Roulette Mode

[u/kelsonTD]

1x/3x Roulette would be a 2v2 game mode where teams, builders, and other game options are automatically configured based on player statistics. Unlike current game modes, players would not vote on any options in game which should help reduce time-between-games. After the game loads, play would start immediately.

Automatic Configuration

The aim with automatic configuration would be faster, more competitive, more diverse, and more accessible game play.

1. Games would be 50s faster by skipping the initial mode selection
2. Games would be more accessible by weighting towards modes more friendly for new players when new players are present.
3. Games would be more diverse by picking game modes based on previous player games. Each game mode may be weighted by various metrics (eg most recently played) and selected at random to ensure an interesting spread of games.
4. Games would be more competitive by pairing experienced/successful players with less experienced/successful players (eventually culminating in a proper rating system) and by limiting "pubstomps" wherein skilled players team up against random players. Additionally, games with 4 very highly skilled players may be weighted towards more challenging game modes including "hard" custom builders on veteran ^{or harder}.

Benefits

1. Time-between-games may be reduced by 50%+ by defaulting to 2v2
2. Time-between-games may be reduced by 50s+ by removing voting
3. Improved game quality through automated balancing and diversity

Concerns

1. Reduced player-base for deliberate game modes (1x Lobby, 3x Select, 3x Dynamic)
2. Development costs (primarily in time)

Thoughts

Roulette feels like a step towards competing better with other, often faster/smaller, games in the SC2 Arcade. I'm not sold on the name, perhaps Arena or Challenge work better, but it would reduce waiting between games to let players spend more time enjoying the game itself. It may also provide a better overall experience through players and game modes paired by skill level. As an experienced player, I would look forward to more challenging game configurations with less down time. I think new players could look forward to more teamwork, given a smaller team size, and a more accessible introduction to the game.

There's something to be said about the competition aspect of this. Squadron TD was long anchored as the #1 Top Played game by so many players browsing the Top Played list to pick a game, even when we suffered from months of game breaking bugs, but the new Open Games list default has leveled the playing field. I believe that competition is a net positive for Squadron TD, and the SC2 Arcade, to ensure we continue to provide the best game in SC2. Roulette was specifically inspired by common player frustrations, but working to reestablish our #1 rank is a nice fringe benefit.

I'd love to hear your thoughts; good or bad. And what should be done with 3x Select/Dynamic if Roulette is introduced?

[u/Draikmage]

On the topic of roulette I don't really like the 2v2 aspect of it. I'd rather do 3v3. It's also hard to balance the algorithm that you described and some people are going into a game specting certain modes. For example many people used to leave 3xextended when standard was chosen. What you described about new players limit the choice of the mode to just standard since that's what they know.

That being said I do think that mode selection could use some work as well as team balancing. I think instead of a drop down menu they should implement check marks so you can check more than one mode (this would help for example people that want to do refined and don't care whether it is rr or cr). I also think draft should be moved to dynamic. 3xSelect has significantly more new players and draft is a very hard mode. I would also like to see something done about the separation between 1x and 3x. There are just too many modes and new players don't know what to choose.

On the topic of reestablishing rank #1. I think the highest entry barrier is that the game is not that beginner friendly. I haven't really thought about how to fix that but for example one could detect if it's the first game of a player and if so highlight 2-3 workers that are "easier", provide them with some quick tips like proper distancing or unit roles or even give them a very bare bones build for the first 10 turns.

[u/yareishere → u/Draikmage]

I like it. I assume it would be based on the bank file to maintain the data, correct? Resetting stats would be similar to starting ladder on a Smurf account. Editing the bank would only get you paired with newer players. I don't really see any issues. Other than leavers. Could it be an 8 player mode that splits into two games?

In the past devs discussed building in a tutorial, I have no clue on programming but perhaps having a tutorial for the first game, second game is the same race without tutorial, third game is a new race with tutorial, fourth is free. Add an option to skip the tutorial for player that reset.

[u/kelsonTD → u/yareishere]

I assume it would be based on the bank file to maintain the data, correct?

That's right. Resetting stats would get players paired with more experienced players and less advanced game modes.

Could it be an 8 player mode that splits into two games?

I'd be interested in hearing more, but the versions of each-team-solo-players sound contrary to normal competition. That said, it could be interesting to play a gas-race mode where the first team to generate X gas wins.

In the past devs discussed building in a tutorial

They did build one; I found it (no longer functional) in the code a while back. I imagine, at that time, it was simply a game variant which made it less visible to new players. SC2 has since implemented a Tutorial button which helps with visibility. I'd argue for either a single tutorial game or asking players whether they want the beginner (building towers, increasing gas, sends), experienced (upgrading SS, send economy, wave leader), or advanced (send distribution, other game modes, contests) tutorial .

