World in Conflict Team-stacking
Interview with Lead Game Designer Magnus “Soundboy” Jansén
What are you doing to stop the team stacking?
The system that will be included in the next update is sort of made up by two parts. First, we’re introducing a feature that automatically creates balanced teams when you join a server. This is based on rank.
If you don’t like the team you are automatically put on (let’s say you have friends on the other team or you prefer to play as USSR for instance) you are free to change, and this is where the second part of the system kicks in. If you switch teams and thus unbalance the game, you may end up with a reduction of your Reinforcement Points.
The reduction is dynamic in the sense that it will go away if the teams get balanced (which happens if someone good drops on your team or someone good joins the other team for instance). This only works one-way, so you’ll never be worse off by the actions of others.
Let me make this absolutely clear: you will never get less Reinforcement Points by any action other than deliberately making a team switch that unbalances the match! So your points will not be affected if some generals join your team and create huge unbalance (they probably will be though), and your points will not be affected if the two best players on the other team suddenly drops (thereby creating unbalance).
Has team stacking been a big problem?
It’s definitely been one of the biggest problems in non-clan games.
Will this fix the problem completely?
Most likely not! But we’ll continue to polish and upgrade the system until we’re happy with it.
For instance, two clan members playing together are usually more effective than two people that don’t know each other, so that’s one of the parts of the algorithm that we may have to adjust in future updates. But if we can help it, we’d rather not punish people for playing together with friends since that’s a big part of the game!
Do you expect it will have any side effects?
I’m sure that the changes will have a slew of both positive and negative side effects. Hopefully the positive effects will outweigh the negative ones, and hopefully we can fix the negative ones as we move on.
The biggest part for me, personally, when playing in public games is that I don’t have to pick a side and then immediately switch if I ended up on a stacked team (yes, I’m a goody two-shoes who does that). Also, I don’t have to camp it out as a spectator during the map cycle (and witness in horror as people try to get on the best team) so that I can pick the underdog.
That’s a positive side effect, by the way… 
46 responses so far ↓
Normik // December 12, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Sounds great! Love the point reduction idea
Josh.de // December 12, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Thank you for the good try to get this problem resolved, the point to reduce re-inf-pts is great, but a rank says not all about the skill of a player, If I make a new profile I´m underranked and can stack anyway, so unbalance the game, there are also other examples for it.
In my opinion there are three points of a player you should consider to get the pub-game-unbalancing-issue under control:
1. Average points/score (most important)
2. Average TA used
3. Games played divided by TA-critical-hits = average TA-critical-hits
One of this points or even all together count much more to help to identify the skill of a player than by the ranking °_°
Buddha // December 12, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Do you think that rather than stacking, players will simply drop out of the game now?
Theonliner // December 12, 2007 at 2:42 pm
** Deutsche Version des Textes findest du auf http://frgclan.ohost.de **
I said: the german translation you can find a the URL above ..
Now.. very interesiting and very very nice thinking .. BUT.. we need one exeption for tweak it …
1.) Make a switch in where you can probably say: Only Generals allowed and then Switch of the Tweak of balancing
2.) Make a Switch Only non General allowed … and 1/2 of the balancing rules
3.) As you descibed Total Control and 1/1 of the balancing
I gues many (saw this in the roster) 1/2 are general in the moment .. and realy know how to play a game even playing in Public… so try to tweak it on the server side server.ini which of the 3 possiblilities a Server admin will choos .. and last but not least my proposal:
4.) Give a Serveradmin the possibility to total Switch this Balancing off (!)
This are only a few thoughts which was come to an effect cos i am playing WIC from 21.oktober til today every day …
Yours Sincerly
[FRG]Theonliner – Clanleader FRG
Stupidmonkey // December 12, 2007 at 4:41 pm
This is the biggest pile of “*@#*@” insert your explative “in the world.
So because whiners didnt want to lose, freinds will no longer be allowed to play with each other, and if they do they are penalized.
