ok you're one of those people gotcha

why didnt you say it sooner matey

[mighty karma]

The game is offense and defense, if you refuse to play one side then I have no love for you whats so ever

[autumn linden]

who said we want your love bruh

im just playing a sword game after 9 hours of work

[mighty karma]

Its a saying

[autumn linden]

ill do what i please to be fair

i want to play attack ill do that

no real way to stop that

wanna discuss about it?

[mighty karma]

Congratulations, youre a selfish person

[autumn linden]

https://tenor.com/view/oh-no-gif-13823736

[mighty karma]

Not really, youve shown your character

[autumn linden]

same as:

My opinion on players who will only play one side, generally attack, would likely get me banned here

but heya you do you honey

im such a bad selfish boi

: (

[mighty karma]

I must have hurt your feelings, dont cry about it now

[autumn linden]

sue me susy ✌️

[mighty karma]

@autumn linden its okay, I promise someone calling you selfish on the internet cant do you any real harm

[autumn linden]

oh no thou stiketh me in my pride i must retaliate good sir

[mighty karma]

@autumn linden dont cry now

[autumn linden]

mineseft crying overth this? my lord you've taken me for a common peasant

what a preposterous sugegstion my liege

[junior ridge]

I still don't understand why Zio keeps pretending that the "big scary numbers" are what people are mad about. Big level numbers are just a shorthand for highly experienced players. The issue is a distinct and persistent skill advantage for attacking teams. The problem is not the levels themselves. They're just a general estimation.

Hiding level numbers will solve nothing at all, it will only serve to obscure the issue.

[autumn linden]

it will force people to gauge the skill of their opponent during a match rather that before it began

"The issue is a distinct and persistent skill advantage for attacking teams"

so like

maps need to be reworked? to help defence or what

[junior ridge]

Yes, people will have to gauge player skill during the match.
No, that does not address the issue of unbalanced matches. Teams will still be imbalanced, it will only take people longer to notice.

No, Maps do not need to be changed (at least not to address this specific issue). Defence doesn't need help because defence is inherently disadvantaged. Defence routinely gets rolled because highly experienced and skilled players tend to switch to the attacking team. This leads to a distinct skill gap between the teams, resulting in extremely one sided matches that provide a miserable experience for the defending team.

Please don't play dumb. You know this discussion well enough to be familiar with the problem.

Honestly, the issue isn't actually the team balance itself. It's fine to have one sided matches. The problem is more that it's so persistent and players actively cause this by switching teams. Imo, this is the part that needs to be addressed the most.

[autumn linden]

so we remove switching yes?

and force people to stay on the side they joined as?

[junior ridge]

That's one way to go about it. I'm sure there are better ways as well, I just can't really think of any.

[sinful bane]

the problem is that people pretend that player self-selection is a problem and that the problem isn't that torn banner has done a poor job of designing the defense gameplay experience because they prioritize their "vision" over having an actually fun video game

zio's suggestion does fix a problem, people coping about players instead of maps

by and large you'd have less rolls if defense was fun enough that people didn't want to swap, but it simply isn't, and it simply fails to be rewarding by and large just like how no matter how many people in here tell me tenosia, bridgetown, and stronghold are good the game never fails to keep finding open slots on servers with those maps to the point where I'm queueing up to a dozen times to get a good map, for example.

hiding the numbers is a good idea, because it removes one layer of obstruction between us and the real problem

[minor tree]

Melee KD team balancer. Block switching teams at start. Hopefully even game.

[sinful bane]

imbalance will continue and you'll just see people spam requeue if they're tired of defense or just exit the game outright. They're only going to fix this problem by fixing the game unless they simply want to kill their game faster and solve it by not having anyone playing.

[minor tree]

I gave solution. Did not want a downer to respond. Bye

[sinful bane]

it's too bad the solution was terrible.

[junior ridge]

I don't understand what this insistence is on the game dying if TB introduce some stricter rules. Pretty much every other modern game has incredibly strict skill based matchmaking and all of them do fine. Now, while I don't think SBMM is a good solution for Chiv, I also don't think it'll hurt the game or its community at all.

[sinful bane]

there's a difference between matchmaking so that the lobbies are broadly balanced and enforcing teams in a game where the experience is designed to be negative for a substantial portion of the playing experience.

[junior ridge]

Plus honestly some less nonsense like stacked teams from the player base will also go a long way of keeping players engaged

[sinful bane]

the other thing is that most "matchmaking" systems act with the intent to maintain a "50/50" winrate, so rather than matchmaking balanced lobbies they matchmake "wins" and "losses" to maintain internal equilibrium on whatever ELO system they're using

[junior ridge]

True, but lobbies being extremely unbalanced certainly doesn't help. In fact, it only makes things worse. Yes, it's not the root problem. But it is a very real problem nonetheless.

