Team Balance in Multiplayer

[Cab]

23 minutes ago, shagrat said:

... So the question is absolutely valid: how do you imagine this "balance" should work in DCS?

Any suggestions?

 

 

Sure it's a valid question, but I also think mine is a valid answer: My suggestions don't matter because this is something only the server admins would use. My only role as a player is to decide which servers I join.

I'd tell ED to canvas the server admins to see if there is even a desire for such an option. Then, ask them what they want and determine if the LOE is worth it. 

[shagrat]

vor 1 Minute schrieb Cab:

Sure it's a valid question, but I also think mine is a valid answer: My suggestions don't matter because this is something only the server admins would use. My only role as a player is to decide which servers I join.

I'd tell ED to canvas the server admins to see if there is even a desire for such an option. Then, ask them what they want and determine if the LOE is worth it. 

So I regularly host the server for our group and I can't see any valid concept that would work. Because of most if not all afore mentioned issues.

I can't see any concept of "team balance" that would make our events any better. And from the comments I read, nobody does.

So if  nobody gets any insight in your concept of team balancing, what should we discuss?

A simple "I want" let others figure out the how, may end up in something that is far from, or even contradictory to what you have in mind.

As I pointed out above, we could simply add more slots to the opposite coalition, but that doesn't guarantee any "balance". Or we can balance the "number of players", but that that does not account for airframes, weapons, map position at spawning etc etc. etc 

In the end the most important point is, would players like/accept being manhandled like that, or simply switch to a more convenient server/mission, so they can enjoy DCS?

[Cab]

2 minutes ago, shagrat said:

So I regularly host the server for our group and I can't see any valid concept that would work. Because of most if not all afore mentioned issues.

I can't see any concept of "team balance" that would make our events any better. And from the comments I read, nobody does.

So if  nobody gets any insight in your concept of team balancing, what should we discuss?

A simple "I want" let others figure out the how, may end up in something that is far from, or even contradictory to what you have in mind.

As I pointed out above, we could simply add more slots to the opposite coalition, but that doesn't guarantee any "balance". Or we can balance the "number of players", but that that does not account for airframes, weapons, map position at spawning etc etc. etc 

In the end the most important point is, would players like/accept being manhandled like that, or simply switch to a more convenient server/mission, so they can enjoy DCS?

All valid points except I don't really believe this forum thread can determine the market for such an option.

Also, I really don't have anything particular in mind because I don't run a server, and I am genuinely confused why that doesn't make sense to some people.

I did offer that at least one server admin has posted a rule in the briefing to keep the teams balanced, so there's at least one who would likely use it if it suited his needs.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

It'd work for the air quake servers, at least. It'd have to stay optional, though. The doom-saying present here is actually funny, though.

Edited January 1, 2022 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[upyr1]

On 12/31/2021 at 9:29 AM, Cab said:

I would like to see a built-in function that would allow server admins to easily enforce team balancing. As I understand it admins must currently write custom script if they want to do that.

I hold the opinion that it is better to build things into dcs instead of using scripts. Having said that I see some good and bad to this.  This would be great for a private server I am not sure about public servers unless there is some way for servers to broadcast open slots. If a server features mig-21s and F-5s and you are trying to get some tiger II time that would be something you would want to know

[Tippis]

21 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I hold the opinion that it is better to build things into dcs instead of using scripts. Having said that I see some good and bad to this.  This would be great for a private server I am not sure about public servers unless there is some way for servers to broadcast open slots. If a server features mig-21s and F-5s and you are trying to get some tiger II time that would be something you would want to know

It should be easy enough to list that pretty much the same way settings are shown now: either as just one of the listed flags, or - if it's done on a WP/group basis - as a marker next to the available aircraft. The latter would probably be better from a flexibility/mission-making perspective, but I can also see issues with filtering for it in the server list if you're just looking for some quick flying time. Off the top of my head, I can't recall seeing that kind of filter option (but then, I've never had a need to do that so that's a pretty useless non-observation), and if one isn't available, it would mean having to check every server to see if it's an open or a team-balanced slot.