I will tell you what will happen…….
1 : You will lose players, period . – Forcing / penalizing good players from playing togther is equvilent to telling the a good sports team, they have use fewer players, just so the other team has a chance.
2 : Most obvious, freinds will dump there 4 star profiles, use no ranks and completly destroy the other team. In fact this will allow good players to force the other team to have reduced units on the field. Because LT’s, captains, etc.etc still want there 4 stars. So the good players under altenate names all privates will have even more advantage.
mmmmm. great f…..ing idea.
Massgate there is no need to socialize / commie . This is a game, let people play it the way the frigging want to.
Theonliner // December 12, 2007 at 4:56 pm
So you started whining
)
[BLESS]CC-18 CATAHA // December 12, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Great… I never fight for USA nor NATO on principle. And not going to now. So, I suppose I can expect a lot of “fun” in the future, right?
Why don’t you at least add the “preferred side” selection in the options – [USA/NATO - USSR - DON'T CARE]. At the start of a game check if it’s possible to assign those who want to be on a certain side. Then assign those who don’t care. This way we at least will have a chance not to be penalised.
By the way, it’ll also fix the clan mates problem to some extent. Clan mates will be able to select the same side and will have more chances to turn up on the same team.
Theonliner // December 12, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Yeah i aske same .-. some trigger switch or “bubble” which we can choose from server side … what option we like ..
)
1.) No Harm – no balancing
2.) No Charme – 1/2 Balancing
3.) No way out – 1/1 All Balanced with Algorthmen
Stupidmonkey // December 12, 2007 at 5:11 pm
I wish to add something to my rant above.
I stated that this is a game. Do you get better at a game or at anything by wining. NO… I became a better player by losing, and losing a lot. Learning from mistakes. Me and my friends all sucked and lost a lot at first. And we become better by playing togther. But we didn’t get better until we figured out how to stop losing.
But again this is a game. Why should I or my friends be penalized for playing together.
With all that said, I will switch to the “noob team” I give the 3-6 games to listen. If they don’t play as a team, or attempt to play as a team I leave. Also, I’m close to 40 years old. I don’t want to play a game with 8 year old kids. Why in the world are you trying to force me to play with people I don’t like or care to play with.
This is downright stupid and for some reason you want to make this game politically correct.
In a previous posting I made mention of something better than what you are suggesting. Rather than reducing reinforcement points, ta, auto balance or things like that. Why don’t you just make every game a tie. NO ONE WINS, EVER. Because if you lose , oh its soo sad. And while where at it, lets remove all the weaponry from the game. Just give all the soldiers lollipops and balloons. And instead of tanks make them clown cars. Instead stead of choppers give air, hot air balloons that sprinkle fairy dust on the everyone.
Oh and no TA for arty , Chem. Strikes or nukes. Just TA for group hugs and puppy dogs .
And since your making sure that everything is fair, who needs ranks or medals anyway. Everyone should just be a private forever. Or better yet, why don’t we all just throw the game away an go outside and pick daisy’s
Sierra, you want to have a good game, you want to be the game of the year. When you play multiplayer on public servers in Halo, or other games, do they force you to play with idiots? No they let you play with your friends. If you force people to play with people they don’t like, then why play the game at all. Bottom line, this will hurt your reputation, and it will hurt sales.
DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT penalize people for playing with people they want to play with. You have a good product, do not try to force social engineering into a game.
A similar letter will be forwarded to the sales and marketing departments of your corporation as well as the same departments for your US distributors.. I also believe that social engraining a game would make for good press on the major gaming sites.
I’m also sure Microsoft and Activision would love to know that your planning on penalizing players for playing together
Baseplate // December 12, 2007 at 6:32 pm
^stupid monkey, your name suits you very well indeed.
