Author Message

ansagon

Rank 1
ansagon
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Posts
207
Location
Italy
PostedApr 10, 2013 10:27 am
It will be funny to discover, after all this talk, that weren't the players not joining, but the system bugged Very Happy
Advertisement

chris.aeria

Elite Founder: Scarlet Blade
chris.aeria
Joined
23 Feb 2013
Posts
130
Location
United States
PostedApr 10, 2013 10:59 am   Last edited by chris.aeria on Apr 10, 2013 11:43 am. Edited 1 time in total
cuziecombi1 wrote:
I wonder if the imbalances are caused as a side effect of not filling battlegrounds to capacity. Say 15 RG queue and 30 Free Knights queue. The system will try to make a 15 v 15. So now if a RG doesnt enter they wel be short, but if a Free Knights didn't enter, there are still 15 players in queue that it can use to fill in the empty spot before the match starts.

Obviously, I an assuming that if a person doesnt accept the queue within 20 seconds it will try to replace them. If this is the case, then RG not having a buffer of spare players to fill in for the initial no-shows could be a significant factor in the BG imbalance.

I know that players that leave a match in progress are not replaced, but does the system try to replace those that hit "no" when the queue pops up?  


I've been wondering this myself. In fact, this seems quite likely given the results we've seen. If so, there's a simple fix for this. Don't replace. Send out 15 invites. Period.

But, as I said previously, I'm not all that bothered by the imbalance in BGs. If RGs lose, then we lose. I'm much more bothered by the imbalance in Caergate, particularly, if most of the 30+ world is going to look like Caergate.

I still really like Yuguure's solution of weighting EXP and Gold based upon which faction is at a population disadvantage. This would immediately encourage people to create more characters in the underpopulated faction, and it would allow players of that faction to spend more money on becoming better equipped.

It doesn't seem like that should be hard to implement either, but obviously I haven't seen the code, so I can't say for certain.

The only possible downside I see is that the side that gets less EXP will grind more, which means more opportunities for rare loot at the same level. This seems like a much smaller problem than the problem than we have now, though, and one that I think I'd be willing to live with.

EDIT: Said the solution above was from Rekikyo, but I think it was actually Yuguure. Changed.

inktomi19d

Rank 0
inktomi19d
Joined
24 Mar 2013
Posts
185
Location
United States
PostedApr 10, 2013 11:09 am
Maxxxeh wrote:
So I play on Andro RG side, numbers are obviously way out of whack and it's difficult to get a foothold anywhere in PvP. Caergate is, well it's open. Numbers are in such a way that RG are defending more than attacking by a long way, but we also have the numbers to push back most attacks from Free Knights. Titan, well what's the point other than using your ultimate skill and spraying your AOEs on Free Knights, see how much you can kill or how many times you can get it to reset. RG don't have any real chance to take Titan (I've seen it happen once).  
There's one RG guild that gets to take Titan pretty regularly on Andromeda. They usually call on everyone to come help them fend off the FKs while they do it. So RG does hit it, but it's always the same 6 players getting rewarded.

Ironically, they're the same guild that has been queueing for Turnpike, staying long enough to hit the boxes, and then deserting. I've seen them do that 3 times now, and I'm definitely not coming out to help the take Titan again -- if I have to put up with the suck, they should too, or they just shouldn't queue.

tombmonkey

Rank 0
Joined
30 Apr 2011
Posts
5
Location
Costa Rica
PostedApr 10, 2013 11:13 am
Another Janus, this time it was 23v26, but I was left out, I registered, I didn't decline just didn't get invited. And level difference is over 100 witch means that Free Knights not only has more players but they are in general higher level.

hummingkayls

Rank 2
hummingkayls
Joined
16 Jan 2010
Posts
684
Location
United States
PostedApr 10, 2013 11:17 am
Try asking for some non fugly color scheme ;D.
Most people that play don't really travel the forums, or read anything for that matter. What do you think they are going to choose just by looking?
I'd choose the black and red default even if I didn't know.
Imo, RG color scheme is just fugly and unappealing in general. So if I never went to the forums or read lore I would be going for what looked better cosmetically and that just happens to be Free Knights.

Yuugure

Elite Founder: Scarlet Blade
Yuugure
Joined
09 Nov 2007
Posts
260
Location
Westminster United States
PostedApr 10, 2013 11:41 am
inktomi19d wrote:
You've got to give the side taking the beating some incentive to stay and keep taking the beating though.

Ideally I'd do it with a buff to ranking and drops though, not sheer firepower. Part of what's discouraging when you get outnumbered is that you're going to be farmed, and when that happens you end up getting like 1/3 of the rank points and dogtags that the larger faction gets. A lot of players really want to keep jumping into the breech, but it just doesn't make sense -- it only makes the stronger side stronger.

So generally speaking, the rewards you get for participation ought to balance out, so that an underdog who keeps trying and gets 13 dogtags while most of the people on the opposition get 30, wouldn't be so screwed. It's just that as things are, once you're outnumbered there isn't much use to continuing to fight.


