8 replies to this topic

[ekaii]

Purpose: Balance both the attacking and defending side

Method in order of priority: (part 1) A system evenly distributes the classes within GA. All subjects to a specific class with more than one member will be placed randomly in attacking and defending sides. IE: If the pool of players contain 4 clerics, 2 will be automatically moved to attackers and 2 will be automatically moved to defenders.

Example:

Pool 1: cleric cleric cleric cleric, arti, arti, raider, raider, champ, champ

• Distribution:
  Group 1: cleric, cleric, arti, raider champ
  Group 2: cleric, cleric, arti, raider champ

​​Method in order of priority: (part 2) If a pool contains any groups of more than 2 members, the system should take this into consideration and place the group members on one side while evaluating the classes of the individual players. It will then distribute the remaining players based on classes.

Example:

Pool 2: (note: color coded classes represent groups within the pool of players with exception of black representing individual players)
cleric, cleric, raider, raider, champ, arti, arti, knight, scout, scout, cleric, cleric

• Distribution:
  Group 1: cleric, cleric, raider, scout, arti, champ
  Group 2: arti, knight, cleric, cleric, raider, scout
• note: Groups within a pool first get placed onto a side. Following this procedure, subsequent classes are evenly distributed amongst either defending or attacking side based on the what classes are already on a side and/ or group.

Conclusion: After observing Crystal Defenders for quite some time, I believe this suggestion would provide a more balanced war without hindering aspect of being on the same team by making groups as it gives into consideration for both scenarios.

Edited by ekaii, 23 May 2012 - 10:34 AM.

[elamite]

It actually makes alot of sense and is probably the best way to balance out both sides, FYI tho you might want to dumb down your post 99.9% of this community is too stupid to comprehend all that.

[Gojio]

Good thing we have people like Charlie who take the whole community to a whole new level of smartness.

[kaminichuan]

If a pool contains any groups of more than 2 members, the system should take this into consideration and place the group members on one side while evaluating the classes of the individual players. It will then distribute the remaining players based on classes.

I apologize for hijacking your thread ekaii, but I have two problems and two questions for you:

1. Isn't grouping based on 'pools' first giving players an incentive to pool up rather than queueing as individuals? I think the more pools (and the larger their size), the less randomization there will be. What if some people have been in queue for longer, but because of their class or pool size they are not placed into a game? A FIFO system might be less balanced.. but a lot more fair.

2. Also, with your examples there is already an easy way to balance the teams by classes. But what if 3 or 4 of those clerics were all in the same group? The result is pretty much decided. I think a big probem with cyrstal defenders is that players are able to partially design their group beforehand. It's not random.

What do you think about stronger restrictions on pool size/make up? For example, a maximum of 3 dissimilar classes in 1 pool.
Or even better, no pre-pooling. While I recognise that some people will want to play on the same team with friends, please keep in mind how forceful the restrictions were for the 1 client per I.P. thing. Siblings from the same household were unable to play in the same match together, let alone the same side! If people put up with that they should put up with individual queueing.

What do you think about mid-game auto-balance?
I base this off my high-school Counter Strike days . I think what happened was, if one side was very strong one of their high scoring players would be forcefully switched with a low scoring payer from the other side. This happens at particular intervals (for example, when a crystal is destroyed), and the teams were always pretty balanced. Just something for you to think about.

[ekaii]

Thanks for some great feedback kaminichuan. I'll do my best to hopefully answer your questions or elaborate on your suggestions

1. Isn't grouping based on 'pools' first giving players an incentive to pool up rather than queueing as individuals? I think the more pools (and the larger their size), the less randomization there will be. What if some people have been in queue for longer, but because of their class or pool size they are not placed into a game? A FIFO system might be less balanced.. but a lot more fair.

I just associated the term "pool" for the total amount of players or group queued up in the current system. Pool 1 and 2 are just relative to each respective examples. IE: pool 1 follows example 1, pool 2 follows example 2. Both are intended to occur concurrently.

