PDA

View Full Version : Balance PVP



Grimmjow1
02-26-2009, 03:29 AM
I don't know if someone suggested it yet, but heres the idea :

Get the 3 factions in the pvp room as proportional as possible at least at 10-19 zone because Fujins are always winning due to thier mass population...

MYSTERY1
02-26-2009, 05:11 AM
Yeah..since the stats and everything is the same already, its only fair to make numbers the same. Like the first 30 to press "ok" can go and rest have to wait until next time. So its up to the other clans to match the snakes 30 (I'm sure they will have 30 every time).

tero022
02-26-2009, 08:02 AM
If they where to put a Limit it would most likely be a number u can't get to like 100 or so because its just not fair to have ppl stay out of a pvp zone which gives free money for winning which some might need :|

Grimmjow1
02-26-2009, 11:12 AM
It isnt far for a faction to win over and over either. ;l

Rainman1
02-26-2009, 12:52 PM
I m sure even all 3 clans have the same numbers of players each side during 10-19 war, snakes will always be targeted first.
Do you guys think so?
Btw i am dragon :D

Grimmjow1
02-26-2009, 01:50 PM
Not really.. if we were all equal in number, i'd attack tiger first cause their attack are more heavy than fujin's well i think

sfantul2
02-26-2009, 02:19 PM
I like this suggestion. In order to make it more fair though and maintain a number limit you could have wars happen more often. Cut the wait time in half so as to ensure people get to PvP within the time frame they wish to but allow the player cap so wars are fair and balanced. Being zerged by another clan makes PvP pointless and frustrating.

Asasinul12
02-26-2009, 02:44 PM
I like this suggestion. In order to make it more fair though and maintain a number limit you could have wars happen more often. Cut the wait time in half so as to ensure people get to PvP within the time frame they wish to but allow the player cap so wars are fair and balanced. Being zerged by another clan makes PvP pointless and frustrating.

Exact same numbers? It could be ok, but it seems TO balanced, as odd as that sounds... How about a random number? + or - 3 people within each number? Mayimum say 15? Once the square is full of approximately 30 people it's hard to see who is who... So, make it say 13 Tigers and maybe 15 snakes, or 14 guans, and 16 tigers, or so on, you get the idea.

That way it's never absolutely level and it's always a challenge, and no one has absolute advantage or not.

sfantul2
02-26-2009, 02:52 PM
Exact same numbers? It could be ok, but it seems TO balanced, as odd as that sounds... How about a random number? + or - 3 people within each number? Mayimum say 15? Once the square is full of approximately 30 people it's hard to see who is who... So, make it say 13 Tigers and maybe 15 snakes, or 14 guans, and 16 tigers, or so on, you get the idea.

That way it's never absolutely level and it's always a challenge, and no one has absolute advantage or not.

Making it even won't allow anyone to have ANY advantages, that's the point. However, I'd be ok with a + or - system but I don't think other people will. I can only imagine the outcry of "we lost because they had 3 more people" especially if the battle is close and comes down to just three players i.e. 1 Tiger and 2 Snake. If the battle is lost by the Tiger Clan (however doubtful that may be :) ) then it's a viable arguement that the +3 system worked in the Snake Clan's favor. Making an exactly even number of players in each match ensures minimal amount of complaining and maximum amount of fun and viability.

Asasinul12
02-26-2009, 03:05 PM
Exact same numbers? It could be ok, but it seems TO balanced, as odd as that sounds... How about a random number? + or - 3 people within each number? Mayimum say 15? Once the square is full of approximately 30 people it's hard to see who is who... So, make it say 13 Tigers and maybe 15 snakes, or 14 guans, and 16 tigers, or so on, you get the idea.

That way it's never absolutely level and it's always a challenge, and no one has absolute advantage or not.

Making it even won't allow anyone to have ANY advantages, that's the point. However, I'd be ok with a + or - system but I don't think other people will. I can only imagine the outcry of "we lost because they had 3 more people" especially if the battle is close and comes down to just three players i.e. 1 Tiger and 2 Snake. If the battle is lost by the Tiger Clan (however doubtful that may be :) ) then it's a viable arguement that the +3 system worked in the Snake Clan's favor. Making an exactly even number of players in each match ensures minimal amount of complaining and maximum amount of fun and viability.