Theory // December 12, 2007 at 7:14 pm
I agree with base plate, first of all if you want to play with people you enjoy MAKE A CLAN, and play clan matches. your just mad because you can no longer ridiculously stack pub teams and win over and over, making the game stupid for the other side. This game is exhilarating when teams are even, and I say great job massive
Stupidmonkey // December 12, 2007 at 7:47 pm
First off I’m not mad, I’m puzzled.
Why should massgate and or sierra determine who I play with online.
Thats all
mumuslave // December 12, 2007 at 7:55 pm
I completely agree with stupidmonkey – i also lost a lot at the beginning and even whined because of teamstacking…beeing a general now I know how senseless it is to play with a buch of artynoobs. after a while of learning to loose – you will also learn to win and by the way you’ll find your favorite servers and teammates from all over the world. And of course I want to play with them as a team and not together with a bunch of “2 heavy arty and cover with 3 heavy AA” players.
If i cannot choose my side anymore without penalty – i will definitely erase the game from the computer. My advise – bring the game back to V1.0. cheers Mumuslave
Alex // December 12, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Your decision will bring doom to WIC. Why would you limit people playing together as a team?
Ghostmaker // December 12, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Basing team balance on rank alone is a big mistake.
Using the below would help
1. Average points/score (most important)
2. Average TA used
3. Games played divided by TA-critical-hits = average TA-critical-hits
One of this points or even all together count much more to help to identify the skill of a player than by the ranking
But heres the rub clans desire to play together. Clans usually use communication and good tactics to win. The proposed team stacking fix will kill the ability for clans to play together.
So why doesn’t massive provide there own servers with the proposed leveling system. And allow those who pay for the servers have a choice as to how they desire to manage it.
Groo // December 12, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Make it optional is what people are saying, I guess. MSV servers can have this turned on, but clan servers should be able to turn off this “feature” if it does not work as intended. This should be a server side set up, just like the autobalance function.
-=GxG=- MyJ|gg4 // December 13, 2007 at 2:42 am
Well, yes I too was a little taken by team stacking at the start. However, like others have mentioned, I lost and I lost allot and I still lose… but each loss is knowledge gained on what not to do, force teamwork, etc. etc. I am not a repair junkie and I never will be. I always auto pick teams, never a preferred side. If people don’t like playing against 4 star generals then phreakn learn how to beat them. That is what makes this game so much fun. I agree with Groo, I definitely think ranked servers should have the option to select these new auto balance features and not make it mando.
My 2 cents.
TyWebb // December 13, 2007 at 5:38 am
I think it’s a great idea to at least try to do something to address the issue. A lot of the time when I see teams being stacked badly, I purposely join that team and play like a retard just to bring that team down. That’s the only way I enjoy playing in overly-stacked servers. There is nothing more fun than playing a balanced match though.
Legacy.Woop // December 13, 2007 at 7:42 am
Yet another way to make ti so that clans can not play together, WTG massgate, way to chase away the clans….. If we have been playing since the beta, ofcourse all of us on the team are going to be somewhat of a general ( 1-4 stars ) and now, because nubs want something, again, the game creators go and punish clans for playing together. There are TONS of ways around this mind you… and we as always, will play together but again, WTG massgate on punnishing clans for playing together in pubs….
Legacy.Woop // December 13, 2007 at 7:49 am
1 more thing, I totally agree with stupidmonkey… this is a GAME, its not freaking myspace.com…. point is, you make us play with people we dont want to play with, we will leave the game. MS and Activision will just laugh at the THOUGHT of FORCING people to play with people they dont want…. way to kill a great game….
Ander // December 13, 2007 at 8:48 am
Rather than RANK, consider AVERAGE SCORE: it is much more useful as an indicator of a player’s skill.
Also, allow “minimum rank” in certain servers… It is stupid to force generals to play with noobs all the time.
Theonliner // December 13, 2007 at 10:17 am
In a grown up way we should resume (asked my clan yesterday as well)
or make constructives Proposals 
Last Statement from my side about this here cos i will wait final announcements for the update ..
