Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 3.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Battleground Imbalance (New suggestion)
#1
I have already made a post on this subject before where I complained about the power gap between players. Both in gear and in class (inside bg). My suggestion then was to tweak the power of the players directly but I am now considering another option.

Suggestion: There is a bug in WSG where a team sometimes gets and extra player in their team, sometimes even two (12 vs. 10). I suggest turning this bug into a feature. Implement a calculation to determine the power difference between the teams and allow queuing players to join the inferior side.

Implementation: The simplest way to implement this would be to calculate the accumulated rank level of both teams and compare it. If there is a vast difference between the teams then the inferior team can have a slot, or two, opened up. It could also account for the numbers of kills and deaths on each side but I think rank should be enough. A high rank indicates better gear and a player that is more acclimated to his/her avatar.

Ramifications?: First of all it should be said that this feature would be incredibly easy to retune if the result is undesired. E.g. it could be set to only allow one extra player on the team if all the team members are rank 1-3 and all the opposing team member are rank 10-14(premade). An extra player in this scenario would hardly even be noticed. What I am getting at here is that this feature need not be use to try to perfectly balance each game but instead to nudge the game so that a glimmer of hope could be seen in each game, even if you are up against a premade.

On the other side it could be used to try and strike a, more or less perfect, balance in-between the teams. In this case the average game would progress longer, sometimes a lot longer. And some players may not like this. But most games would also become a challenge for both teams and there wouldn't be as many battlegrounds where you just go through the motions (some mid-farm.. some flag caps.. the end). This would also lead to slower gold farming, but that is just a matter of increasing the reward per mark.

This would also increase the likelihood of the mindless mid-farming that we all love and cherish. If this becomes too much of an issue I suggest simply tuning down the token rewards and increasing the mark rewards.

Premades: There aren't many full premades on this server, despite what it feels like. Mostly it is just a group of 2-4 players queuing together. We don't see a lot of full premades because there aren't any challenges to be had as a premade. There is not much point to in-depth cooperation and tactics when your team will steamroll without any effort what so ever. This takes a lot of fun out of the endgame pvp.

The issue is that there seldom are two premades up at once so the premades almost always face a pug (Poorely Under Geared) group.

With this implementation we could try a premade vs. an enemy team of much greater size. ten space marines vs. fifteen normies sounds good? I, for one, would love it.

Best regards, Durzi
Reply
#2
More enemys= more pvp tokens for me ^^

Reply
#3
There are waaay to many low rank full bis PVE players that only queue here and there and will never reach a high rank. Bad idea man. Bad.
Reply
#4
(01-26-2018, 03:04 PM)Mike9078 Wrote: There are waaay to many low rank full bis PVE players that only queue here and there and will never reach a high rank. Bad idea man. Bad.

It is hard to stay low ranked if you like to pvp. And, if you don't like it, chances are that you are not very skilled with the character you play. And besides, this would only be an issue if people decided to exploit the system by grouping up a bunch of "low rank - high gear" players and made a prem out of it. It would work, but not for long. They would rank up after a week and you would have to gear up a new bunch of characters to keep the exploit going.

And "waaay to many" seems like a great exaggeration to me. Maybe 1/15 fits this profile. Which would not break the suggested system at all.

I still think that rank is a good indicator of both high(ish) gear and skill. It is by no means a guarantee of either, but it does not need to be. It only needs to fit the average player and not be exploitable by people grouping.

Thanks for the reply though, good feedback.
Reply
#5
It's a good idea but ranking is way too fast on this server for a system like that to work. I've seen rank 13 and 14 players in half blue gear (myself included) or not even close to bis. While, as the other poster mentioned, full bis players with low ranking.

Your rank checking system would have to be crosschecked with some other system that somehow calculates the average strength of a player based on his items (sounds familiar?)  Tongue
Reply
#6
(01-27-2018, 10:35 AM)monsterx Wrote: It's a good idea but ranking is way too fast on this server for a system like that to work. I've seen rank 13 and 14 players in half blue gear (myself included) or not even close to bis. While, as the other poster mentioned, full bis players with low ranking.