2. Also, with your examples there is already an easy way to balance the teams by classes. But what if 3 or 4 of those clerics were all in the same group? The result is pretty much decided. I think a big probem with cyrstal defenders is that players are able to partially design their group beforehand. It's not random.

What do you think about stronger restrictions on pool size/make up? For example, a maximum of 3 dissimilar classes in 1 pool.
Or even better, no pre-pooling. While I recognise that some people will want to play on the same team with friends, please keep in mind how forceful the restrictions were for the 1 client per I.P. thing. Siblings from the same household were unable to play in the same match together, let alone the same side! If people put up with that they should put up with individual queueing.

Well now that the pool thing is cleared up I'm assuming you're using pool in reference to groups. If so, then yes I think that would be great idea to limit the number of classes in a group. Instead of 3, I believe 2 would be most sufficient. This would give a higher probability for both sides to have more balance class distribution.

What do you think about mid-game auto-balance?
I base this off my high-school Counter Strike days . I think what happened was, if one side was very strong one of their high scoring players would be forcefully switched with a low scoring payer from the other side. This happens at particular intervals (for example, when a crystal is destroyed), and the teams were always pretty balanced. Just something for you to think about.

This is a great idea also that I believe should be incorporated. The auto team balance and intervals would help even out numbers and being that it is automated, it prevents any abuse.

[Feuer]

I can see both points here, which means this will erupt into a huge fight via forums about who's right and who's wrong. both systems would work, and both would support/discourage types of players. I think it should be left the way it is and allow the rest of the community to grow into the system, but definitely fix any bugs with the system.

[TruPain]

Not trying to be a jerk... but... if you think about things... someone who is defending should be able to heal better than someone who is attacking...

Defenders = high def and healing
Attackers = High power attacks and quick attacks

Just my opinion of course... I have never done any GA stuff and rarely PvP...

It makes sense to think that the defending side would be better serverd to have high def and healing abilities over the attacking side... doesn't make sense to me to evenly distribute healing abilities to an attacking side... as for buffs... people should rely more on self buffs in my opinion...

Just as an example... Football... how often do you see a wide receiver play defense???

[Graziano]

Even out the jobs will be the best imo, having a max of 2 restriction for all classes at one side is to low since their only 8 diferent classes (i doubt the system will see a difference between a gunbourg/launcherbourg a bowknight/1 handedknight etc) andsometimes there are more bourgs playing and at other times their more arti's etc. First idea would balance it out a bit more.

@ trupain this might sound harsh, but will u play pvp first before commenting, pvp is not a place to rely on self buffs. Sorry but i wish u luck when u fight a group of 15 players all based on support (cleric and knights in particular) with 15 ppl who only have self buffs.
Ill predict it for you, the defenders would hardly notice that ur attacking them, lets stand u even have the possibility to kill a crystal, that just wont happen.

[Bendersmom]

I think one of the ideas of GA and the upcoming dungeons or other PVP things was to allow players to play with their clannies or friends. Therefore the groups. As it is now, with 3 clerics max per side (supposedly only FS clerics but even Battle clerics have a heal and a buff so are counted as clerics) some groups might not get in if they have the 4th cleric in them. In addition, to be able to get into the queue for a match, groups have to remain somewhat small or be max 15. Otherwise the group might not get in each time if the number count is wrong.

I agree that it would be nice to have even numbers of each class and even numbers in general, but that would make the queuing system bad again I think and games would not start very often. A group might have to wait for a bourg on their side or a knight on the other. And if people have to wait a long time for queues they go afk and if they were counted in the class count and they are afk or dc the counts will be messed up anyway.

The only way to have the queue work in the way you are describing is if people signed up individually, and that gets rid of the ability to play with your clan or friends. If people would accept the individual sign up then they could probably balance out the classes, but the sides might not really be balanced with afk people and the dcing that has been going on. And a lot of players would not be able to play their "OP class of the week".