Yeah... *He says grudgingly* I suppose you have a bloody point. See, when you make it EXACTLY even it becomes an exercise in over achieving which is NOT a bad thing... But to even is to even in my book. What is there to achieve or strive for? And yes, I can see where complaints would creep in BUT how would people KNOW they had the superior numbers? What are they going to do count? Or for that matter how would they know they had lesser numbers? Again it's NOT meant to give anyone an advantage but rather be random... PLUS it also eliminates the need for...

You have 10 waiting to enter, and the other side has three. Does the higher numbered side win by default? WOW that would get ugly fast and in a faction of superior numbers, they would ALWAYS win, and that is it's own issue.

So... The plus or minus would alleviate that potentially I suppose? Although it's NOT perfect by any stretch of the imagination.

sfantul2
02-26-2009, 04:10 PM
Yes, people would probably count being that there's a significant wait time between when you get into the war and when the battle actually begins. Been in a couple of wars already where people get as close as they can to the opposing faction and estimate how many there are. Also, when the game hits release I seriously doubt there will be problems in maxing the player count on both sides. However, I see your point so we'll just have to wait and see if anything will be done to this extent.

MaRyUs2
02-26-2009, 05:56 PM
I'm sorry I don't agree with the idea of having a set number of people in the pvp zones. People would complain saying "I never get in, or this person is always getting in and i'm not!"

sfantul2
02-26-2009, 06:07 PM
I'm sorry I don't agree with the idea of having a set number of people in the pvp zones. People would complain saying "I never get in, or this person is always getting in and i'm not!"

Hence why I suggested along with the number cap to have PvP matches happen twice as often.

Asasinul12
02-26-2009, 06:15 PM
I'm sorry I don't agree with the idea of having a set number of people in the pvp zones. People would complain saying "I never get in, or this person is always getting in and i'm not!"

Hence why I suggested along with the number cap to have PvP matches happen twice as often.

Okey dokey, let's add in a formula... X number of players between levels 1-10, 10-19, 19-30, etc... So now at (Whichever level) the formula for that level is...

Faction 1
X (players in faction) / Y (The amount of players online) For A, B, or C (representing a 15 minute time span in each hour)

Faction2
X (players in faction) / Y (The amount of players online) For A, B, or C (representing a 15 minute time span in each hour)

Now the formula has to be balanced by the other faction entering the battle... So if it turns out that faction 1 formula is MORE than faction 2 formula, we handicap faction 1, and based on the amount of players for faction 2, the damage is lowered appropriately.

How's that? It's balanced, it allows for more battles based on people within those levels, and it also includes a handicap for superior numbers.

YEAH! WHat I said!

sfantul2
02-26-2009, 06:20 PM
Okey dokey, let's add in a formula... X number of players between levels 1-10, 10-19, 19-30, etc... So now at (Whichever level) the formula for that level is...

Faction 1
X (players in faction) / Y (The amount of players online) For A, B, or C (representing a 15 minute time span in each hour)

Faction2
X (players in faction) / Y (The amount of players online) For A, B, or C (representing a 15 minute time span in each hour)

Now the formula has to be balanced by the other faction entering the battle... So if it turns out that faction 1 formula is MORE than faction 2 formula, we handicap faction 1, and based on the amount of players for faction 2, the damage is lowered appropriately.

How's that? It's balanced, it allows for more battles based on people within those levels, and it also includes a handicap for superior numbers.

YEAH! WHat I said!

I have to disagree with this. Damage reduction to another clan? I can only imagine the amount of crying and whining. This screams of balance issues in my mind and it seems that MAYN and A1 and working tirelessly to make sure this doesn't happen.

tomas2312
02-26-2009, 06:21 PM
Disagree 100%.

I for one like all out mass slaughter.

sfantul2
02-26-2009, 06:22 PM
Disagree 100%.

I for one like all out mass slaughter.