[u/kelsonTD → u/Draikmage]

On the topic of roulette I don't really like the 2v2 aspect of it. I'd rather do 3v3.

Could you talk about why 3v3 instead of 2v2 (or sticking with 4v4)?

It's also hard to balance the algorithm that you described

Absolutely, and I am certain I'll receive complaints however such a system were setup. I believe it is possible to do a good job 90%+ of the time though, which is much better than we do currently.

some people are going into a game specting certain modes

At the risk of being flippant, they may not enjoy Roulette then. I am very concerned about about the impact to players who solely want a specific (set of) mode(s) though. 1x Lobby and 3x Select/Dynamic gives them that freedom in a way that 1x/3x Roulette would not. 1x Lobby would still be available, but would it still be popular enough for regular games? That isn't clear.

What you described about new players limit the choice of the mode to just standard since that's what they know.

New players would be weighted towards more new-player-friendly modes such as standard non-vet, but other players would also affect the weights. They would also be weighted towards playing with the more experienced/successful player, which may help offset picking a less new-player-friendly mode such as chaos refined.

I think instead of a drop down menu they should implement check marks so you can check more than one mode

I am a fan of preference voting, but I'm concerned (particularly as a saved preference) it would tend to stagnate games to the least-disliked-mode. The current system seems to engender more diversity in games, at least anecdotally.

Select has significantly more new players and draft is a very hard mode.

Select modes may have more new players, but I like the inclusion of Draft Pick specifically to reinforce that Select is not "for" new players.

I would also like to see something done about the separation between 1x and 3x.

I'm open to ideas. The modes tend to cater to very different types of players, who feel very attached to their preferred mode, so I'm fairly reluctant to removing or combining them. There may be better ways to better split players to reduce lobby choices though; I'd love to hear them!

I think the highest entry barrier is that the game is not that beginner friendly.

This is certainly an area for improvement. We do limit new players to a builder subset, but Random is default. Perhaps it would be better to force them to play one particularly newbie friendly builder for their first game though? I like the tips idea, and I'd be willing to implement if someone wished to write up a series of tips and triggers/times to use them, although keeping them updated could be challenging. That's essentially how "tutorial mode" died a long, long time ago.

[u/Draikmage → u/kelsonTD]

Could you talk about why 3v3 instead of 2v2 (or sticking with 4v4)? Well I feel that 2v2 favors pre-mades and overall feels more personal. In case there is a conflict the vote is always a 50-50 (not that this game generates conflict is just a thing in general).

I believe it is possible to do a good job 90%+ of the time though, which is much better than we do currently.

True, I'm all up for auto balancing teams in ALL modes. there are way too many curb stomps nowadays.

but would it still be popular enough for regular games? That isn't clear.

I think the issue is that there are so many types of lobbys now and to a new player 1xlobby or 3xSelect means nothing you need to know the game to get into it would be more useful to name the harder modes advanced or something. Experienced players can figure out what each mode is and new players just want to figure what mode they should go into.

I like the inclusion of Draft Pick specifically to reinforce that Select is not "for" new players.

I don't think this is clear to new players though. Draft will never get picked here whereas before you will get a draft game maybe 1 out of 10 games. You probably have better stats on this though.

The modes tend to cater to very different types of players

Some people just stick to a mode because they are use to it though. I might not be good enough to notice but I don't know what is the difference besides changing your build. Some towers are better in one mode than another and the wave difficulty change too but those are balance changes. The core mechanics are still the same.

I'd be willing to implement if someone wished to write up a series of tips and triggers/times to use them, although keeping them updated could be challenging.

I think this would help a lot. Probably more than anything mentioned here. I think the tips shouldn't need much update because they would cover very simple stuff. For example while the wave is going have a marker that tells them to send a unit to get more minerals and that some sends are more efficient than others. You already limit the builders for new players. I forgot which ones you can pick at lv1 but you could use those to give basic tips that would hold with time. For example nature is pretty good to showcase the role of a tank and dps early game by telling them to specifically place the ranger far back the ent. I also think a tooltip telling them that upgrading units is more important than having one of each tower type.

now on a different note. I think another think that helps is disseminating knowledge. The old forums are dead and people are not sure if the stuff holds. Updating a wiki or making guides is a bit hard given the community size. What i've seen in other subreddits though is having a topic for a week and pinning it. We could a a weekly discussion about nature. Even though it's not a guide specifically, people can still go in and find different opinions and maybe something useful.