[upyr1]

15 minutes ago, Tippis said:

It should be easy enough to list that pretty much the same way settings are shown now: either as just one of the listed flags, or - if it's done on a WP/group basis - as a marker next to the available aircraft. The latter would probably be better from a flexibility/mission-making perspective, but I can also see issues with filtering for it in the server list if you're just looking for some quick flying time. Off the top of my head, I can't recall seeing that kind of filter option (but then, I've never had a need to do that so that's a pretty useless non-observation), and if one isn't available, it would mean having to check every server to see if it's an open or a team-balanced slot.

The lack of a type filter. Is what I see as the biggest issue with the proposal for built in team balancing. 

[Cab]

18 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

The lack of a type filter. Is what I see as the biggest issue with the proposal for built in team balancing. 

Optional team balance. Not saying you wrote anything wrong, I just to make sure everyone understands that part.

[upyr1]

51 minutes ago, Cab said:

Optional team balance. Not saying you wrote anything wrong, I just to make sure everyone understands that part.

I understand that  part. I am just saying outside of private servers when it's on it needs to advertise the available slots. Because if you need a flanker driver and someone is looking for a flanker slot then things will work out. It would be a good idea.

Edited January 1, 2022 by upyr1

[Ash Lynx]

Server admin here, my guys were actually discussing how to add team balance cos its not natively in the game. For a server which has the same aircraft and number of aircraft on both sides it just makes sense to have team balancing, one major example being 4ya full out war were both sides have access to the same airframes, quite a couple of times there would be 7 people on red side and 3 on blue for example. A further suggestion would be limiting the amount of people can be on each side. so you have 40 people in the sever but you cant enforce an even 20/20 split so you just have to hope people balance themselves. There are people mentioning things such as map position and weapons that is something for mission makers to worry about and factor in. When I read team balancing like in other games it means balancing the number of players and simply that.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Ash Lynx

[Tank50us]

OK, I'm gonna poke the biggest hole in this argument for balance, with a simple question: Who would win the following engagement? 4 F-16C B52 Fighting Falcons? Or 4 Mig29S Fulcrums?

The matchup: Both flights start at FL15, 100nmi apart, and hot. Both have all of their weapon stations filled for a fight, and all have a single center-line tank. In this fight, regardless of weather conditions, the F-16s have it hands down. Why? Well, let me go down the list:

• The F-16 has two more weapon stations, and these can be fitted with AMRAAMs for a total of 6 + 2 AIM9s, compare that to the Fulcrums four Fox3s and and 2 Archers
• The F-16s can talk to one another via datalink, the Mig29Ss cannot.
• The F-16s RWR is more advanced, and can better warn the pilot of a missile incoming.
• The F-16 has an automatic countermeasure dispense system, the Mig doesn't. This means the pilot can focus on maneuvering the aircraft and getting a weapons solution while the computer tries to keep him/her alive
• The F-16s attack radar display can show you what your allies are targeting (I don't know if it's modeled yet for the Viper, but it is for the Hornet), so you don't 'double up' on the same target.

You factor those things, and the F-16 starts with all of the cards. Sure, the Mig29 has that fancy electro optical system, but the R27s aren't that great a missile if the other guy knows they're coming.

So yeah, if you enjoy smacking down one faction or another, by all means, push for 'balanced' teams in DCS, but it won't be fun when it's you getting swatted from the sky by a Phoenix you didn't even know was launched before it turned its own radar on five seconds before impact...

[Tippis]

26 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

OK, I'm gonna poke the biggest hole in this argument for balance, with a simple question: Who would win the following engagement?

That doesn't really poke a hole in anything, though, other than possibly the mission-maker's self-image of being somewhat competent. Presenting an unbalanced scenario is not an argument against balance. Quite the opposite.

If that's the setup for the available spawns, you wouldn't enforce 1:1 participation. Simple. That doesn't mean that there is no point in having a team balancing system — just that it would be made even better if you could define that balance in terms of other ratios or just with an acceptable margin of error.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Tippis

[shagrat]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Tippis:

That doesn't really poke a hole in anything, though, other than possibly the mission-maker's self-image of being somewhat competent. Presenting an unbalanced scenario is not an argument against balance. Quite the opposite.