Your rank checking system would have to be crosschecked with some other system that somehow calculates the average strength of a player based on his items (sounds familiar?)  Tongue

What you say is true, a rank 14 might be in vendor gear but his familiarity (with his character) is likely still higher than a rank 0 with bis. And even if that is not the case, the system does not need to assume that a rank 14 has bis gear and skill. Like I said in the original post, the system can be tuned down to minimal effect, thus assuring that it will never "overbalance".
 
What I mean by this is that the system need not be aimed at perfect balance. If you only allow an extra player in when one team has, for example, 40 or more combined ranks over the other team then you should be 99% certain of not giving too much power to the inferior team. Since letting in one random player, even if bis, won't be enough to tip the balance (in that scenario).
 
And even if the system where to overbalance sometimes, would that really be a problem? As far as I can see it only needs to work for the majority, and not be exploitable.
 
And checking player items would be too easy to exploit by players. They could just unequip gear before queuing.

There are some other factors that could be used though:
  • Time played on character (indicates skill/gear)
  • Queued in a group (indicates better cooperation)
  • Class (the classes could be analyzed to determine if a team has a strong combination of them)
 
Thank you for posting.

Keep the feedback coming guys.
Reply
#7
I am rank 5, and I assure you, that I am a prime example of how this system would be broken. I am a healer main, I play purely to win WSG, it would take me ages to rank up, in fact, I don't even care about ranking up. Last night, I accrued 85 WSG marks with a hunter friend who is also around my rank, in a couple hours. I think we won 27ish WSGs and lost 1 in around 4 hours. Now, can you imagine us being put in a 10v10 and making it a 12v10?


We only play to win, in fact, knowingly, we could make new toons and abuse the system even harder with some good mates. The simple fact is that on this server, Ranking has nothing to do with people's skill level and there is no metric to define that.
Reply
#8
(07-19-2018, 07:30 PM)Dragonforce Wrote: I am rank 5, and I assure you, that I am a prime example of how this system would be broken. I am a healer main, I play purely to win WSG, it would take me ages to rank up, in fact, I don't even care about ranking up. Last night, I accrued 85 WSG marks with a hunter friend who is also around my rank, in a couple hours. I think we won 27ish WSGs and lost 1 in around 4 hours. Now, can you imagine us being put in a 10v10 and making it a 12v10?


We only play to win, in fact, knowingly, we could make new toons and abuse the system even harder with some good mates. The simple fact is that on this server, Ranking has nothing to do with people's skill level and there is no metric to define that.

As stated before: you could make it so that it requires a rather large difference of ranks to allow in extra players. Let's say 40 ranks per player. In that case, if you and your entire team is rank 0 and the enemy team is only rank 14  you would end up with 3 more rank 0 players on your team (13vs10).

Does (13 rank 0 vs 10 rank 14) seem less fair than (10rank 0 vs 10 rank 14)? In your case, if you and your friend are rank5 it would not even merit a single extra slot.

"Ranking has nothing to do with people's skill level and there is no metric to define that."

Do you honestly think that your average rank 0 player is as "strong" as the average rank 14? Do you think that a group of rank 0 has the same chance of winning as a group with only rank 14? Rank is an indication of gear and skill. If you don't agree with that then you need to look up the difference between the words "indication" and "proof".

You all can see that this balancing would not be perfect and it would not be. But there is currently no balancing done at all. So the question is if this balancing system is better than having none at all.
Reply
#9
(07-19-2018, 07:45 PM)mentos987 Wrote:
(07-19-2018, 07:30 PM)Dragonforce Wrote: I am rank 5, and I assure you, that I am a prime example of how this system would be broken. I am a healer main, I play purely to win WSG, it would take me ages to rank up, in fact, I don't even care about ranking up. Last night, I accrued 85 WSG marks with a hunter friend who is also around my rank, in a couple hours. I think we won 27ish WSGs and lost 1 in around 4 hours. Now, can you imagine us being put in a 10v10 and making it a 12v10?


We only play to win, in fact, knowingly, we could make new toons and abuse the system even harder with some good mates. The simple fact is that on this server, Ranking has nothing to do with people's skill level and there is no metric to define that.

As stated before: you could make it so that it requires a rather large difference of ranks to allow in extra players. Let's say 40 ranks per player. In that case, if you and your entire team is rank 0 and the enemy team is only rank 14  you would end up with 3 more rank 0 players on your team (13vs10).