1.) Democracy in a descisson making
…. is a must have! Totalitary public server will lead to frustration… especially the highranked Player dont play for Rank but to educate and finetune their skills TOGETHER with their longtime buddies…
2.) Freedom of Descission making of a Server “look out”
…having the possibility to switch on or of and further limit certain server to high mid or low skill is contraproductiv in a sense of dont train the low or not so much frequently playing gamers. As i proposed before let the freedom of the Server switchings to the owner and “pay billers” of the Server. Finetune it to let f.e. NGZ open a high ranked server, or a Training server either allow ranks or not may establish an idea which we in FRG discussed since multigame playing… 1997 !
3.) Changing the current Situation is a MUST
We all agree that there is something we need to make .. and this Massive brought up.. with nice ideas.. maybe we all misinterprate the 4-5 Sentences above but that they thing over to wipe this Stacking out is a very very good Information.. so as far i know Massive, it will be a Teamplayer and Server Democracy with 100% Freedom of descision.. in a common sense of teamplay. so let em do there job .. and we do ours.. we whine
Yours Theo
St // December 13, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Assumming it’s a parameter which depends on the server setting, it’s as good a try as other suggestions i saw, and massgate has to try something, and we can assume they evaluated options.
i just get frustrated of the idea of ending up in a balanced team where we still have 3 heavy art players complaing they don’t get AA support to protect them from helos.
Perhaps there should be a punishment for overloading a certain role when there are not 8 players.
And while we are at it, could it be possible to not allow idle players to take up slots if they spectate? so that players can join if its 7v8 and a spectator who went out for lunch?
Xenoxide // December 13, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Stupidmonkey and Legacy.Woop – Why do *I* care if you leave the game or not? In my opinion it’ll be better off without you. Go whine to your friends.
To the sensible people: I don’t agree with the changes 100% (Rank doesn’t mean that player is good or bad, it means they’ve played for a certain amount of time), but on the other hand I am totally against team stacking.
Clans and friends that play together on a public server usually have certain advantages that the rest of us individual players don’t have. They know each other’s strategies and weaknesses, they know their styles of play. In addition they usually help each other more than individual players do. And while they may like to play against each other for these specific reasons, it does give them an advantage over the rest of us.
I’m not opposed to people playing together as friends; in fact, as far as I can tell Massive isn’t really doing anything to stop this. There is a different between “team stacking” and a couple of people who like to play together.
From what Magnus said in the interview they’re willing to change the system in the future if improvements need to be made to the algorythm, so why don’t we all just calm down and have a beer.
Let’s wait and see what happens.
Obscurity // December 14, 2007 at 9:57 am
I agree with Stupidmonkey and Legacy. Good players will just use the many loopholes around this really stupid system your going to be implementing for a bunch of whiners who cant stand losing…
You’re following in Star Wars Galaxies footsteps.. listening to the babies will eventually equal a dead game..
Godlike // December 14, 2007 at 5:37 pm
im standing behind monkey because what he says is true ppl will Trow there starr accounts away and rank does not matters any way you need to see those generals in An 2vs2 clanmatch.
Jayman // December 14, 2007 at 8:50 pm
An alternate solution. Why not have some public servers with with a mimimum rank, say maybe Sargent and higher or Lieutenant and higher. That keeps the noobs on lower servers learning how to play as a team, and the vets happy on the higher servers. And it keeps the the number of smurfs at a minimum because of the time that they would need to put in to rank up to playing on the vet servers. Right now, it just seems you might be punishing your most loyal players, some who probably have hundreds or even thousands of hours invested (or wasted) in the game. As a noob myself, I would prefer to play my first few ranks with those of a similar skill level.
Sgt. Banks // December 14, 2007 at 9:07 pm
I agree with CC-18 CATAHA, except I always play for USA/NATO on principle. I don’t want to play USSR and I’m glad we’re given that option. Why should we be penalized because I don’t want to play as a Russian? I think there must be a better way.