Even if the slaughter is your own? You may be good but if your side is outnumbered 3 to 1 on a consisten basis something tells me you'll get frustrated with losing. Making PvP battles have equal numbers makes sense for everyone.

Asasinul12
02-26-2009, 06:24 PM
Okey dokey, let's add in a formula... X number of players between levels 1-10, 10-19, 19-30, etc... So now at (Whichever level) the formula for that level is...

Faction 1
X (players in faction) / Y (The amount of players online) For A, B, or C (representing a 15 minute time span in each hour)

Faction2
X (players in faction) / Y (The amount of players online) For A, B, or C (representing a 15 minute time span in each hour)

Now the formula has to be balanced by the other faction entering the battle... So if it turns out that faction 1 formula is MORE than faction 2 formula, we handicap faction 1, and based on the amount of players for faction 2, the damage is lowered appropriately.

How's that? It's balanced, it allows for more battles based on people within those levels, and it also includes a handicap for superior numbers.

YEAH! WHat I said!

I have to disagree with this. Damage reduction to another clan? I can only imagine the amount of crying and whining. This screams of balance issues in my mind and it seems that MAYN and A1 and working tirelessly to make sure this doesn't happen.

OMG Dude! I've allowed for superior numbers, I allowed for MORE wars at all levels based on the NUMBER of players, so now we have wars per numbers, and we have allowed numbers per faction we have a GUARANTEED system to allow for fairness even with superior numbers and YOU can complain its not fair? HOW? WHY?

Dude! I mean, DUDE! That's NOT RIGHT!

*sigh*

Asasinul12
02-26-2009, 06:25 PM
As Levi said you want slaughter, even though it may be you consistently slaughtered? Seems stupid to me.

tomas2312
02-26-2009, 06:31 PM
Disagree 100%.

I for one like all out mass slaughter.

Even if the slaughter is your own? You may be good but if your side is outnumbered 3 to 1 on a consisten basis something tells me you'll get frustrated with losing. Making PvP battles have equal numbers makes sense for everyone.
Yes even if the slaughter is being done to me. I personally like being outnumbered. Especially if its 3 to 1. I don't get frustrated of losing... I'm not a devo guan (no offense).

tomas2312
02-26-2009, 06:34 PM
As Levi said you want slaughter, even though it may be you consistently slaughtered? Seems stupid to me.
Yes. If saying I disagree with this thread makes me stupid, then I'm extremely idiotic.

In TS1 Vengeance, when the Jinongs outnumbered the other factions, and the other factions cried to us begging for us to cool it, I told them to either toughen up, grind it up there, make some form of team work or leave.

Now it's my turn to show that we can do that ourselves, because the people that I'm playing with in TS2 right now are great team players, and we don't need no slack.

So yeah. Hit us with everything you got. Slaughter us. Tyvm.

Btw, it's only CB. Too early to worry about numbers.

Asasinul12
02-26-2009, 06:39 PM
As Levi said you want slaughter, even though it may be you consistently slaughtered? Seems stupid to me.
Yes. If saying I disagree with this thread makes me stupid, then I'm extremely idiotic.

In TS1 Vengeance, when the Jinongs outnumbered the other factions, and the other factions cried to us begging for us to cool it, I told them to either toughen up, grind it up there, make some form of team work or leave.

Now it's my turn to show that we can do that ourselves, because the people that I'm playing with in TS2 right now are great team players, and we don't need no slack.

So yeah. Hit us with everything you got. Slaughter us. Tyvm.

Btw, it's only CB. Too early to worry about numbers.

Personally speaking, I would rather take calm over chaos, order over anarchy, debate over argument, civility over violence. Which means if we can establish fair play and fair conduct at all levels I would rather have that than anarcy, forced levelling avoiding people being demoralised, and generally an enjoyable game for all at all levels.

But hey, that's just me.

sfantul2
02-26-2009, 06:45 PM
OMG Dude! I've allowed for superior numbers, I allowed for MORE wars at all levels based on the NUMBER of players, so now we have wars per numbers, and we have allowed numbers per faction we have a GUARANTEED system to allow for fairness even with superior numbers and YOU can complain its not fair? HOW? WHY?

Dude! I mean, DUDE! That's NOT RIGHT!