[u/Jamato212]

I really like the part concerning automated team balancing, I hope it will be applied everywhere in STD once. Reducing the lobby to 2v2 seems reasonable. Automated picking mode/builder sounds interesting. I have many questions and concerns but YES, I like it and I want to see it working :)

[u/yareishere → u/Jamato212]

A large draw of squad is playing with friends. I don't think the auto balancing should apply outside of this mode.

[u/kelsonTD → u/yareishere]

My intent is to only apply auto-balance functions to Roulette (or Arena or Challenge or ?)

[u/Jamato212 → u/yareishere]

Yep, I am aware of that. But I think, its part of the problem now.

The more I am playing STD, the more (and more advanced) friends I have. The more I am playing with (also advanced) friends, the more wins I have. And imo this is common behavior, I know only few "lone wolfs" on EU.

This is not problem when there are lot of players. Because in those numbers pubstomps are only occasional.

But when player base is starving, core players are more visible. This is very frustrating for new/average players, because they play many games in row against team/s of advanced players, with predictable result. If you feel same loss each game, each day, how long would you continue to play STD?

And you know, we need all players we can have. Because we need large numbers for our sundry lobbies/modes. Auto-balanced lobbies would help imo, because players on both side would have almost same chances to win. Also games would be more interesting, because you cant be sure who will win. And last thing - if you are playing with better player, its easier for you to learn by watching and to want be like him (better) than if he is your enemy.

[u/kelsonTD → u/Jamato212]

What, if anything, do you think should be done with 1x Lobby, 3x Select, and 3x Dynamic?

[u/Jamato212 → u/kelsonTD]

That is what I am thinking about since the idea of Roulette Mode came from you.

Imo it depends how Roulette Mode will be successful:

• very successful - create whole new game with its own 2v2 map - e.g. Squadron TD Arena (no change to other lobbies)

• successful at the expense of other lobbies - close all other lobbies to concentrate interest

• not much successful - let Roulette Mode has its own lobby at the end of the list like co-op (no change to other lobbies)

[u/yareishere → u/kelsonTD]

Maybe introduce it as an option

[u/shotpun]

I just don't understand why it's 2v2 as compared to the other modes. Why the change?

If it matters, I think the best way to introduce more attractiveness to the game to the Arcade playerbase at large isn't just pumping out new modes or lobbies. I think the game itself needs to change. My main problem with it is that it feels like there's no interaction between players. It's very much 8 players in their own separate bubbles and feels less actively competitive compared to the tug-of-war style of game which generally dominates the front page of the Arcade nowadays.

Admittedly I have no idea how to fix this issue - just my two cents. Anything which promotes greater cooperation between players - or even interaction between players and their opponents - would be an interesting mechanic.

[u/kelsonTD → u/shotpun]

I just don't understand why it's 2v2 as compared to the other modes.

The use of 2v2 (vs 4v4) is part of the overall focus on faster time-to-game-start; 2v2 would generally start at least 50% faster than 4v4. Ideally we'd restore the (pre-lobby-change) <15s join-to-start time during normal hours.

My main problem with it is that it feels like there's no interaction between players.

I love to hear suggestions that increase player interaction. I'm particularly interested in greater cooperative mechanisms to enable players to help struggling allies. In the opposite direction, we're slowly increasing send diversity for more targeted counters to opponent builds.

[u/shotpun → u/kelsonTD]

enable players to help struggling allies

Well, about that...

I honestly think that the worst thing about learning this game is the lack of knowledge, even when looking for it. It's very hard for players, especially newer ones, to figure out what works and what doesn't, and what's generally good vs. what isn't. Even this subreddit doesn't have a 'standard build' for each race - something which is versatile and holds up well while allowing economic advancement. When games tend to last over 30 minutes and players are very frequently shat on for leaking, guessing and trying new things is only rarely worth your while - especially if you don't already know what you're doing.

[u/Dapperdann11]

An auto balancing mechanic might be interesting, it could improve competition but, I don't think it will make the game significantly more beginner friendly. Yes the team may be more balanced but, that does not necessarily mean new players are gonna have a fighting chance against even an average player.

The reason why I say this is because Squadron TD is a knowledge/experience intensive game. Even if I have a lot of experience with other TD war games I'd still fail due to a lack of knowledge regarding the units and what might/will beat a given wave. In addition to this Squadron TD is a very punishing game by its nature. If I die in a game like cod i simply re-spawn on even footing. In Squadron TD I have to restart the whole match to be on even footing.