Whiskey Papa // December 14, 2007 at 9:16 pm
I love the idea of a server-side fix to stacking.
Will all servers have this or is it something that can be implemented by the admin?
My 2 cents:
The fix should be ranked based like Massive has done. The only reason to stack a team is for silly stat padding reasons and to raise your rank as if it means anything. By making the fix rank based – you penalize the padders, and if they want to continuously create new characters then so be it. Their ego will suffer more than our game. Combine this with a minimum rank system to join a server, and an admin can create a nice competitve environment.
You could add a modifier like 1-10 that would allow some level of imbalance.
You could also add a modifier like 1-10 that would weight it to allow Clanmates to stay together.
Good Work, Massive.
Locutus420 // December 14, 2007 at 9:32 pm
I think it is somthing they are going to tryout for all you folks who are crying about it , you must be the ones they are trying to prevent. the idea is to try to increase duration of rounds to make game more fun. I know when im in a round that is going off for awhile thats when you see all the great TA stuff multiple nukes , carpets , ect ect so just relax i dont think something this futile will seriously effect how much fun this great title is. Stupid Monkey i understand your distaste with what has been stated from creators but untill you actually see how its going to work , i see no point in anyone ranting negative or positive about this decision as you just do now know nuff said.
Locutus420 // December 14, 2007 at 9:33 pm
do not know my bad
Locutus420 // December 14, 2007 at 9:36 pm
go ahead and throw away star rank and make more they will just get ranked again and you will have to do it all over again and again and again , i mean is being a sissy and not welcoming a challenge worth that much hassle
Katalyst // December 14, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Jayman, you have a good point. Server-side limitations would be great for the vast majority of public servers that most people play on. That would let newbies (and higher ranked players) know what servers to hit up, and if a top-rank limitation was implemented, higher-ranked players would not be able to outright destroy new players.
Theonliner also had a decent suggestion; the ability for the admin of a server to choose how his/her server is to be balanced would make specific servers viable for this new balancing plan, and sate the now-consistent whining of the higher levels who are dying to have this plan dropped.
If I had to guess, Stupidmonkey might be right in saying that generals would drop their accounts just to play freely, but bear in mind this new anonymity would completely ruin the ranking system, and players would no longer have the respect that comes with the high rankings, and would not be as revered.
ANDER! Thank God, someone with a BRIGHT IDEA! Average Score is not unlike a KDR ranking for FPS games; players with a higher KDR generally are better players, and players with higher Average Scores are generally better than players with lower Average Scores. That would be a much better judge of skill, rather than rank alone. That would also prevent high-ranked players from dropping their accounts for the sake of cheating the balance system; if they have a relatively low avg. score (as ANYONE can rank up over a long period of time) they will be balanced with players with decent average scores, not just newbies.
If you high-ups are going to toss away the game because of the balancing, maybe it’s for the better. Get off your high horse and just play the damn game.
Good job on “balancing” the game, Massgate, but it will need another patch for the sake of sating the whining of both sides.
emphatic.toker // December 15, 2007 at 2:05 am
Why don’t you just give fewer kill points for players on top heavy teams and reward players who are not afraid of any number of stars, extra points for being willing to battle. That way you force the players who stack, to play even better in order to see any real benefit, while giving brave skilled players a chance to zoom up the leaderboard by ripping stars off of generals’ chests.
Odyani // December 16, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Can’t say I completely agree with the system. While I’m glad something is being done this doesn’t seem to be an effective solution. I really don’t care if I’m put on a poorly ranked team what I do care about is being put on a poor team. Teamwork makes this game much more fun but it is scarce. That is why I play with Tactical Gamer, but they could become more difficult with this.
I feel too that this should be a server option. Or perhaps make it so that only ranked servers need this and all non ranked servers are not forced to make use of this system.
Well at least something is being done, I personally think though that this needs alot more work before anyone is happy.
Grusome // December 17, 2007 at 7:13 pm
I have to agree with stupidmonkey. Why punish people for playing well? I am tired of new support players who spam heavy arty instead of covering my tanks.