*sigh*

I disagree with this based off of the damage reduction portion of your idea. The math itself is fine, well, and wonderful in order to get the proper number of players but just think about the players with the damage reduction. You honestly think that if the clan with the damage reduction lost that you wouldn't hear immense amounts of crying and whining? You don't foresee serious balance problems with that?

tomas2312
02-26-2009, 06:49 PM
As Levi said you want slaughter, even though it may be you consistently slaughtered? Seems stupid to me.
Yes. If saying I disagree with this thread makes me stupid, then I'm extremely idiotic.

In TS1 Vengeance, when the Jinongs outnumbered the other factions, and the other factions cried to us begging for us to cool it, I told them to either toughen up, grind it up there, make some form of team work or leave.

Now it's my turn to show that we can do that ourselves, because the people that I'm playing with in TS2 right now are great team players, and we don't need no slack.

So yeah. Hit us with everything you got. Slaughter us. Tyvm.

Btw, it's only CB. Too early to worry about numbers.

Personally speaking, I would rather take calm over chaos, order over anarchy, debate over argument, civility over violence. Which means if we can establish fair play and fair conduct at all levels I would rather have that than anarcy, forced levelling avoiding people being demoralised, and generally an enjoyable game for all at all levels.

But hey, that's just me.
And I prefer a war game to remain a war game, not a tea party with china cups, stuffed animals and mudkips. The whole fun in the game is the back and forth attacks and the balanced unbalancedness. It won't be any fun if everybody has the same amount of numbers, and a ton of people are missing out on PvP. PVP is my favorite part of this game. I play it for the war aspect. If I'm being excluded from PvP because my faction has higher numbers, or if we're winning PvP against a bunch of newbies because the higher levels weren't able to get in, i'll get bored really quickly. Don't put a cap on the warzones... unless there already is one (similar to Sangun and Paldo).

Asasinul12
02-26-2009, 06:51 PM
OMG Dude! I've allowed for superior numbers, I allowed for MORE wars at all levels based on the NUMBER of players, so now we have wars per numbers, and we have allowed numbers per faction we have a GUARANTEED system to allow for fairness even with superior numbers and YOU can complain its not fair? HOW? WHY?

Dude! I mean, DUDE! That's NOT RIGHT!

*sigh*

I disagree with this based off of the damage reduction portion of your idea. The math itself is fine, well, and wonderful in order to get the proper number of players but just think about the players with the damage reduction. You honestly think that if the clan with the damage reduction lost that you wouldn't hear immense amounts of crying and whining? You don't foresee serious balance problems with that?

No the formula is like all maths, clinical, unbiased and fair. Which reminds me of an old story... (Science fiction) The cold equations... But anyway. No I forsee no issues. There will always be complaints. Those will never stop, we reduce them with fairness, and evenhandedness.

Asasinul12
02-26-2009, 06:56 PM
And I prefer a war game to remain a war game, not a tea party with china cups, stuffed animals and mudkips. The whole fun in the game is the back and forth attacks and the balanced unbalancedness. It won't be any fun if everybody has the same amount of numbers, and a ton of people are missing out on PvP. PVP is my favorite part of this game. I play it for the war aspect. If I'm being excluded from PvP because my faction has higher numbers, or if we're winning PvP against a bunch of newbies because the higher levels weren't able to get in, i'll get bored really quickly. Don't put a cap on the warzones... unless there already is one (similar to Sangun and Paldo).

Ah I see, the care bear insult approach. Not new, or original, you should try with better material.

There is a fact and a fiction to all things. You are outnumbered 10 to 1, you never have any advantages as those are always given to the greater faction. You'd equally prefer that anyone who wanted to go Snake clan was allowed to, no matter the superior numbers, yes? You would disagree with them closing down the Snake clan to make balance as you favour chaos and anarchy, yes?

Well given the basic premise above you will always be outnumbered unless a miracle occurs, and you would prefer such? Because that would make this fun for you, the constant complaints the demoralised position, the grasping at straws, the work, the pain, the suffering, all for a game LOL.

But this is not about you, but about everyone and what is best for everyone.

