I know the point is to win. Before somebody quotes just the title, I am still going to repair the objective and try to stop yours.

But the rounds I remember are the ones where both teams had a chance. Trading the same doorway, finally getting through with ten seconds left, losing because the other team made one good decision. Five rounds of walking over a team that cannot leave spawn are technically successful and completely forgettable.

Where I get stuck is what to do about it. Switching teams can help, but switching every time your side starts winning feels patronising too. And sometimes the losing team is one organised push away from turning it around.

Not asking for a new server rule here. I just want to know how people recognise the difference between a tough round worth playing out and a team balance problem that is making everyone miserable.

The easy wins are only boring when you have already had your share. If I have been losing all evening, I am perfectly happy with one round where everything works.

Sure, one. Rook said five. There is a difference between finally getting a good round and noticing half the other team has left.

I dislike the assumption that leaving means miserable. Sometimes it means dinner. People read an awful lot into a disconnect.

Fair correction. I would look at the rounds themselves before the player count. If the objective never gets contested, something feels off even if nobody leaves.

Ask whether anyone wants a swap. Quietly deciding to rescue the losing team can be more annoying than the actual losing.

That I agree with. My objection was to making people feel guilty for playing well. I have seen that turn into a very strange argument.

My preferred balance system is accidentally joining the wrong side after a snack break. Highly advanced.

You are joking but the snack break has probably balanced more games than any forum thread.

I am taking “offer, do not appoint yourself saviour” from this. Still prefer the close loss. Copper can have my easy win.