If that's the setup for the available spawns, you wouldn't enforce 1:1 participation. Simple. That doesn't mean that there is no point in having a team balancing system — just that it would be made even better if you could define that balance in terms of other ratios or just with an acceptable margin of error.

 

That's why his scenario contained "supposedly" balanced aircraft. The point is, if you balance number of players (red vs. blue) the best thing a mission designer can do is putting the exact same aircraft and weapons on both sides... 

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, shagrat said:

The point is, if you balance number of players (red vs. blue) the best thing a mission designer can do is putting the exact same aircraft and weapons on both sides...

But a mission like that is silly and confusing. It was a necessity 9 years ago when DCS consisted of the Ka-50 the A-10C and a P-51D. And for aircraft without modern IFF such scenarios would just result in team killing or be forced to use labels. I’m not aware of any combat flight sim which has team balancing. Now there is enough variety in aircraft to have different opposing aircraft like in reality. It’s a natural incentive for players to balance the game in any case, it doesn’t need to be forced. Team balancing in games uses auto-joining/ matchmaking as well which won’t work well in a game with complex and DLC modules. 

Edited January 6, 2022 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

10 hours ago, shagrat said:

That's why his scenario contained "supposedly" balanced aircraft. The point is, if you balance number of players (red vs. blue) the best thing a mission designer can do is putting the exact same aircraft and weapons on both sides... 

“Supposedly” is not “actually.” And the point is, if you want to create a balanced scenario, you create a balanced scenario. Creating an unbalanced scenario doesn't take away from the usefulness of — much less “poke a hole in” — the idea of having a built-in team balancer that works on the slot selection screen.

Again, at best it shows that such a system would be even nicer if it allowed you to defined the balance ratio and/or the margin of error. But that's really it. But coming up with improvements doesn't take away from the foundation.

9 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

But a mission like that is silly and confusing.

No it's not. It's just good old airquake. It's the way competitive MP has worked for, oh, 40ish years now. You'd have to be catastrophically out of touched to be confused by something as simple, standardised, and common-place.

9 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Team balancing in games uses auto-joining/ matchmaking as well which won’t work well in a game with complex and DLC modules. 

You haven't played many games with team balancing have you? Have you seen any? Because no, that is not something “team balancing in games” uses or necessitates.

[Dangerzone]

I believe I have an alternative solution for the OP - which may not be exactly what they've asked for in the beginning, but deals with a lot of unrealized complexities at the same time and would be better received by most:

First - we need to understand the challenges:

The primary challenge facing is how to implement it so those wanting to use it can use it their way. Do you load balance based on numbers? Do you load balance based on pilots previous K/D ration on your own server? Do you load balance rating different aircraft as different capabilities? Do you load balance based on any other number of factors? Or a particular combination of these? How do you handle balancing when a few players leave? Force players to change sides if/when they die, or just when they land to rearm/refuel? 

My thought (as someone who has both done scripting missions and ran servers, and has also professionally developed commercial applications) - is that such an option is best left to the server operator to decide for their unique mission/environment. And with that many variables at play - custom scripting by the server operators themselves is really the only practical solution, so that they can have more control and fine tune they way they want to do load balancing.

Let's face it - one thing that DCS has never been is balanced. DCS isn't like other games - it's primarily a simulator at heart. Modules are made to be realistic - not to be evenly balanced. I've read tons of arguments about planes not being balanced, some being more capable, etc, and how unfair this is on some servers. That's because DCS is not a game at heart - it's a simulator, and without intending any offence - I think comparing implementation of this into DCS by comparing it with other games and expecting it to be 'simple' to implement comes from a lack of understanding of coding, the depth of DCS, the complexities involved, as well as all the possible variables.

Now that we understand the challenges that we face - what solution could be provided that would work? 

 

My alternative recommendation / Solution: 

That solution would be the ability to do slot blocking at the mission level, as opposed to having to do it at the server level.

How does this help? Well - we have simple slot blocker script already - which is fantastic....  but it has to be installed outside of the mission on the server, and thus can't be used for mission designers who want to distribute their missions in a .miz file, nor can it be used for single player missions that are distributed on ED's website. It's limited to hosted servers only, and people who are willing to get involved in a bit of scripting. 