[sinful bane]

the thing is that it's literally easier to treat the root problem than to make a matchmaking system capable of consistently balancing 32v32 lobbies

matchmaking systems already fail at 5v5 and lower sizes consistently

k/d balancing, for example, just means I'm not allowed to play my good weapons unless I want to fuck up my matchmaking and get stuck on my good weapons forever

[junior ridge]

That's why no one's advocating for SBMM in chiv. It won't provide a good balance. There will still be one sided matches if left to random selection. But those will be far fewer than literally 90% of all matches being stacked in favour of attack.

Actually, some people are arguing for SBMM but that's not me :]

[sinful bane]

random selection isn't random. If I see my defense team is going to be a painful grind and I'm just not feeling it that day, but if I stayed I could have significant influence on the outcome of the game I've just stacked attack by leaving, for example.

The team that people tend to leave on more often is inherently disadvantaged in an environment where teams begin completely random. It'd be less extreme than now, but it doesn't do more than barely mitigate the negative defense experience.

Torn Banner I'm pretty sure is incompetent and doesn't have basic stats like per-point average capture times and per-point average winrates and is just using aggregate map winrate as well which is part of the problem

decontextualized unhelpful statistics ensure they don't address the actual experience of winning on defense

the fact that I can say "every map other than coxwell is actually from a balance standpoint defense-biased and even coxwell is even" and that it's completely unhelpful at addressing the negative defense gameplay experience is a travesty of game design

[junior ridge]

To be honest, I think we have quite different perspectives on how fun defense is. To me, the only thing unfun about playing defense is that it's always an annoying uphill battle against a ridiculously stacked team. The objectives themselves are pretty much the same for me. I mean most objectives are pretty much the same for attack or defense, being that both teams essentially just have to control an area. There are few exceptions like the pig stealing on aberfell, but most objectives are very similar for both sides. Therefore I don't perceive defense to be less fun in most cases. You do however.
This means you're arguing with the context of a deeper root issue that I just fundamentally disagree with.

[sinful bane]

Here's the attributes of defense:

1. Lowered spawn frequency.
2. Often similar or farther spawn runs.
3. Multiple objectives balanced intentionally to be impossible to hold
4. No persistent rewards over multiple objectives such as times on the next objective being influenced by the previous outside of multi-part objectives such as the Aberfell rocks.

Most of the winning defense points:

1. have shortened spawn runs to compensate for the lowered spawn frequency(Aberfell druids, Darkforest Duke, etc.)
2. chokes to make it easier for fewer players to die on defense while more players on offense take higher relative damage(defensive VIP objectives other than Argon and the druids, Rudhelm Gatehouse, etc.)
3. significant ease of disengage and survival for defense(aberfell hamlet, for example)

If you were to have perfectly balanced 50/50 teams you'd simply consistently lose the supermajority of all points in the game anyway and then consistently win on the imbalanced in favor of defense objectives like darkforest's second convoy or darkforest's gatehouse(probably 60-40ish for those two) or on the Duke(probably close to 70-30 or higher for defense with non-inappropriate team composition)

those supermajority of points offer no persistent rewards outside of if you have basic "super" management and didn't waste your banners, horns, etc. on garbage gimme points

there are a few transitionary points I find very inoffensive such as the rudhelm tents being there to allow defense to recollect themselves before the siege ramps or the statues in galencourt trying to prevent an instant roll from the gates to the church, for example, but the level of game understanding for defense to actually be effective is higher as well.

darkforest's gatehouse relies as much on people knowing to stand on the objective instead of fighting at the sides as it does on the actual skill level of the players involved

it's just that skilled players on average tend to also have more effective game knowledge because that tends to go hand in hand

I can't see any way for this to not be an on average more negative experience for the playerbase as designed

and you'll notice you queue into defense more than you queue into offense just like you queue into tenosia more than you queue into galencourt and rudhelm, for example

🤷

I don't hate defense. I just hate the game being designed with the intent of a foregone conclusion.

some points are just as bad for offense as most points are for defense. People would just rather play offense because at least for offense the bad point ends the map like the baudwyn town hall or aberfell druids

[river pasture]

Team balance is a band-aid on a bullet hole. It's a start, but the problem underneath is much bigger.