Another thing I've been seeing a lot lately is guild parties of top PvPers joining a BG just long enough to hit the loot boxes, then deserting. I'm not going to name and shame, and I totally understand why they do it -- the best rewards in a match come from breaking the boxes at the very beginning, and there's nothing to be gained for an underdog to hang around after that. But it kind of sucks. You'll see people in chat celebrating that so-and-so is here, but so-and-so is just here to farm the boxes, and everyone with that guild tag is going to vanish as soon as that's done, leaving what started as a 21/25 match at 17/25 or worse. I get why they do that -- that is what the game is designed to reward.  


No I understand what you're saying. A few pages back I suggested an Exp and gold drop increase for the underdog faction to counter some of these issues, met with some people thinking it was a great idea, and others flaming me for BG's being uneven.

As for BG's I have seen that a lot lately and I suggested an option to counter that in the suggestions forums. It was also met with criticism, but the reality is currently there is nothing to be gained in a BG after the loot drops save maybe a few dog tags which can be out farmed in value in the same time frame elsewhere. After you're capped on exp and whatnot, it's all down to loot and money, people choose that over PvP a lot in many games.

SamadhiSL

Rank 0
SamadhiSL
Joined
14 Mar 2013
Posts
34
Location
None. Canada
PostedApr 10, 2013 11:52 am
tombmonkey wrote:
As a RG I have chosen to ignore Janus and Turnpike all together.

It's simply ridiculous entering a match that's already lost.

I have played some 40 matches of janus and turnpike, and have won 5 tops, I have never ever seen a battle with even numbers, and level difference under 100.

Last turnpike was 14 vs 22, janus before that was 8 vs 15, worst I have seen is a 25 vs 48 turnpike, where we couldn't even stay near the guards because we got bombed with cluster and died the second we jumped down.

So yeah, Im completely ignoring the PVP aspect of this game and will probably get bored fast because of it, and if aeria doesn't do something about the ridiculous population imbalance then most RGs will quit and FKs will be running alone in BGs.  


^^This right here seems like a prime example of the issue with BGs. This sentiment has been expressed by multiple Royal Guards in this thread and others.
So many players simply give up on BGs that Royal Guards are not even getting the opportunity at a fair fight. Royal Guards are essentially saying "I don't want to even put in effort to try and balance the PvP numbers because I feel they are imbalanced."
The more individuals with that attitude, the more imbalance that develops. I keep seeing Royal Guards expressing that their faction has population but lacks willingness to PvP.

Rekikyo wrote:
...It's either 1) There IS a flaw with the Queue 2) Players from one faction are Queuing but then rejecting entry 3) Players are Queuing and then Dcing or 4) Players from one faction are sabotaging the other faction's Queue by dual boxing.

...  


I see a combination flaw of 1-3, actually. 4 could have some influence but is especially less likely at higher levels, as you said.
Aside from that, 4 presumes that a bunch of FKs have actively decided to join the RG side expressly to inhibit PvP for themselves, which I have yet to see even one Free Knights in this thread encourage.
1. There is a flaw with the Queue. The Queue presumes that enough players on Royal Guards side are actively interested in PvP such that the sign-up numbers (particularly for Janus) should be higher than the actual team population cap for the BG. Janus is supposed to be 35 v 35. I only routinely see more than 35 FKs sign up.
2. This is visibly happening when I watch the T menu before a match. RG numbers hit a low cap, then fluctuate repeatedly by 1-4 numbers up and down. This suggests people are either leaving and others are signing up; or that individuals are registering, de-registering, and re-registering repeatedly before a match.
3. Any player whose connection inhibits them from entering hinders the match; and, unfortunately, unless RG participation increases on the whole this will happen repeatedly.

I think you quite adequately listed some small issues that compound together into larger ones.

inktomi19d wrote:
...


Another thing I've been seeing a lot lately is guild parties of top PvPers joining a BG just long enough to hit the loot boxes, then deserting. I'm not going to name and shame, and I totally understand why they do it -- the best rewards in a match come from breaking the boxes at the very beginning, and there's nothing to be gained for an underdog to hang around after that. But it kind of sucks. You'll see people in chat celebrating that so-and-so is here, but so-and-so is just here to farm the boxes, and everyone with that guild tag is going to vanish as soon as that's done, leaving what started as a 21/25 match at 17/25 or worse. I get why they do that -- that is what the game is designed to reward.  

inktomi19d wrote:
...
I think a big part of the problem is just the way the rewards are given out. The biggest reward is from smashing the boxes at the very start of the match, and there is a lot of incentive for players to do that.
...  


Regarding bolded/underlined...I have been in numerous BGs now where the team numbers have started off balanced or with a single person imbalance and have lost up to 5 Royal Guards members immediately after boxes were finished.
It is distressing when it goes from a fair and balanced BG to an issue of numbers simply because Royal Guards members did not sign up with intention to PvP to begin with.

