Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
1 
Report this post
There's no point in having a discussion if you're just going to keep taking things out of context. Last time, it was a strawman, now, it is a single line from my paragraph.
"Player population has nothing to do with it.". In the context, of the whole paragraph this line is in, I'm saying, the server is filled, 20 players. The server is filled, we are doing balancing across the 20 players, what does the player population have to do with anything? I have a filled room and I'm balancing the room, do I care if 10 people or 100 people or 10 million people stand outside that room? Not really.
Even your point is not valid. How do you know the players are not demanding this?
You can count the number of threads that complain about stacked lobbies, about a subpar gaming experience. There are a lot. Winning and losing is part of the gaming experience, but nobody enjoys getting rolled by unbalanced teams, with flanks falling without a proper fight.
Don't you find balanced games to be the most fun? Two teams, battling it out, winning and losing at different parts of the map, people stepping in from other flanks to help, negative in points, finally making a comeback because of team effort to get a win.
Which are the games you really remember? The ones where you stomp over the other players? Not really, you might as well play the AI then. No, it's the ones where you face a strong team, which might be stronger than you. Flanks are falling, people are giving up, about to leave. You rally everyone, put up a good fight, finally beating them.
The point of a 10v10 is you're playing with 19 other people, and 9 other teammates. It is a group experience. It is enjoyable to play with others, in a group. Balancing only enhances that experience.
While I appreciate your input, I find that your messages tend to have a highly condescending tone. Phrases such as "you might want to do some research" and "sad truth to hear, I know" come across as dismissive and imply that you know better than most people, which is a recurring theme in your messages across the forum. Additionally, the evidence you provide isn't really solid, and you appear to selectively use information to support your arguments, making extrapolations that may not be entirely grounded.
Anyway, you do you.
So yeah, USSR owned a ♥♥♥♥ ton of T-80, including a lot of UDs. And a few hundreds of MiG-31s. And I’m talking about real-life 1989, not about the Warno universe.
Because it is a feature that would have to be developed and implemented. The only crowd, quite literally the only crowd, that would benefit from an autobalancer is the 10v10 crowd. The rest can, and currently is, handled by the community, from 2v2s, to 3v3s, to 4v4s. So now, with the basic math I have already provided well over a dozen times in the past, but can summarize here, around 20% of the overall community play 10v10s, meaning that they'd have to take away resources from other projects to develop something that would only effect the 20%.
In addition, this is also to be done for a mode that is already unbalanced and chaotic to begin with. The gains would be so astronomically small, so why give a feature like this any actual priority?
Don't mistake vocal minority as actual measurement of demand. Note that every week day in, day out we get 3+ threads that alternate between "Nato is OP" and "Pact is OP", does this mean we have to super nerf both factions? The demand is there, clearly, or do we look at the actual data, understand that these are the voices of a very few people, and proceed to go with what the majority wants?
100% I do. That's why I don't play 10v10, because it isn't a balance mode to begin with. Even if you have a flawless autobalancer, you cannot, and will not be able to, prevent the total lack of communication that is a blight in that mode, alongside people bringing in decks that only contain supplies, artillery, and air, leaving entire sections of the front at a disadvantage. I do what the community at large does, curate my games with like minded individuals. This ensures not only balanced games, but also fun games that aren't hyper repetitive.
This would be simply the result of the funny fact that you made a claim that was clearly entirely made up on the spot. I'll simply quote it:
I follow a very simple philosophy. I address others with the same respect they themselves show towards others. You decided to be condescending and snarky, I get to be condescending and snarky. Criticise the company all you want, but you can do it in a far more polite manner than immediately claiming that Eugen only cares about money and nothing else, despite the evidence for the contrary.
You quote what I said; maybe you should read it again. How is it snarky?
What I said about Eugen being in 'DLC mode' is rooted in observable patterns and industry practices – both from their previous games and general industry practice. Why would you expect big developments after the game already reached a stable state? This isn’t a dismissal of their efforts but a fact of business reality. Yet, you chose to twist it into some grand offense.
Claiming I made something up on the spot only showcases your lack of understanding of the industry. Funny how that works, isn't it? Pointing out what a company is doing strategically isn’t snarky, it’s informed. Your attempts to shut down legitimate concerns with baseless counterclaims lack both substance and insight.
Defaulting to snark even when you think you see it from others isn't helping. If you want to have a constructive conversation, drop the condescension and address the points with facts, not misplaced defensiveness. This is not really a healthy way to engage with the community, or with people in general, I hope that this is not how you generally deal with people.
Let's not divert this discussion any further into baseless claims. I want to keep this discussion focused on the game and its development. You don't have anything constructive to add to the conversation, since you don't even play the modes that this impacts the most, and benefits the most from. All you are doing is trying to shut this down - you are certainly vocal, how can you be so sure you are not in the minority yourself? If this mode doesn’t impact your gameplay, maybe stay in your lane and let others voice out their concerns instead of working up a storm of your own making from some non-existent snark.
I will simply quote the reason for my responses.
In case you missed the title of the thread, OP was asking why Eugen wasn't adding the autobalancer feature. Now if you really dig into what I was saying, you realise I answer this very question. It is because it is very low on the priority list due to having lower player engagement compared to where the bulk of the players can be found.
It ain't rocket science, you cater to the crowd you are most likely to get most customers out of. Why spend already stretched out resources on developing a feature only a small slice of your community would benefit from, when they can instead add features and content that benefits the majority?
