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