Also, rank means very little. This is a game of teamwork. A group of lower ranks who play well together can beat a higher ranks who do not.
Why should I be forced to play with them? I want to play with my clan, and we always try to play together if/when we cannot get a clan match together.
This whole thing is a problems that doesn’t need solving. If people are stacking, just leave the server and find another one. The stackers will eventually get the message when no one will play against them.
Grusome // December 17, 2007 at 7:49 pm
This game is about teamwork. Those that play as a team win against those that don’t.
The ranks on each team mean nothing. The only thing is that there is a strong correlation between rank and skill. Why? Because the high rank players have played enough to know that you need to work as a team and that support players cannot just spam heavy arty.
What is most enjoyable about this game is working as a team with the various roles to defeat the other side. If my team plays a good game, works together but still loses, I had an enjoyable experience. If we win but the game was spent trying to get the support guy to do his job and cover my tanks, then it was not an enjoyable experience.
All this patch will do is force me to play with players who increase the chance of me not having an enjoyable game.
TheD3c1de2 // December 17, 2007 at 10:24 pm
who ever came up with this idea should have his back put to a poll and shot
TheD3c1de2 // December 17, 2007 at 10:24 pm
i hate it
Chroniss // December 18, 2007 at 2:35 am
An anti-stacking feature, its about time. It is funny to see all the stackers in here call the people who argue about all the stacking “whiners” when in effect, that is what they themselves have become. Whining about the fact that they can no longer stack and gaurentee themselves a win.
I played beta over 1000 matches, and had no intention of purchasing because of the stacking. Now with this patch, I will be picking up WiC before christmas to enjoy some BALANCED matches, without having to join a clan.
Chroniss // December 18, 2007 at 2:45 am
I’m not saying this is the be-all-end-all of anti-stacking. Far from it, as even the dev’s pointed out. Its a work in progress, but progress is being made. To say this change should never have happened is to deny one of the fundamental problems of the game, this might not be the best way to do it, but it gets the ball rolling.
My previous comments are directed towards the individuals who entirely disagree with balanced teams, people like StupidMonkey. People who hide behind a ridiculous statement such as “forcing me to play with people I don’t want to”, when this very issue was outlined by the dev’s themselves with the reinforcement decrease.
You entirely ignore the changes in favor of your need to have stacked games and easy wins. You say this is ruining the game, when in fact your way of playing is what ruins the game for others. You act like a selfish little child who wants all the toys to himself.
Zarock // December 18, 2007 at 8:50 am
Good to see something is being done about the stacking problem. I strongly support the idea of basing the team balancing on average game score, TA used etc is far better than rank. I believe that I have constantly played above my rank and have played with some higher ranked player’s who play like complete dipsh*ts.
The idea of having some sort of minimum and maximum rank allowed on a server might be a good idea too.
I don’t think that the team balancing will cause many people to stop playing the game, sure it will probably piss the stackers off but too bad, if anything the team balancing might cause players to join servers with more players of a similar rank thus creating closer and more intense games.
Will be interesting to see how it goes.
TheD3c1de2 // December 18, 2007 at 3:32 pm
its not massives place to tell me what team i can and cannot be on
TheD3c1de2 // December 18, 2007 at 3:36 pm
this patch is political correctness gone mad
Meta // February 4, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I just love how many posters here repeat that they don’t want to be forced to play with people they don’t want to play with. Care to read carefully? The system is explicitly designed not to force you to stay on the team you are assigned to. Switch to the other team anytime you like.
Also, there’s a lot of opinions that challenge makes you a better player. So well, you get a penalty for switching to your stacked team. So, there’s your challenge and chance to improve.
You should be all happy (once you read the whole article).
-=DJ=-Pinpointmc // October 1, 2008 at 7:11 pm
I concur, the system has been working for 9 1/2 months as intended. It’s not perfect but it gets the job and it does it well.