Chivalry 2 is not intended to be balanced, nor taken seriously in the slightest. The devs likely don't understand how anyone could have more than several dozen hours of playtime. We are supposed to see the maps they made, then go play other games. We're not supposed to care whether they're fair, balanced, or fun. We surely aren't supposed to be competitive with such a game. When we care about winning or losing, we're already "missing the point."

Many players don't play to win. The reward/penalty for winning/losing is nonexistent, which makes a truly casual experience with very little reward for effort. Offense vs Defense is imbalanced, generally in a way where offense gets many more kills, but how can we even get effective data in such a casual game? A game where two whole teams are actually trying to win would be very different from 90% of Chivalry 2 matches.

Most games of Chivalry 2 don't boil down to "Which team is playing their objectives better?" as much as "Which team has more Lv 100+s, and which team has more Lv. <50s?" While its simple to say "We should make those numbers roughly even/fill teams according to player level instead of purely randomly" that doesn't fix the problem that many players will generally care more about their KD than winning or losing a particular game.

The reason why is simple: There's no MMR/ELO system, but KD is tracked. Once you are skilled at the game, there is no ELO to grind (presumably by winning games), there is only KD. The whole paradigm shifts from "I want my team to win" to "More kill less die, fuck objective." If high level players know that offense generally gets higher KDs, and if they are playing for KD, they will naturally stack offense, creating a cascading effect where defense gets run over and loses.

TLDR: team balance isn't enough on its own, we also need something much deeper like ranked play or ELO

[sick rune]

Even on maps that are obviously biased towards attackers for the sake of map progression, a balanced lobby is still more enjoyable than getting stomped all the way to the last objective. Balance makes losing fun, as outlandish of a statement as it is.

There is a blatant issue with defense and the objectives being impossible to hold without being stacked, but I think balancing the teams (even if it's just slightly) will make everyone much happier in the grand scheme of things.

[mighty karma]

They need to fix this and as soon as possible

Absolute joke shit like this can happen

I was on defense so add 1 level 1000, and Aldryn switched like the good lad he is but no chance am I taking a loss in a game due to their inability to balance the teams

[autumn linden]

how?

how would YOU fix it?

[mighty karma]

@autumn linden youve already asked me that, Im not even going to bother with you anymore.

[autumn linden]

clear as day you just want to complain

no way to """"fix"""" this

people need to stop complaining

cant fix skill, simple as

"TORN BANNER THOSE PEOPLE ARE WAY BETTER THAN ME I DEMAND YOU TO FIX IT!"

[mighty karma]

@autumn linden ive given you a way to fix it, it wouldnt be hard.
Youve never even played with me so how would you know skill? Frankly it sounds to me like you dont want it fixed because youre probably a pigeon who requires stacked teams to win

Bringing up a serious issue with the game isnt complaining you dipshit

The ONLY reason youd be agaisnt people talking about it is because you want teams to be unbalanced, thats literally the only reason one can think of

If you dont like people talking about an issue with the game, why are you even in this thread?

[autumn linden]

IMAGINE like starting a job from zero ok ? you will suck (you apparently) , but then you gocomplain to your boss that your coworker (a more skilled player) makes 4 times your salary ( in game points), but he's been there 5 years, of course he will be better and get more money (kills) he has more experience, suck it up and get better "dipshit"

damn people like you taht refuse to put in the work disgust me

its a semi competitive game where skill matter a ton

fuck it im done is like talking to a reddi user

[mighty karma]

@autumn linden "hurr you suck"
Real smart argument, this has nothing to do with skill, it has everything to do with unbalanced teams, skill is irrelevant when youre fighting 5-6 people at once because youre team is full of low levels who die quickly and youre the only left

You know nothing of "how much work" I or anyone else has put in.

Again, like I said, the only reason you'd have an issue with people talking about it is because you want teams unbalanced, there is no other option when it comes to people talking about making the game fairer. So why are you here?

[autumn linden]

tldr, youre a silly goose

from now on i give you the title "duke dumbass"

[junior ridge]

But then imagine 80% of the long time, experienced workers arrange with the boss to be switched into another department that is slightly preferable (maybe tastier coffee or whatever). Now, all the new, inexperienced workers are left to their work devices, leaving the few veterans in among them to carry most of the workload for them while being utterly outcompeted by the other department. That's not fair and that's entirely the boss's fault for not taking care of the issue either before it arose (aka balancing the game) or as it occurs (aka forcing team balance in one way or another).

Stuff like this is common and not controversial in any setting you look at.