Does (13 rank 0 vs 10 rank 14) seem less fair than (10rank 0 vs 10 rank 14)? In your case, if you and your friend are rank5 it would not even merit a single extra slot.

"Ranking has nothing to do with people's skill level and there is no metric to define that."

Do you honestly think that your average rank 0 player is as "strong" as the average rank 14? Do you think that a group of rank 0 has the same chance of winning as a group with only rank 14? Rank is an indication of gear and skill. If you don't agree with that then you need to look up the difference between the words "indication" and "proof".

You all can see that this balancing would not be perfect and it would not be. But there is currently no balancing done at all. So the question is if this balancing system is better than having none at all.

I know Rank 14s that backpeddle and forget they have interrupt abilities, I know starters that are well beyond the skill of the former. I don't believe that it is so cut and dry as you might think. I also would say that I have never seen an entire group of Rank 14 players in one WSG. Rank is an indication of gear, not skill. You must not confuse the two. 

I believe there are too many caveats and complexities with a system like this; the server is simply too small to determine the qualities of a player based on such a simple notion. I mean, there are players in WSG that are worth 2-3 players in my opinion, but you could never quantify that by their ranking or skill. In terms of averages, you're right that the R14 player is stronger than a R0 player simply due to gear, but in terms of skill, by no means. A lot of high geared players simply farm mid and don't understand a lot of the complexities that go into winning a WSG match such as when to defend, when to switch to offense, support FC, it is quite startling. I see this often and you will too if you look at the players during the game at all times, particularly what all the damage-dealing classes are doing on the map for most of the game.

But I believe that a R0 player on the right class can be just as impactful, if not more, than a R14 player who doesn't understand WSG. There are simply too many take-aways and the only way to determine skill in vanilla is on a case-by-case analysis. If I showed you 5 rogues, and one was infinitely more skilled in WSG than the others, you would never know which one I was talking about. You'd, in fact, probably pick the more geared ones, and be infinitely wrong.

I could log in and donate and be R14 with no prior knowledge of the game, keep that in mind.
Reply
#10
(07-19-2018, 09:19 PM)Dragonforce Wrote: I know Rank 14s that backpeddle and forget they have interrupt abilities, I know starters that are well beyond the skill of the former. I don't believe that it is so cut and dry as you might think. I also would say that I have never seen an entire group of Rank 14 players in one WSG. Rank is an indication of gear, not skill. You must not confuse the two. 

I believe there are too many caveats and complexities with a system like this; the server is simply too small to determine the qualities of a player based on such a simple notion. I mean, there are players in WSG that are worth 2-3 players in my opinion, but you could never quantify that by their ranking or skill. In terms of averages, you're right that the R14 player is stronger than a R0 player simply due to gear, but in terms of skill, by no means. A lot of high geared players simply farm mid and don't understand a lot of the complexities that go into winning a WSG match such as when to defend, when to switch to offense, support FC, it is quite startling. I see this often and you will too if you look at the players during the game at all times, particularly what all the damage-dealing classes are doing on the map for most of the game.

But I believe that a R0 player on the right class can be just as impactful, if not more, than a R14 player who doesn't understand WSG. There are simply too many take-aways and the only way to determine skill in vanilla is on a case-by-case analysis. If I showed you 5 rogues, and one was infinitely more skilled in WSG than the others, you would never know which one I was talking about. You'd, in fact, probably pick the more geared ones, and be infinitely wrong.

I could log in and donate and be R14 with no prior knowledge of the game, keep that in mind.

This is not law. We don't need to have the system be accurate 100% of the time. It just needs to work on average in order to do good. And you are crafting scenarios that can be true, but most often are not. In general (over 50% of the time) a rank 14 will be stronger than a rank 0. And in general, people will gear and rank up in a normal fashion. And that brings up another thing. You bring up "skill" but forget to mention gear levels. The strength of a player, and by extension the team, depends on both.

And since you haven't seen a rank 0 vs rank 14 player match, let me rephrase it. Have you seen any battlegrounds where one side had an average of rank 2 players and the other side has an average of rank 12? I have and the later side wins 95% of those games. Thus rank is an indicator of the strength of the team. It is not a proof of it but it does not need to be. Systems based on indications are still valid.

And one more thing. Is this balancing system worse than having none at all?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)