pinkcs said:
I’ve seen some really poor balancing happen on occasion this morning. Half of it just confuses me but I’II try and explain incase someone can make sense of it. Here we go…
#1 The leading scorer on the winning team never swaps teams.
#2 The leading team have all positive K:D ratios the losing team have all negative K:D ratios and no balancing takes place.
#3 The lowest ranked player on the winning (utterly dominating) team with 0 kills and multiple deaths gets switched to the losing team to Balance when someone specs/leaves.
Its felt all morning like the balancer has been more concerned about team numbers, which is a valid issue, but the swaps it has and the swaps it hasn’t made have been allowing one team to dominate.
I played nuke earlier where my team was completely destroyed each round by constant strong rushes by a much more experienced team, towards the end of the game I was switched to the CT team when I was the leading T scorer and swapped out for a Mid ranked CT, the CT team then continued to dominate and I switched back to the T team to help even things out a couple of rounds later because I couldn’t stand hearing the constant calls of ‘Rape!’ from the CT side.
Through out all this the Balancer concentrated on keeping teams numbers fair, as often new comers stacked the winning team, but it allowed the CTs to have the extra man when one was available and also never moved either of the top two possibly three CT top scorers.
Also on a number of occasions over various maps the balancer would switch the losing teams top scorer to the winning team, instead of vice versa, which seemed a little like maybe an erroneous line in the code.
I’ll check it out.
As Kuros stated in another post. “The team balancer is a constantly evolving plugin.” We are trying different approaches to find out what works *best*. The issue of moving *one* person at a time on a 12v12 map was utterly pointless, it didn’t do anything.
The only reason I could think it didn’t move the top scorers is because they’d already been moved once, but again, I will check it.