As such... This is not best for you, but for everyone, and has no bias individually or to anyone faction. That's why I proposed it.

2Brown4uAll1
02-26-2009, 07:00 PM
well this is actuly nothing. right now since its CB. the numbers r fairly small. its only the 10-19 war thats un balanced. all others r normal. cuz jinongs r powerful they can wipe out all fujins and guans by them selfs. or 1 guan can wipe out all fujins and jins. when the open beta comes, THENN u'll know numbers. so much people are going to download it the war is going to need a maximum alright. its only unbalanced now. it will be balanced when people play. people are going to play by the 100's so brace your self for lagg :P but i agree in balancing war in a small number and if you joined the war b4 u can't join the next one to let others play. like sangun :P just make the maximum like 50 each lol because the amount of lagg eveyr one gotta buy some next generation of mac computer XD but good topic like ur idea lol

tomas2312
02-26-2009, 07:19 PM
And I prefer a war game to remain a war game, not a tea party with china cups, stuffed animals and mudkips. The whole fun in the game is the back and forth attacks and the balanced unbalancedness. It won't be any fun if everybody has the same amount of numbers, and a ton of people are missing out on PvP. PVP is my favorite part of this game. I play it for the war aspect. If I'm being excluded from PvP because my faction has higher numbers, or if we're winning PvP against a bunch of newbies because the higher levels weren't able to get in, i'll get bored really quickly. Don't put a cap on the warzones... unless there already is one (similar to Sangun and Paldo).

Ah I see, the care bear insult approach. Not new, or original, you should try with better material.

There is a fact and a fiction to all things. You are outnumbered 10 to 1, you never have any advantages as those are always given to the greater faction. You'd equally prefer that anyone who wanted to go Snake clan was allowed to, no matter the superior numbers, yes? You would disagree with them closing down the Snake clan to make balance as you favour chaos and anarchy, yes?

Well given the basic premise above you will always be outnumbered unless a miracle occurs, and you would prefer such? Because that would make this fun for you, the constant complaints the demoralised position, the grasping at straws, the work, the pain, the suffering, all for a game LOL.

But this is not about you, but about everyone and what is best for everyone.

As such... This is not best for you, but for everyone, and has no bias individually or to anyone faction. That's why I proposed it.
I'm not using any carebear approach or trying to insult you of all people in any way. I don't even know how you tie into this at all. First thing's first, we aren't outnumbered 10 to 1. Saying that we're outnumbered 10 to 1 is saying that a battle with 10 Tigers includes around 100 Snakes. Nowhere near that amount. And who says that there will be constant complaints and whining about the work and suffering? The Tiger faction as of now consists of many well-seasoned veterans that have to ability to prevail even with being outnumbered. It will never get around to 10 vs 1 because by the time they outnumber us that greatly, the GMs will probably put a cap on the higher numbered faction. I don't mind having a faction cap. I don't know where you got that from, but I don't disagree with them capping the snakes. It's the PvP cap that you guys are talking that has me. There should be no cap on PvP zones, except for a default cap, if one was placed by Alt1.

Like I said, it's just CB. Wait till OB before you even worry about numbers.

Asasinul12
02-26-2009, 07:36 PM
I'm not using any carebear approach or trying to insult you of all people in any way. I don't even know how you tie into this at all. First thing's first, we aren't outnumbered 10 to 1. Saying that we're outnumbered 10 to 1 is saying that a battle with 10 Tigers includes around 100 Snakes. Nowhere near that amount. And who says that there will be constant complaints and whining about the work and suffering? The Tiger faction as of now consists of many well-seasoned veterans that have to ability to prevail even with being outnumbered. It will never get around to 10 vs 1 because by the time they outnumber us that greatly, the GMs will probably put a cap on the higher numbered faction. I don't mind having a faction cap. I don't know where you got that from, but I don't disagree with them capping the snakes. It's the PvP cap that you guys are talking that has me. There should be no cap on PvP zones, except for a default cap, if one was placed by Alt1.

Like I said, it's just CB. Wait till OB before you even worry about numbers.