If ED implemented slot blocking within the mission file itself with no need for external script to be loaded into the DCS directory separately, it would open up a whole lot of new opportunities to mission designers - which could (if desired) - incorporate as part of (but not limited just to)....  server balancing. 

A stepping stone if you wish to the OP's request - while at the same time also opening up a lot more opportunities for many other mission designers in other areas. Killing numerous birds with one stone, and still not falling into the problems of a hard-coded system within DCS that limits the way server balancing can be implemented. 

Now you're probably asking. Yes - but how does this help the OP with their original request?

I'm going to take a wild guess that the original issue here isn't about having load balancing as an option in the ME that you just turn on/off. Rather - it's about simplifying it to a point where most people who want to be able to do it... can without having to get their fingers dirty and get involved with scripting. 

And - allowing slot blocking at a mission level would allow mission designers to even design template missions that allow different types of load balancing features (yes - through scripting) but - it could be available in template missions that the community could design that many could download from ED's own website, thus removing the complexities or the need for the average joe to even look at the script if they didn't want to - while still allowing for custom tweaking of the embedded script (and of course giving far more options than just load balancing) to mission designers as well - an option that would not be available if ED hardcoded it direct into the M.E.

I just consider something like CTLD or CSAR and how much worse off we'd be if it was implemented into the ME as a fixed option only where we couldn't get to the back end code and tweak it to our own desires. They are both fantastic scripts which I'm incredibly grateful for. And even more so that I have the ability to modify the script to suit my individual scenarios. Having it available as a script allows so many additional opportunities, and I believe that load balancing would benefit in the same way.

The alternative (to actually hard code server balancing as an option in the ME) will be too restrictive for most practical situations. This alternative method I think would server all better.

 

As such I hope the OP doesn't see this as being a negative or a 'no' answer - but rather a more indepth description of the complexities involved, and hopefully at the same time, a better solution to ovecome those complexities that could also make load balancing available to all who desire it in a very simple way, with the ability for others to tweak it to their own individual needs.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Dangerzone

[Ash Lynx]

The most popular server on DCS growling sidewinder. PVP and would benefit from a team balancer, yes you can use the argument that the planes available arent balanced but that again is a mission maker problem not a team balancing problem. 

[SharpeXB]

Why would anyone join the team with more players on it? That doesn’t make any sense so I don’t see why the game needs to implement a balance. Player’s natural inclination is to get on the smaller team which increases the probability of action. 
This all seems like a solution in search of a problem.

Edited January 6, 2022 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Why would anyone join the team with more players on it?

Because they want the advantage.

Any experience with any kind of MP in the last decade or three will have shown this to you. Whether it makes sense to you or not is irrelevant - it just shows a fundamental inexperience to suggest that it's not what players do time and time again.

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Player’s natural inclination is to get on the smaller team which increases the probability of action. 

Yeah, you're not really qualified to have this discussion if this universally disproven nonsense is the unfounded assumption you're basing your whinging on. As always, this is just you not wanting to see DCS evolve and get better, and as always, you are arguing from a position of complete ignorance, inexperience, and lack of understanding of the topic at hand.

[Tank50us]

2 hours ago, Tippis said:

No it's not. It's just good old airquake. It's the way competitive MP has worked for, oh, 40ish years now. You'd have to be catastrophically out of touched to be confused by something as simple, standardised, and common-place.

Having done some competitive MP in a certain boat game and tank game, I can tell ya from bitter experience that it would ultimately boil down to both teams effectively 'shadow boxing' as they'd both be using the same planes and lineups, and ofc, that's not what DCS is really about. The reason I used the example that I did was ultimately to illustrate that, as a team who decided to play all Fulcrums goes up against one that's all Falcons will more than likely lose to the Falcons. Turning the game into Air Quake or ACOD isn't really a direction the devs seem to want to go down.

But then again, I'm more for objective based MP, where players strive to complete objectives to gain the necessary advantages, and that doesn't necessarily require much balancing as both teams will (hopefully) know what they need to do if they want to come away with the win.

[Tippis]

50 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

Turning the game into Air Quake or ACOD isn't really a direction the devs seem to want to go down.