So again, I will simply repeat that I was answering the OPs question. The answer is, 10v10 isn't as popular people like to imagine it is. It is the most popular PUBLIC mode, but far, far, far more people play the game privately, either Solo/COOP, or in curated communities. That has always been the nature of the series.
While my very first comment was specifically pointed towards your claim about why Eugen isn't doing this, I simply corrected it by saying what is the by far most likely scenario, answering the OPs question while I was at it.
Don't focus on the end screen, focus on preforming well in your area of the map. Ending the game with a 1.1kda where your team hovers around .50 isn't a bad look, and you won't feel like you wasted 15-40 minutes.
But what if I have a friend? I don't want to risk ourselves ending up on opposite teams. Some sort of party system will be needed (with 5 people maximum per party?).
And what will it be based on? Hidden elo? I personally think it should be based on player level for simplicity.
Both these questions need proper solutions for an auto-balance system.
Already sounds too complicated.
I've already seen one of the best solutions be implemented in WGRD 10v10 Bashar al Assad servers using the text chat. These servers kept a separate tab on player elo for an AUTO-BALANCE system.
"Team blue/red" locks player into the respective side, up to 5 locks.
"Team *team name*" locks respective players together. There were/are also limits on this.
These servers should still be up and their DC is also still up should anyone own WGRD and be interested.
How was it implemented in WGRD outside Bashar al Assad servers?
2v2 automatch? What if I have 2 friends? Now it's off to costom lobbies again.
Official WGRD had no auto balance system outside 1v1 and 2v2 ranked, which is called a matchmaking system afaik.
And what the hell am I derailing? Didn't I say that I'm in favour of an auto-balance system?
Then why not advocate for the same thing here that fixed it there? It was not official autobalancer servers, but Community servers.
So what y'all should be advocating is for is the hosting tools for 10v10, which is something I don't realise why Eugen hasn't released for WARNO, since they have done so for RD and SD2. They do that, and boom, community will do the same thing they already did with 99% of the game, balance the lobbies themselves. Everyone wins.
I have already screamed several times into the void on several platforms that we need community private servers. And I will scream again once I remember to at a random time in the future.
Mods combined with community private servers will be glorious I predict.
I think it will be much faster to get auto-balance through community private servers than officially. Especially since we haven't seen any official auto-balance system from EUG afaik.
But which do you think is faster to implement for an indie game dev with ca 30 people? And this is not the only game they are focusing on.
The biggest obstacle to this - not teams but solo casual players themselves. A lot of people are playing NATO only (and would leave the game if they’ll be autobalanced to Pact side). Same with Pact even if in lesser numbers overall.
Bashar Al assad created several servers with a great autobalance functionality and people play mostly on those servers these days,
Here are the core principles to allow you to both get what you want usually and have a much more balanced team vs team as well as play with friends:
1. you use the chat (because there's no other dedicated interface as it's a server side thing) to call which team you want to be on. it will accept requests to stay on team X for up to 50% of that team.
2. the rest of the players will be shuffled based on their ELO once teams are filled up (ranking, winrate, score, etc.. in order to have a balanced ELO on both teams.
3. if you want to request to stay with someone, type in a different team name, server will try to keep you on that team.
4. some people don't like being moved from their team, so they quit during countdown, that is fine, it's usually about 10-20% of the players, game starts usually within 30 seconds after teams are full.
5. to prevent people from rejoining same server over and over to abuse the shuffle mechanic, server bans them temporarity if they do it like 3 times in a row quickly so other players can take their spot
This works wonderfully and it was done by a single guy that liked the game, i see no reason why we should not have similar balanced servers on WARNO made by the devs, this will change the scene drastically.
Autobalance is a huge part of online gameplay in order to create a fun environment and challenged gameplay,
Which Eugen would never in a 1000 years be able to do in a way that makes all 10v10 players happy, thus the community servers would be the best case scenario. Again, when you have experienced people that curate to ensure that you have people that communicate, don't grief, balance the teams based on skill, and in general share the same mindset, you win across the board for the overall experience.
What you end up with an official, automated system is the following:
Players join in, they get tossed on teams based on pure, raw performance, then they pick troll decks or grief because they aren't allowed to play on the side they want to play (such as wanting to play Pact for example more than 'the stacked team'), and now your team is effectively down a player as a result. Best part? No consequences for that player, just a drop in Elo after they lose, but otherwise they can continue to troll and grief everyone like a spoiled brat because they didn't get their way.
Meanwhile, community managed server, the dude is out of there for good. Banned and won't be ruining anyone's game again.
What I don't get is why it HAS to be official, that's the only thing I don't get. It would be inferior to community driven by a country mile as we already know Eugen doesn't have safeguards in place for griefing and trolling, literally nothing in the TOS for example says that the player must place their units on the frontline, or that they can't just make a deck that is pure supply and artillery.
That's my entire point, explain to me why does it have to be official when you know for 100% of a fact that it will be filled with problems that would be fixed in a flash on a community server. It just sounds like you expect Eugen to wave a magic wand and not only add an autobalancer but also an active moderation and anti-grief system, which is notably a lot more work.
I should add that I have nothing against adding such a feature, as long as people would accept and understand that it won't be 'balanced' either way, but that in there lies the problem. We would switch from "Why no autobalance? Why only stomp fests?" threads to "Why can't I play with my friends? Why no punishment for griefers?".
Whatever they do with 10v10s is a moot point for me, I don't play that mode, it ain't for me, so it physically doesn't matter. However, that doesn't mean I can help improve the experience for them by using the evidence from the past.