team units counter bug

shortly said after my death my team units were changed to enemy units (i didnt change team)
they had no units left so i didnt respawn, but when i changed team to the same as i was before, it got fix'd
so this bug dont only change numbers but mechanics too obviously

 

actually it is not a bug but a awefukl game system which makes you change team automatically if the other team has few players , mostly players with few poins get changed.

 

why changing team when they have no units? :0
i actually thought it could be this but wanted know for sure

 

I knwo its odd but it is it. sadly. anyway i hate this system.

 

like when you build big towers and stuff for red team and then WOOSH you are blue :))

 

Regardless, it is actually a very important feature. Before it was added, teams would often become 5 v 1 in a matter of minutes, as players left.
Rather, take the opportunity to test the value of your buildings. How hard are they, actually, to break down? What are the things which make attacking it really suck?
Where do you die the most while fighting around it?
By thinking this way when you get team-balanced, you can not only enjoy yourself, but improve your skills.

 

Agreed. You should be willing to change teams for the sake of a fair game for everyone, and you shouldn't become too attached to anything you build anyway.

 

it depends, if there is knight (in that building time u cant left your area) in my team he didnt build anything he would better fit in the other team, just for the sake he didnt do anything, he is less relative to team as others let say.
i am not saying that you aren't right IT IS important feature but i myself dont like losing things i put time into, well i think i must get used to it.

 

Is it points based? Seems a little unfair that the player with the least points would get switched though, if alot of players are leaving a specific team then it's often gonna be cos they're doing really badly, so switching the players with the least points across isn't gonna resolve that, I know points aren't a crystal clear indicator of how mush a player is contributing to their team but it's better then nowt.

 

actually I think only knights and archers with lwo points must be made to change teams

 

That doesn't work, RocketRony, since any player worth their salt will probably play all three of builder, archer and knight in a single battle.

 

That sentence was pretty run-on, dude. I regularly top the scoreboards-because I'm the best, you see--, but I still get switched really often, so I don't put much stock in that theory.

Autobalance is.. autobalance. There's no way to please everybody with it, that's a futile effort with KAG's game mechanics; nobody wants to help build an impenetrable fortress, then be forced to wreck it for everybody else's sake. It really is for the greater good, though, so you might as well roll with the punches.

(Besides, at least it isn't like test-build autobalance where the game would shove all but one or two players to one team.)

 

Ideally it would be based on a hidden variable measuring how long you've been playing in a particular round. But for now that's a little complex. Why would it be unfair for the person with the least points to get switched? You do realise there's usually one person in each team with literally 0 points? Plus this is an incentive to get better, if you don't want to be the one switched, get better at the game and you won't. Likely, people at the bottom of the scoreboard are people who have only just joined the game, so they won't mind what team they'll be put on. Yeah they could lament their friends are on the other team but you just have to live with that for balances sake.

The best way to solve this with what we have, is to make it so it only switches people at the bottom of the scoreboard. However, it should NOT switch people with a significant negative score, as these people are likely to be griefers, switching them to the other team causes confusion and allows griefers to get away with more before getting kicked.

 

Yeah there probably should have been a couple more full stops there, nevermind. Anyway, my point was only in relation to if the autobalancing mechanic was actually points based, if not fair enough. If it were to be points based then surely giving the struggling team the pick of the less achieving players isn't gonna even it up though, you should be trying to even it out with someone a little more skilled. Like I said before point's can really truly represent a players impact in any game really unless it's pacman or teris or the like, it can never accurately account for a players teamwork or influence.

Kyzak is right though, auto balance is a bit of a necessary evil, it'll never sort out the problem of majorly imbalanced teams.

 

then probably I think that the one who plays for the shortest amount of time should be switched.

 

think it wouldnt be bad if it had few priority levels of condition
1. player that just joined - yet did no action
2. if from start - knight / archer that did nothing in construct time
3. shortest time playing
...etc

 

It's not based on a "struggling team". Struggling teams are struggling teams. But the autobalancer should be there to make the NUMBERS fair. As in, the number of people on each team should be even, regardless of skill of each individual player. To do that, just switch players at the bottom of the scoreboard continually till you have evenly numbered teams. If a team has their ass handed to them, maybe at the end of the round the teams could be scrambled.

 

Yeah I understand that, not trying to argue that at all, other games with a scramble teams option seem to work out pretty well when the teams are awful though so that could be a good feature.

 

I agree it should just balance the number of players. To go along with it I think teams should be scrambled every map change. That would hopefully help stop one steamroll after another that happens sometimes where one team is really good and the other flat out sucks. Getting steamrolled is never fun. Games are much more enjoyable for me if they are fairly evenly matched as long as its not a flat-out stalemate.

 

If the person with lowest score is teamswitched, teams will at least need to be scrambled on round end. Otherwise you end up with a master race versus clueless noobs type setup due to Darwinian mechanics.
People will also actively stack against the losing team. The clueless won't do that either.


Perhaps pick the most average person of a team instead, judged by score/timespentplaying.