statistics on tickets at end of round per map

[Zigrat]

would it be possible to track these somehow? Id like to see if my notions of perceived bias are justified, like


Oman, oilfields: even
Sharqi: mec advantage
Matshuur: usmc advantage


-- etcera

[Tempus]

That would be interesting, but I don't know of any stats programs that keep track of that.

On that note, though, what do you guys think are the maps that favor one team or the other?

[jepzilla]

Originally Posted by Tempus

That would be interesting, but I don't know of any stats programs that keep track of that.

On that note, though, what do you guys think are the maps that favor one team or the other?

I'd be willing to write something to collect those statistics, since it's something I've been thinking about doing anyway.

Unbalanced maps suck, IMO. Conquest: Assault (1 UCB) maps are the worst part of BF2.

[Shiner]

Clean Sweep @ 64p size

[Xink]

Originally Posted by Shiner

Clean Sweep @ 64p size

hell yeah, that map is PAINFUL as MEC

[icky]

I like the assault maps because of the requirement to defend home base, but the requirement to hold all flags for ticket bleed is simply idiotic. That said, the setup as it is would work better with low-ticket games, since holding all of the flags at the start for 5 minutes could win you the game.

I think the change to what TG has on Dragon Valley is appropriate, and doesn't diminish the value of holding the main Chinese base at all.

Now for the topic, I think that would be totally cool. The statistics for everything are readily available and scripts can be made to do essentially ANYTHING with them.

[icky]

Originally Posted by Bommando

Most maps are pretty balanced in my opinion. The only ones I see with a consistent advantage are:

Karkand: USMC 95%
Mashtuur: USMC 70%
Sharqi: MEC 70%

The rest are pretty even I think.

Is Karkand that bad? I tend not to notice the result unless it is a total domination. I know I prefer playing USMC because I like being sneaky.

Any thoughts (hijacking again) on what could be done to help balance Karkand?

[Tempus]

Speaking of Karkand.. Would it be better for MEC if we put ticket bleed on the map?

[Xink]

im becoming increasingly bored with karkand, not enough of the map see's action, the first few moment of the map leading up to the river faceoff are some fun times, but once you hit that stalemate it really doesnt do much for me, though i guess its good pistol practice

[Tempus]

My thoughts about putting ticket bleed on Karkand..

1. It may be easier for the USMC to hold the west side than it is for MEC, and since most of the tickets are on that side, they would enjoy ticket bleed.
2. MEC would enjoy ticket bleed longer to start the game and this will give them more incentive to stay on the west side.

I'm not sure if 1 is true, and if it is, this will make things worse for MEC. And once the standoff occurs on the river, MEC will just bleed to death.

OTOH, it should definitely open up the gameplay on the map. MEC will fight harder to hold the bridge which should open up more opportunities for the USMC to forge across the river.. Also, should the USMC be able to take the east side, it will not be a disaster for the MEC since they can still take all the west and hold onto it for bleed.

I will make sure to add ticket bleed to this map before this weekend's games.

[Tempus]

Actually, I just realized that there are 4 CPs on each side of the river... This means there will be no ticket bleed on standoffs.. Hmmm...

Maybe we can make the bridge worth more? What do you think about that?

[asch]

Originally Posted by Tempus

My thoughts about putting ticket bleed on Karkand..

1. It may be easier for the USMC to hold the west side than it is for MEC, and since most of the tickets are on that side, they would enjoy ticket bleed.
2. MEC would enjoy ticket bleed longer to start the game and this will give them more incentive to stay on the west side.

These are only true if each CP has the same "value" to it. You can make certain CPs have more value, which means you don't necessarily have to have 50%+1.

[icky]

I am thinking this:
- if the MEC gets the 4 flags on the west side, the USMC bleeds, since they are failing to defend the territory close to their main base (and presumably it would fall if it wasn't a UCB )
- if either team holds 5 flags or more, the other team bleeds tickets
- the west flags start neutral
- the bleed rate is relatively fast

Hopeful result:
- USMC shoots for one flag on the other side, but doesn't spawn the whole team there for fear of losing the west side (which currently is just fine for them)
- MEC shoots for flags on the other side, especially early in the game, but can aim to grab and defend ANY west side flag to get bleed going
- if the sides end up flipping, the USMC has a very strong incentive to try to uproot the MEC from the west side and hopefully this forces them to weaken on the east side

[James315]

I think ticket bleed should help MEC and do a lot to balance the map.

Right now there are a lot of river standoffs not only because it's difficult for USA to cross, but because there's no incentive for the MEC to take anything on the western side. The MEC find it impossible to hold all flags, safer to hold the eastern half, and they lose no matter which strategy they choose.

[SgtDuke]

Originally Posted by Tempus

I will make sure to add ticket bleed to this map before this weekend's games.

Is the plan to eventually change all maps from 100% to 50% + 1 for bleed? And is Dragon Valley the only map that has this change so far?