This is not a skill issue at all. In fact, I personally still do rather well even in these circumstances. I'm commonly the only one (or one of the few) who can go positive in terms of K/D. I can do just fine, thank you very much. This does not mean team stacking isn't an issue. Seeing my entire team stomped and rolled over still isn't a good experience. It still gives a feeling of being entirely overwhelmed, fighting against impossible odds. Because no matter how well one individual player does, if the team overall is outmatched, it doesn't matter.

[autumn linden]

yeah mate the tastier coffee won me over ngl

ok listen truly no more jokes, but really unless you force poeple to stay on a side you can switch right? but then a problems is people, humans usually dont like to be forced to do stuff

@junior ridge, and if you force a player to stay to either side and they want to swithc they will simply leave and look for a new lobby

you could give them penaltys for elaving sure but that makes people quit alltogether

if i leave and i egt less exp i dont care
if i leave and get a 10 min time out i will just play something else
if i leave and get "open to your sugegstions"...

[junior ridge]

People don't ming being forced to do things in games. Sure, it depends on the thing. But people do not quit because they can't switch teams. This is a ridiculous claim you guys keep bringing up and it's just not true. Literally every game ever has constraints like this. People just deal with it and that's that. It is not a big deal.

[autumn linden]

People don't ming being forced to do things in games?!

https://tenor.com/view/john-cena-cena-are-you-sure-are-you-sure-about-that-are-you-sure-about-that-meme-gif-23133134

[autumn linden]

then dal with people switching, its not a big deal, just following your logic there dude.

im sorry bro, cant change human nature

[autumn linden]

☕

[wooden atlas]

TO absolutely should not have an MMR system. An individual player doesn't have nearly enough impact to justify giving individual ratings for winning or losing. Something like that would be better suited to smaller team sizes, like 5v5 or the current arena modes.

[split pecan]

I’ve really only ever seen stacked teams wipe on attack. Which leads me to think this game has both a atk / def balancing problem, as well as a team switching problem.

Although frankly none of it has ever really effected my enjoyment.

[wooden atlas]

That's about my take as well. The game does not try to balance the maps, nor does the game attempt to teach new players how to do objectives, nor do any systems encourage defense to actually try.

If there weren't as many free objectives for attack, then maybe people would be willing to play defense because they actually get to have a chance on more than like 2 objectives.

[sinful bane]

or if they were rewarded for holding off attack on mitigable but not holdable objectives and that rewarding was communicated in-game to players

idk what kind of game would do that though. It definitely wasn't torn banner's only admitted previous game.

[sick rune]

Didn't TB address that issue already? The changes they made that allowed players to team switch were a lot stricter than previous updates.

[autumn linden]

Yeah but you easily can still play whatever side you want

[sinful bane]

all they did was make it slightly more annoying. Nothing stops you from spec swapping.

[sick rune]

bummer

[sinful bane]

yep, basically all it did was make swapping teams for comp a worse experience and it also doesn't solve any problems in pub TO either

the party system also doesn't work so it'll randomly split parties sometimes which is another reason they can't really get rid of swapping entirely yet

if the party is split I'll usually swap to whichever side has the majority of my party

[sick juniper]

some strange guy u really tryna suck that torn banner cock off its torso its not our problem to fix its the developers

why would we come up with ideas of how to balance a game they make

we pay for it we dont fucking develop it u weirdo

balance in the game fucking sucks and its all good saying get good but the reality is most ppl play to chill and have fun not be sweaty no lifes like you thats abundantly evident if u look at the player count its off a cliff 1k players is a joke for a game this size give it a month and the only ppl left will be little virgins like you sweating the game away

[autumn linden]

Lmao sod off

[sick juniper]

weirdo

[autumn linden]

Keep crying

[sick juniper]

keep taking them fat torn banner balls in your mouth

[autumn linden]

Lmao

You sound mad as hell

What’s wrong big scary high level switched and fucked you up 🥺

[sick juniper]

nah i stopped playing a month ago becausse the big scary virgins are too anoying to play against

all good sweating a game until you ininverently kill the game you love so much....

[autumn linden]

Damn stopped playing and keep crying? That wound was deep lmao

[sick juniper]

yeah i loved the game such a shame fat no lifes killed it

[autumn linden]

Haha cope

[sick juniper]

1k player count is just sad the only ppl left are fat virgins and now when new players join they play for 30 mins get shit on by a load of pedos then quit

[autumn linden]

Dumb siding

[sick juniper]

rip ur game/life

[autumn linden]

Stay fresh mad king

[mighty karma]

@sick juniper the server browser servers often are more balanced, not always but they tend to have atleast a half way fair distrubtion of high levels and low levels on each time

Where as matchmaking usually ends up lopsided, central and west dont seem as bad where as Ive noticed East tends to have the most stacking