LOL I am NOT worried about numbers, and I used the example of 10 to 1 to illustrate my point. Under such conditions anyone would be able to complain and have that complaint be valid, including their subsequent mindset and desire for some system that was more equal.

As for how I tie into it, I have my opinion, no more and no less. I've seen Jins and Fujins win and lose events based on their numbers. Fine when you win 10 to 1, and horrible when you lose 10 to 1. (Examples but ones I have seen)

I am not saying snakes outnumber tigers that greatly or who can do what with what, I am simply illustrating my point, thats all. You would find in favour of a faction cap but not a war cap? Currently there is no war cap, so why do you need a faction cap? It's a smaller sample of the same issue on a wider scale. Why is one ok and not the other? Illogical.

Again, all examples used to illustrate the point made my friend.

Also; lastly and I hate to mention it... BUT
not a tea party with china cups, stuffed animals and mudkips. Hardly a fair response to a logical argument.

tero022
02-26-2009, 10:55 PM
It isnt far for a faction to win over and over either. ;l
in TS1 Devo guans lost every paldo they had to jin an fuj so if things end up the same for TS2 an fujin out number the other factions its ok we can always find a way around it plus i know alot of snake clan CB testers that join snake only for CB an are going either Tiger or Dragon once OB im sure it will be much more fair an if u can't win just lvl out of that tier to the next one

Kilikan1
02-27-2009, 01:08 PM
I'm against all this as well. If you can get more people to a war, you should have the advantage. Thats what i see as "fair", even if the result is a complete overkill. If anything, this can try and encourage the lesser factions to take a more tactical approach, or rally people to join them. Sometimes it works, sometimes it won't, but everyone will get in and have a go. Shouldn't be limited to the lucky few...

robertskate2
02-27-2009, 01:24 PM
I don't know if someone suggested it yet, but heres the idea :

Get the 3 factions in the pvp room as proportional as possible at least at 10-19 zone because Fujins are always winning due to thier mass population...

lol we jins owned the fujins with 5 ppls lol. they gots no skills just like in ts1, over populated cuz of looks but they suck =p

PaulRo2
02-27-2009, 02:40 PM
i pwn'd 8 jins all alone earlier today.
so that being said.
its not quantity its skill.. i just ran around tabbing targeting 1 at a time.
run marble multi, run marble multi, run marble multi.
dead, dead, dead..
u hear that.
SKILL.
BUILD.
ect ect.
just fight smart.
and hope ur comrades do..
quit complaining about their numbers.

sfantul2
02-27-2009, 04:22 PM
i pwn'd 8 jins all alone earlier today.
so that being said.
its not quantity its skill.. i just ran around tabbing targeting 1 at a time.
run marble multi, run marble multi, run marble multi.
dead, dead, dead..
u hear that.
SKILL.
BUILD.
ect ect.
just fight smart.
and hope ur comrades do..
quit complaining about their numbers.

No one is complaining here, bud, so relax. Notice that this thread is in the SUGGESTIONS section and the even numbers idea was exactly that, A SUGGESTION. If you dislike it, fine, but no need to tell people to not complain especially when no one actually did complain.

tero022
02-28-2009, 02:06 AM
i pwn'd 8 jins all alone earlier today.
so that being said.
its not quantity its skill.. i just ran around tabbing targeting 1 at a time.
run marble multi, run marble multi, run marble multi.
dead, dead, dead..
u hear that.
SKILL.
BUILD.
ect ect.
just fight smart.
and hope ur comrades do..
quit complaining about their numbers.

No one is complaining here, bud, so relax. Notice that this thread is in the SUGGESTIONS section and the even numbers idea was exactly that, A SUGGESTION. If you dislike it, fine, but no need to tell people to not complain especially when no one actually did complain.

I don't know if someone suggested it yet, but heres the idea :

Get the 3 factions in the pvp room as proportional as possible at least at 10-19 zone because Fujins are always winning due to thier mass population...
hmm i would consider this complaining but if you cant win then lvl up or get better gear in CN version i had 54% blade that easily own eveyone in 10-19 tier an i had 43cp's when i decided to lvl out because fujin soon started to notice an brought alot of numbers so i gave up an lvled out its that simple