But then again, I'm more for objective based MP, where players strive to complete objectives to gain the necessary advantages, and that doesn't necessarily require much balancing as both teams will (hopefully) know what they need to do if they want to come away with the win.

Setting aside their involvement in various semi-official competitive events, which would suggest that they enjoy going down any path that brings a bit of attention to the game, this isn't really about turning the game into anything. It's about giving mission-makers more tools to more easily create a wider range of content. And if it's any path the devs would want to go down, it's one where the game gets more content because that's what ultimately keeps the interest in it alive and gets people to keep buying modules.

Your example just shows that a balancing tool needs to allow for some sort of parameter tweaking, and that's pretty much inherent in the concept anyway.

[SharpeXB]

It would help the discussion if a proponent of this would show specific examples from the game instead of conjecture. Show us an actual server with identical opposing aircraft which somehow is routinely unbalanced. I don’t think that situation exists in DCS. Any scenario featuring different modules on each side can’t enforce a balance due to the very nature of the sim  

There are only so many servers you can play on in this game. These can’t be balanced due to their mission design:

- WWII servers feature Axis vs Allied aircraft.

- Dynamic War servers that require the player to select a team for the duration.

- Training and aerobatic servers don’t need balancing nor do PvE servers. 

So show an actual example from the game where this unbalancing is a real problem. And where this couldn’t just be solved by player making rational choices. 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Tank50us said:

Turning the game into Air Quake or ACOD isn't really a direction the devs seem to want to go down.

Even if a server wanted to have an Air Quake scenario with identical aircraft on each side, then there would be no need to enforce a balance as players would just gravitate to that naturally. The whole point of Air Quake is action and you’ll see more action by joining the smaller team. And if the teams are equally equipped there’s no advantage of one side or the other. 

[Tippis]

29 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

It would help the discussion if a proponent of this would show specific examples from the game instead of conjecture.

It would help the discussion if you had any idea what you were talking about. You have already amply proved that you have no experience with competitive multiplayer games, and in numerous other threads, you have amply demonstrated that you understanding of how DCS works (to say nothing of the ecosystem surrounding it) is nil.

It would also help the discussion if anyone could present an actual argument why such a basic MP feature is absolutely not needed in DCS MP. You, in particular, need to actually present something to show that this isn't your usual "no, I refuse to accept anything that improves DCS' functionality" and "nothing that could potentially affect my advantages must ever be allowed to exist" whinging.

Remember what the mods have told you repeatedly: this is a wishlist thread. If you don't support it, do so by not posting. Your dislike for the idea has been noted and is discarded as pointless and irrelevant.

29 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Show us an actual server with identical opposing aircraft which somehow is routinely unbalanced.I don’t think that situation exists in DCS.

Appeal to ignorance and appeal to incredulity are fallacies for a reason. You are also confusing cause and effect. If something doesn't exist in DCS, maybe it's because the tools aren't there to make it happen... hmm?

At any rate, there are plenty of dogfight or gunfight servers where this kind of thing would be helpful. I'm running one myself.

29 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Any scenario featuring different modules

Is not really relevant because that's the mission-maker's problem, not something the balancing tool has to care about. You can certainly make an argument that this is something that the balancing mechanism should be able to handle, and that's a good suggestion: it falls right in line with the notion of the mission-maker being able to tweak the ratios and/or the margin of error between the two (or three) teams.

21 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Even if a server wanted to have an Air Quake scenario with identical aircraft on each side, then there would be no need to enforce a balance as players would just gravitate to that naturally

No, that's not how multiplayer players actually behave. In fact, its their tendency to the exact opposite that has made it so that team balancing features are a staple in just about every (team-based) MP game since, oh, the 1990s (possibly earlier but I wasn't in a position to observe that).

Edited January 6, 2022 by Tippis

[metzger]

Imho DCS has never been a game/sim designed for fast pace competitive PVP arena. There are plenty of such already and upcoming MAC is aimed for this as far as I am aware.

Sure it can be done in DCS to certain level, but it is up to the mission designer and server admin and no MP feature can magically turn DCS into balanced MP action game. 

Just my 2 cents.