I know players have suggested a "let more players sign up afterward" sort of view; however, this would reward deserters for showing up, taking drops from the rest of their team and then vanishing to let other players do the work.
Really, the numbers in Battlegrounds "should" be high enough on the whole that even managing to break the towers or boxes in contested. Right now we just have small numbers on both sides farming boxes beforehand. There "should" be 80 players on each side and the possibility of no boxes being broken in an entire match. This is why the boxes provide such a high score boost.

chris.aeria wrote:
...

But, as I said previously, I'm not all that bothered by the imbalance in BGs. If RGs lose, then we lose. I'm much more bothered by the imbalance in Caergate, particularly, if most of the 30+ world is going to look like Caergate.

...  


Technically it won't look like Caergate, if they are open world maps.
One of the biggest issues with Caergate is that it basically reflects only the population of willing PvPers. Caergate is basically an entirely optional map that may be visited once or even not at all.
The population of most of the 30+ world is going to look more like Mereholdt; the issue is that PvE players are either going to need to learn to participate in PvP, or move with groups of PvP oriented players.

chris.aeria wrote:
...
I still really like Yuguure's solution of weighting EXP and Gold based upon which faction is at a population disadvantage. This would immediately encourage people to create more characters in the underpopulated faction, and it would allow players of that faction to spend more money on becoming better equipped.

It doesn't seem like that should be hard to implement either, but obviously I haven't seen the code, so I can't say for certain.

The only possible downside I see is that the side that gets less EXP will grind more, which means more opportunities for rare loot at the same level. This seems like a much smaller problem than the problem than we have now, though, and one that I think I'd be willing to live with.  


I did really like Yuguure's suggestion, as well; however, as time goes on and I read more replies I am wondering how effective it may actually prove to be.
There seems to be an existing issue of players who favour collecting drops or general PvE as opposed to PvP. Increasing the incentive to grind may serve to draw these players further away from PvP.
Unless this is implemented as something temporary, only for the purpose of getting more players to the current 29 cap, it seems like it would do little to provide incentive to PvPers after the cap raises.

GMLeo

GameMaster: USA
GMLeo
Joined
17 Oct 2011
Posts
1719
Location
Santa Clara, CA United States
PostedApr 10, 2013 12:16 pm
Moved to andromeda pvp forums.

Thanks for the suggestions and insight into this issue folks. Faction balance is always tricky with a two-faction system, but we're doing our best to pass your ideas on to the developers and find solutions.

chris.aeria

Elite Founder: Scarlet Blade
chris.aeria
Joined
23 Feb 2013
Posts
130
Location
United States
PostedApr 10, 2013 12:42 pm
SamadhiSL wrote:


Technically it won't look like Caergate, if they are open world maps.
One of the biggest issues with Caergate is that it basically reflects only the population of willing PvPers. Caergate is basically an entirely optional map that may be visited once or even not at all.
The population of most of the 30+ world is going to look more like Mereholdt; the issue is that PvE players are either going to need to learn to participate in PvP, or move with groups of PvP oriented players.

 


By "look like Caergate", I was referring to the population imbalance. If there's a Mereholdt like area that's open world, and 2/3 of the people there are from one faction, it's going to be very difficult for players from the other faction to complete quests.

Not impossible, and yes, you'll have to party up more no matter which side you're on. But if the population numbers from Caergate are typical of the population as a whole, it is not going to be fun for RGs.

SamadhiSL wrote:


I did really like Yuguure's suggestion, as well; however, as time goes on and I read more replies I am wondering how effective it may actually prove to be.
There seems to be an existing issue of players who favour collecting drops or general PvE as opposed to PvP. Increasing the incentive to grind may serve to draw these players further away from PvP.
Unless this is implemented as something temporary, only for the purpose of getting more players to the current 29 cap, it seems like it would do little to provide incentive to PvPers after the cap raises.  


Maybe. It remains to be seen. Remember that you're increasing the incentive to grind from the people who are on the winning side in PvP. I'm not convinced that drawing them from PvP is a bad thing.

Still, I'm not suggesting that Aeria or LivePlex or whoever do anything ad hoc here. There is plenty of opportunity here to do something with unintended consequences that could actually make things worse. There's not going to be a perfect solution, either. The developers should look at all possibilities and implement the ones that provide the least risk of further imbalancing the game in other undesirable ways. I think that this is a good solution, but I'm not going to say it's the best, or that it's without risk.

inktomi19d

Rank 0
inktomi19d
Joined
24 Mar 2013
Posts
185
Location
United States
PostedApr 10, 2013 1:09 pm
GMLeo wrote:
Moved to andromeda pvp forums.

Thanks for the suggestions and insight into this issue folks. Faction balance is always tricky with a two-faction system, but we're doing our best to pass your ideas on to the developers and find solutions.
 
Is this actually realm-specific?

Also, I'm pretty sure the queues are bugged. Twice today I've registered for Janus, but was never given the invitation, however the match started anyway and my faction was short 5 or 6 players each time. I was active in the game both times, so I would have noticed if I got the invitation. I didn't get the message about there being too many players or anything, the invite just didn't go out.
Display posts from previous:   Sort by: