Team Autobalancer [7NE2Y] - Proof of Concept -

General Discussion
1

Code

7NE2Y

My proof of concept for fixing unbalanced teams in overwatch.

Damage and healing are reduced based on the number of teammates opposing a player during an imbalance.

Teams can be of any size, including unbalanced 6v6 matches, or non-standard team sizes such as 1 vs 11.

Features 
Quality of Life
- Team Autobalancer
- Team Health Gauge
- Respawn Command (Use Jump) > Enable/Disable in Workshop Settings

Gameplay Modifications
- Damage/Heal to Reduce Cooldowns > Enable/Disable in Workshop Settings

If there’s anything you don’t like, please explain your reasoning.

2 Likes
2

WoW tried something like this in world pvp and battlegrounds i think. became really unpopular quick lol. also lower level people were stronger or they automatically tried to make lower gear level people stronger… it was a mess. it was suppose to address the massive inbalance of factions on some servers. they got rid of it tho i think

1 Like
3

The issue is how those scalings would benefit certain heroes more than others. A Tracer with damage reduction, for instance, would be quite frankly broken.

4

I think it could help, but you have to be super careful the benefits gained don’t make someone leaving worth it. The best bet in my opinion would be if you have a leaver who’s gone for more then a minute you get 5% more ult charge, if they return the bonus is removed. Also if someone is gone for the 2 minute timer the team should be allowed to surrender and lose a bit less SR in my opinion.

5

That’s why I’m interested in testing it!

I’ve run several 1v11 boss servers, and other team variations like it and it’s worked flawlessly.

This is a reduced version of those more robust game modes! :slight_smile:

–

And if anyone wants to test with me, I’ll gladly host some games!

1 Like
6

Hard No from me. The leaver penalties as standing are fine.

7

What’s your justification?

8

The status quo doesn’t require an explanation. You got to explain why and how this would be an improvement.

9

I quite literally created a game mode that proves my point, haha.

You can explain what you don’t like about it. But using hypotheticals to disagree is the exact same thing as providing the written explanation you want, and not reading it.

I’ve spent hours coding this mode. The least you can do is play it.

1 Like
10

Something is better than nothing? Seems really simple. Not that I personally care too much myself. If people leave, I will just get my sr back later. It is whatever to me. But the game is technically ruined because people get so demoralized and believe 5v6 is impossible for whatever reason.

1 Like
11

I think a 16% damage reduction is pretty fair for a 5 vs 6!

Talking about it is very different from experiencing the changes. The concept works very well so far, but I want to expand the feedback I’ve gotten by opening it up for testing here.

And I’d love it if those who have tested it and have an issue could explain more about what they specifically didn’t like. :slight_smile:

12

For arcade? Maybe.

For comp? No.

It’s been said a million times, it would be abused… :wink:

13

Imagine a team consisting of 4 GMs +2 Masters. What would stop the 4 GMs just bullying the Masters to leave the game. Suddenly you have 4 buffed GMs against maybe 3 or 4 masters + 2 GMs/Top 500 or whatever the Matchmaker deemed fair.

Next big issue I have with this Idea are breakpoints. Right now I know that a fully charged bodyshot+Melee kills a Tracer but suddenly this doesn’t work anymore just because someone on the enemy team left.

1 Like
14

And yet, I don’t see how this is the case. I’m looking for feedback (on the game I created) that actually shows how this is the case. Not the hypothetical. :wink:

The masters have twice the chance (they take half damage) against the GMs, which is still better than them taking full damage. Assuming you meant 2 GM versus 4 Master.

Additionally, the example there doesn’t factor in actual game data. If your odds of winning, as per the matchmaker, are approximately 50% and someone leaves, you’re now at 41% odds at best. The mod helps restore those odds.

I don’t understand this example at all.

The usual case would be one player that gets dropped. Additionally, the matchmaker “thinks” everyone on each team is equally matched. There shouldn’t be unreasonable discrepancies between player skill, so it’s also unreasonable to think the matchmaker would deem such a matchup as fair. I still don’t understand your example, so I’m doing the best I can with what you’ve given so far.

And, at best, you’re arguing the hypothetical. I’m more interested in seeing this new dynamic play out in a real scenario.

Yes, that’s the idea. Your team of six will have a slightly more difficult time killing the enemy team of five.

I don’t see how that is an issue at all, btw. You still have that breakpoint, and an additional teammate who can deal an additional 16% damage, assuming a 6 vs 5 imbalance.

Additionally, that doesn’t mean the team of 5 will roll your team of 6. In fact, I argue it’s much more difficult as a team with fewer players to coordinate against a full team.

he core idea of my post isn’t about hypotheticals, and in fact a real solution to these thought experiments exists as a share code (posted above) to a game mode that I think has valid potential.

I think of my game mode as more of an equation which solves a problem, and the code provided is the proof of concept. It’s what a proof does. But feel free to let me know what doesn’t work in my game mode. I already know how 5 v 6 breaks down in most games. This is a possible solution to undo the disadvantage.

Anyways, actual feedback on the game itself would be appreciated! A lot more thought and effort went into this than you think.

15

Feedback is inherently hypothetical unless they provide actual data for you to review… :wink:

The devs are on record saying things like replacing leavers or ‘catch-up’ mechanics are not something they want.

Sorry to rain on your parade by some preliminary research may have been useful here :slight_smile:

16

So, are you going to play the game or not?

Yeah, considering the research you did comes from a reply I got from the staff here.

This isn’t a debate. I’m posting something for you to test, and tell me what does or doesn’t work for you. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

17

Anything is debatable on a public forum, that’s the point of it… :rofl:

…and I’m telling you, the devs have been very open about not implementing backfill or catch-up mechanics.

Sorry if you put a lot of time in to this but ultimately it’ll be abused and not in the spirit of the SR system… :wink:

18

But the game exists… and you can test it…

And if you’re not interested, then why reply?

19

This is were you are wrong. The matchmaker doesn’t look for 12 individuals with exactly 2500 SR. It looks for averages. If 6 players on one team have 2500 while the other team has 3 2000 SR Players and 3 3000 SR Players their averages are the same so the matchmaker deems it a fair match. Of course a lot of other statistics go into matchmaking as well but I’m trying to make this as easy as possible.

No I was talking about 2 GMs + 4 Masters on one team and 2 Masters + 4 GMs on the other. If the 2 GMs on the first team are roughly 4300 and the other 4 move around between 4000-4100 thats a quite possible matchup on the ladder. However if the 4 GMs now bully the 2 Masters of their team out of the game they are now pretty buffed up + they got an advantage by having removed 2 weak parts of their team that the enemy team could have abused to win the game. 2 players less feeding for a buff that breaks a lot of breakpoints GMs have memorized perfectly is a huge difference.

20

When you make a post on a public forum you are open to receiving feedback (by nature of a public forum).

You don’t get to question the person for giving feedback or the type of feedback as you opened yourself to it the moment you made a public post… :wink: