Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Remember
    RedWatch

    DarkSail Raiders
    Apple Fanboy
    Houdini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    1,047

    Recruitment and Balance

    Here are the facts:
    1. FC has low numbers.
    2. We want FC to grow.
    3. To grow FC we need to recruit more people.
    4. The armies aren't balanced.
    5. The battle night match ups aren't balanced.
    6. People leave FC because of bad match ups

    Recruitment is intimately related to balance on battle nights. Without enough members to form teams, we can't have balanced match ups. Without balanced match ups, recruits don't stay.

    Therefore, the paradox of recruitment and balance.

    The reason why we don't have large numbers nor balanced match ups lies in how the community is setup and how we treat uneven attendance.

    FC is a community build on fun and respect as well as a competitive war-simulator. FC caters to both the casual gamer who wants to have fun on Sunday nights playing Halo and to competitive gamers who want to do everything in their power to win. While it is inherently difficult to please both sides, it is certainly possible.

    Problem 1:

    The current battle night system discourages recruitment.

    The army with the fewest amount of average and below average teams wins because that army's above average teams get to play more matches compared to the opposing army's above average teams.

    In the current system, recruiting based on character provides a negative incentive to one's army because the above average teams for that army are now playing less games. The only time recruitment is beneficial to one's army, is when the recruitment is based on skill. This shifts the entire community focus away from character towards competition. If this is the direction the majority wants to take, then the people who are here for fun and not competitive matches need to be informed that they should find a different community to participate in. (Yes, there is some overlap between casual gamers (recruited for character), and competitive gamers (recruited for skill), but for the most part they are distinct sets.)


    Solution 1:

    A simple solution to this problem would be awarding differences in attendance between army's with forfeits. If Army A fields 4 squads and Army B fields 6 squads, the two squads that sit out for Army B should be awarded forfeit victories.

    This is a valid solution for two major reasons:
    1. This is directly inline with how a real war would work. We do take certain liberties with how our war simulation is ran, but one of the most important factors in any given conflict is the ratio of numbers to skill. The army with the larger numbers does not always win, but they certainly have an advantage on the battle field. By awarding attendance with victories, the army that mobilizes more forces will have an advantage that is proportional to their attendance. In the example above, Army B would have a moderate advantage for mobilizing 50% more squads that Army A; however, Army A still has a realistic chance at winning the map if they have more skill/work harder.
    2. The negative incentive for recruiting based on character is completely reversed. Both sides of the conflict are encouraged to recruit everybody with no restrictions based on individual skill. The FC community would be able to grow to include all types of gamers.


    Problem 2:

    All the new recruits leave because of bad battle night match ups.

    One of the most visible problems on battle nights, is squads "disappearing" after a really bad matchup. I would wager that this has been going on for many years and probably in every war where the army's aren't perfectly balanced. No matter how many people we recruit, if every new recruit only plays one match with the community, we aren't growing.


    Solution 2:

    There isn't a simple solution to this problem due multiple variables that are involved with balancing teams. The largest restriction on balancing match ups is that friends want to play together. Since friends want to play together, teams can't be drafted or randomized to get balanced match ups. The other major restriction, is that both army's must have an "equal" match on the opposing army. If army's aren't balanced based on skill, it is impossible to have 100% balanced match ups.

    A solution to the balance problem would be to have squads self-select teams who they want to compete against for that battle night. Essentially, the system would work something like this:
    1. Both army's mobilize as many forces as they can for a battle night. Each army's forces are grouped into squads and select a representative (squad leader) who will handle the pool selection. (Basically, the current system for getting squads together on battle nights.)
    2. A list of all squads from both army's is posted along with the squad leader's name (gamer tag) (for the most part, this is already done).
    3. Squad leader's communicate with other squad leaders who they would like to play against that night. If two squads agree to play with each other, they submit their matchup to the people-who-run-the-battle-night.
    4. After all squads are finished requesting match ups, run a program to generate possible match ups and start setting up matches. (Sample Program for Generating Match Ups linked below)

    Example: (Pairs of squads that want to play each other)
    A1 - B1
    A1 - B2
    A2 - B2
    A2 - B3
    A3 - B3
    A3 - B4
    A3 - B2

    Possible Rounds: (id:: matches)
    0:: [A 1 : B 1, A 2 : B 2]
    1:: [A 1 : B 1, A 2 : B 2, A 3 : B 3]
    2:: [A 1 : B 1, A 2 : B 2, A 3 : B 4]
    3:: [A 1 : B 1, A 2 : B 3, A 3 : B 2]
    4:: [A 1 : B 1, A 2 : B 3]
    5:: [A 1 : B 1, A 2 : B 3, A 3 : B 4]
    6:: [A 1 : B 2]
    7:: [A 1 : B 2, A 3 : B 3]
    8:: [A 1 : B 2, A 3 : B 4]
    9:: [A 1 : B 2, A 2 : B 3]
    10:: [A 1 : B 2, A 2 : B 3]
    11:: [A 1 : B 2, A 2 : B 3, A 3 : B 4]

    Usable Rounds:
    1:: [A 1 : B 1, A 2 : B 2, A 3 : B 3] (B4 sits out)
    2:: [A 1 : B 1, A 2 : B 2, A 3 : B 4] (B3 sits out)
    3:: [A 1 : B 1, A 2 : B 3, A 3 : B 2] (B4 sits out)
    5:: [A 1 : B 1, A 2 : B 3, A 3 : B 4] (B2 sits out)
    11:: [A 1 : B 2, A 2 : B 3, A 3 : B 4] (B1 sits out)

    Another alternative to ignoring incomplete rounds, is to have the teams who don't have a match for the incomplete round randomly play each other during that round. This will increase variety of opponents; however, it will also increase the probability that there would be a blowout for that match.

    While this may look complicated, it really isn't much different from the current system with the following exceptions:
    1. The responsibility for getting matches for a given battle night falls on the teams to work together and compromise not a random generator. (Teamwork and Communication)
    2. Squads only play in mutually agreed upon matches (possible exception). (Balance)
    3. If you aren't getting enough variety in your battle night match ups, there is incentive to recruit for the general community, other army, to have more different teams to play against on battle night. (Recruitment)
    4. The only blowout match ups will be matches that the losing team choose to be challenged with. Any team has the right to refuse a matchup with a team that is much better than them, and unless the better team rejects a lower ranked teams matchup request all teams still have the opportunity to take on significant challenges if they so choose. (Balance)
    5. Wait times on battle nights are proportional to a squads flexibility. For the most part, a squad will always have a matchup if they are willing to play more teams; however, if a team is willing to sit out for 2 rounds, and not play another team during that time, they will have a good matchup when they play their next match. (Controlled Wait Times)

    Other Effects:
    1. There may be teams who only want to play one other team; they will just have more waiting time that more flexible teams.
    2. There may be teams who are super flexible and choose to "take one for the community" and enter matchups with teams that are significantly better than them. They will probably have very low wait times on battle nights, but they will play in bad matchups (by choice).
    3. Squads with bad reputations or squads with uncooperative squad leaders may have longer wait times than they currently experience because match ups are based on compromising.


    This is modification will fundamentally alter the way battle nights are ran; however, it will hopefully make the experience better for all parties involved. Blowouts don't have to be a part of the community experience, and taking the position that they are an inevitable consequence of mixing competitive and casual gamers should not be acceptable. There is always a solution if we look hard enough.


    Here is a very dirty programing solution to generating match ups (Using Command Line Interface):
    Uncompiled: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/peo6j3msbfguxnc/EgDYsRISMr
    Jar File: https://www.dropbox.com/s/z758ylbu03...eratorDemo.jar

  2. #2
    Senior Citizen VerbotenDonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Returning to his Watch
    Posts
    7,060
    Blog Posts
    3

    Re: Recruitment and Balance

    Skimmed it over, thank you for inputting some solutions to the problem! Too many people just say "here's a problem, you guys fix it!"

    An interesting idea Houdini. I think people can "troll" the system to purposely have longer wait times, or have a petty argument with the opposing army so they refuse to play a certain team. I do think that if we get a huge recruitment job, as long as each team gets a few balanced games a night, they will overlook getting steamrolled by better teams as long as they're having fun overall. Thanks for the input though man!
    Joined April 2007
    Founder of the LARP
    Founder of the Imperial Office of Naval Intelligence
    Squads led:
    Halo 3 Era: XO of Wolf Squad, CO of Nova Squad
    Halo Reach Era: CO of 1st Marines Platoon, CO of Foxtrot Squad, CO of Wolfpack Squad, CO of REDWATCH Special Forces
    Halo 4 Era: CO of REDWATCH Special Forces, Director of Imperial Office of Naval Intelligence and Project ARTEMIS, CO of the Dark Sail Raiders
    Halo 5 Era: CO of REDWATCH Special Forces





  3. #3
    Useless without Toast Jam Cliché's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    1,750
    Blog Posts
    2
    Livestreams
    View Channel: jamcliche

    Re: Recruitment and Balance

    I am actually inclined to agree with the forfeiting rule for one army outnumbering the other, but it can't just be for a one-team advantage. Say if one army outnumbers the other in teams by a certain percentage threshold, like 30 or 40%, then it's reasonable. But still not so desirable, as it's a negative reinforcement rather than a positive one.

    But it would have to be under the condition that we start off with both armies having an even number of teams. As much as I like the idea, it puts BLUE at a significant disadvantage from the getgo if we implemented it right now.

    However, I don't agree with the second solution to "bad matchups". A good matchup is subjective - and with subjectivity comes the ability to exploit. Like, I don't like Team 1 facing Team A, cause I know it's a loss for Team 1, so I say that a better matchup would be Team 2, even though I know Team 2 usually beats Team A. None of our teams are really even, so even close matchups are somewhat predictable. It's better to have a strict rotation system that closes off the ability to exploit things. Even with trying to make matchups, there were still blowout matches this entire war. The best way to reduce them is to stop allowing for subjectivity.
    Last edited by Jam Cliché; 12-10-2013 at 11:11 PM.


    Real power comes from the man next to you and is built on the foundations of brotherhood and unity. There is no such thing as a one man army.

  4. #4
    Fabled Legendary Member
    I Like Turtles!
    I Live in an Igloo!
    Fuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,963
    Blog Posts
    4

    Re: Recruitment and Balance

    I can tell you straight away that what you listed as problem 1 is not a real problem.

    The current battle night system discourages recruitment.

    The army with the fewest amount of average and below average teams wins because that army's above average teams get to play more matches compared to the opposing army's above average teams.
    This is false, some of the largest armies I have seen in FC in my 3 year tenure have been collectively the most skilled. I have not seen armies deliberately push away lower skilled members just to have their higher skilled squads play more frequently. Whenever there is number issues in FC all the leaders are concerned, ESPECIALLY the leaders of the army with the low numbers.

    As being a member with one of the highest amounts (if not highest) of recruits I can tell you that currently the recruiting environment and potential for obtaining recruits is much more difficult in the current state of Halo than it was a year ago or two years ago.

    A simple solution to this problem would be awarding differences in attendance between army's with forfeits. If Army A fields 4 squads and Army B fields 6 squads, the two squads that sit out for Army B should be awarded forfeit victories.
    Your proposed solution to this problem I also find troublesome, while there is a certain degree of care for the leaders of one army to keep their numbers up, they do not have complete control of this often sporadic element. I would not support heavily punishing the army with lesser numbers as you have to take in to account all the reasons and explanations to why those numbers are low. I have often been the leader of the larger army of the two and in those wars I could not put the fault entirely on the other army for having less numbers as there were many other factors into play that may have caused those number issues.

    Look at a recent example, BLUE Army of this last war has had a large drop in numbers, there were many reasons that led to this that were unpredictable to the leadership of that army specifically the issue of lack of interest in Halo 4 and next gen consoles. These were two outlying factors that the BLUE leadership could not control and as a cause of this there was a massive number drop. I would have never switched armies with Resistance if I thought that BLUE was having number issues because of poor leadership or poor army ethics, so I am against the idea of punishing an army due to difference in numbers unless there is significant cause to warrant that one army is lacking due to problematic leadership which in that case I believe replacement of leadership would be the action taken not battle night defaulting.

    You have to come to the realization that we are all in the same community, even though we distinguish are selves into two different factions for the sake of a simulated war we are still one identity. The idea of punishing one side would create more of a split and cause a lot more finger pointing which there is already enough of.



    What you have listed as problem 2 has been up in debate for a very long time in FC, I agree here that this is an issue. But the even bigger issue is that it is unsolvable, unless our community was 5 times as large as it is currently. There will always be unbalanced matchups as we only have 3-4 squads per army, there is no solution to this as we can not have the same squads play each other all night as that would yield the whole FC process useless.

    To keep this issue short and sweet, you can discuss it as much as you want but there is a reason why it hasn't changed in 6 years.




    I appreciate the time and thought you put into this even if I do disagree with certain aspects or your solutions. As donkey mentioned too many people say there is an issue but do not suggest solutions, you actually took the time to draft solutions.
    Last edited by Fuzzy; 12-10-2013 at 11:12 PM.
    "Do you guys know how hard it is to masturbate with you all talking!" - UNLUCKY

    Former Field Marshal of both the REDD and BLUE
    Creator of 21st Degree and the Resistance
    7 victories fought and lead

  5. #5
    Senior Citizen VerbotenDonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Returning to his Watch
    Posts
    7,060
    Blog Posts
    3

    Re: Recruitment and Balance

    I have not seen armies deliberately push away lower skilled members just to have their higher skilled squads play more frequently.
    He's not saying that thy purposely push them away, but he's saying that the Army that has the lower amount has an advantage that their best Squad is getting to play more often than the other Army's best Squad, so it's not fair because the lower count Army is playing their best more often.
    Joined April 2007
    Founder of the LARP
    Founder of the Imperial Office of Naval Intelligence
    Squads led:
    Halo 3 Era: XO of Wolf Squad, CO of Nova Squad
    Halo Reach Era: CO of 1st Marines Platoon, CO of Foxtrot Squad, CO of Wolfpack Squad, CO of REDWATCH Special Forces
    Halo 4 Era: CO of REDWATCH Special Forces, Director of Imperial Office of Naval Intelligence and Project ARTEMIS, CO of the Dark Sail Raiders
    Halo 5 Era: CO of REDWATCH Special Forces





  6. #6
    Elite BLUE Veteran
    Spirit of Hope
    Vacuus Quietis
    Psalms of Planets
    Nicholas Sapien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Psalms of Planets
    Posts
    3,419
    Blog Posts
    6

    Re: Recruitment and Balance

    We need better leaders
    "I bought a xbox one to watch my team suck in HD"

  7. #7
    Website Administrator
    Skynet is PARTIALLY ACTIVE
    RIP Cyberdyne
    RIP Net of the Sky

    Mythonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Posts
    6,178
    Blog Posts
    26
    Livestreams
    View Channel: Mythonian

    Re: Recruitment and Balance

    Not entirely sure I agree with you, Fuzzy. I think the perspective on issue #1 has merit, if taken in context.

    Currently, if Army A outnumbers Army B, both armies may suffer. Army A is forced to have squads sit out and twiddle their thumbs before playing another game, which sucks. Army B may suffer because they might not have enough squads in order to complete the map. If their squads hit the maximum number of games played, they forfeit the rest of the games and the other army wins.

    Once we started using varying amounts of games based on attendance, the maximum games a squad could play kind of fell apart, and that limit needs to be fixed and reinstated.

    An army that has more squads online suffers by not having everyone able to play, and they were already being awarded with forfeits before, and the proposed solution merely changes how those forfeits are applied (instead of at the end all at once, it's slowly throughout the night). The proposal is actually better than our old system, since if the larger army has people get offline (or if the other army forms a mix), the forfeits stop immediately, and you don't need to worry about the maximum games a squad can play, since that limit would be removed.

    I think instead of where if you outnumber the other army by 1 squad you get a forfeit every rotation cycle, that instead it's half that. If you have +2 squads, you get 1 forfeit every cycle. If you have +1 squad, it's 1 forfeit every two cycles. This would prevent it from being overwhelming, but would maintain it being a strong incentive for recruitment and promoting activity.




    The second problem/solution might be worked into a possible improvement, but it's a more complicated issue. I'll brainstorm on it later.
    Having trouble on the site? Need an Admin?
    PM me or Metkil5685, we're always online...

  8. #8
    Fabled Legendary Member
    I Like Turtles!
    I Live in an Igloo!
    Fuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,963
    Blog Posts
    4

    Re: Recruitment and Balance

    @Myth
    I understand how you are looking at it by the battlenight system which I can agree to but I was referring more to the theoretical standpoint and argument of the recruitment and number issue in itself in which I believe.

    Punishing one army may be incentive to recruit but it could also work in the opposite as a deterrent as more people may leave that army if they are constantly losing due to that punishment. I feel number imbalance is a larger issue that can not be solved from battlenights it can only be solved by a cooperative WC and should rely more on that WC to step in with affirmative action more frequently. The larger issue here is army reliance and members who part there army logo before the FC logo.
    "Do you guys know how hard it is to masturbate with you all talking!" - UNLUCKY

    Former Field Marshal of both the REDD and BLUE
    Creator of 21st Degree and the Resistance
    7 victories fought and lead

  9. #9

    Re: Recruitment and Balance

    For the first part, I agree, and have been in agreement for a long time, but it's a tricky thing to implement.

    To bounce off what Myth said, I think a system where a forfeit would be calculated for every rotation based on a formula that is very lenient would suffice, especially as WC can manage expectations and fix inequalities that occur from outside situations. Two formulas that come to mind:

    Forfeits per Rotation = .5 * Numerical Difference in Squad Count (And always round down)
    or
    Forfeits per Rotation = Numerical Difference in Squad Count - 1

    Both make it so one squad less or more does nothing (Leniency). The first is more lenient, the second a bit more harsh. Personally I'd go for the first.





    For the second issue, refer to Fuzzy.

    But the even bigger issue is that it is unsolvable
    I'm going to get a bit deep into this one, because it's something brought up constantly.

    Without getting into the actual numbers to prove all this (Because the response I always get then is that numbers show nothing...), the problem isn't our setup, it's simply that we don't have enough activity to do anything about this problem more than we're already trying. I know I said less numbers, but these are simple hypotheticals, and wont be my main point.

    First, with your system, no squad plays a squad they don't want to play. That's all hunky dory until you look at the top where most of the time, no one wants to play VbD. No one has a win ratio on them over 20%, and as such, no one wants to play them. Maybe Legacy does on a good day, but with no one wanting to play them, where do they fit into the picture? And say if Legacy were the only squad wanting to play them, if Legacy also wants to play Resistance, and has an agreement with Animus to play fun games as well, VbD would be waiting a minimum of 30 minutes each rotation, and this is assuming Legacy wants to play them, BLUE only has 3 squads attend, and this is also ignoring other inevitable waiting times between games. I'd venture to guess they'd be waiting at least 45 minutes. For every squad BLUE obtains that agrees they want to play legacy, add another 20 minutes until REDD gets a high enough powered squad to want to play VbD.

    But it gets worse if you actually look at the less skilled end of the spectrum. Lets say Bellator doesn't want to play the higher skilled Resistance and VbD, they only want to play Animus. And lets say Animus, in there newfound ability to pull upsets this war, will play any of REDD's 4 squads. Bellator would have to wait for 3 games of 15 minutes each before they would get to play Animus, everytime, every night inbetween their games. Thats 45 minutes, assuming the games seamlessly and unrealistically run into eachother. In reality, you're looking at a minimum of one hour waiting time for Bellator, as well as for Rover if they only play Animus.



    As High Commands, we try our damn best to give you both a variety of teams to play against as well as good matchups. Some matchups aren't going to be close games. Just as in real wars having more squads would technically win you the war, in real wars you don't always pick what type of unit you're facing. More times than not, you face a unit and military structure similar to your own, but it's never guaranteed, and you definitely get a variety.
    But with numbers the way they are, we simply can't give even games all the time, it is impossible because we have so few opponents to put you against. Especially in REDD's case, we can't just never put you against VbD if you're lower skilled, because no one wants to play them and very few times does any team come close. It's then unfair.

    The only time your idea would work is if we had a higher amount of numbers. And if we had higher numbers, with each army having 5-6 squads of 8 per night, we then wouldn't even need the system because we'd be able to make a higher percentage of your games close games with what we're already doing, with only 1-2 games per night out of your 6 or so total games being against a higher skilled opponent.

    The problem isn't the system. It's the options we're given as leaders when making matchups. We have little to work with because of the low numbers. I understand the desire for always playing people you want but... The real world doesn't let you work with only people you like, wars don't pit you against only people with the same training and experience as you, and we have to be fair to everyone playing. I promise you that, we are doing the best we can to make things as fair as possible, but we cannot go to uber-extremes just for perfectly even skilled matches, it's simply counterproductive and will cause a lot more people to suffer than is needed.


    But I do appreciate the solutions and the talk. These are all things we need to address in the future and will be addressing. We want things to be fun, but it's never going to be what we all want it to be if we don't get the numbers up at least 50%. And I think that's a very attainable number, to be entirely honest.
    Last edited by Anarchy; 12-11-2013 at 01:18 AM.



    Virtus Tentamine Gaudet
    FM For 6 wars spanning 3 generations

  10. #10
    Animus 4 Ever
    SpcX
    JamiDJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Akron, OH
    Posts
    2,154
    Blog Posts
    8
    Livestreams
    View Channel: jamidj

    Re: Recruitment and Balance

    imo, it all comes down to numbers.

    it always has. blue went from having 2 companies, and at least 6 squads, down to 3.

    recruitment has become a bit of a joke, and no matter what is tried, it still hasn't helped. i created a recruitment division, and still nothing.
    i've done what i can, recruiting regardless of skill.

    and still nothing..

    the more people we have, and the more squads we have come together, the more variety each squad will be able to play. lets get back to basics, and recruit for the sake of the community and fun, not how high their k/d is.

    this war has been a good wake up call to every leader that a lot more has to be done. lets just hope we're willing to step up and do what we say.

    great input houdini, however, i am inclined to agree with anarchy.

    i hope we can turn things around before the start of the next war, so not only is everyone having fun, but also able to grow within their respective army.
    ۰۪۫J۰۰۪۫a۰۰۪۫m۰۰۪۫i ۰۰۪۫e۰۰۪۫D۰۰۪۫ J۰Purple Army Elite Trooper
    What We Do In Life, Echos in Eternity.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Website maintained by Metkil5685 and Mythonian.