Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel Balance



Message

Khalix -> Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/2/2013 8:47:43)

I've been in plenty of fights, they've generally been (roughly) balanced up until level lvl 30.

At level 30, most players experience an extremely difficult area I'd like to call the "Grinder" where fighting as a level 30-32 is generally unfavorable due to the extremely condensed amount of lvl 34+ players who are stuck at that level primarily because that's extremely close to the level cap.

To put it simply, a level 30 will be thoroughly "introduced" to the grinder by fighting many players with superior equipment and abilities. Mis-matches.

Note that while the introduction suggests it's only for level 30+, this can be used for all levels.



Here's my suggestion:

quote:

For 1v1s

At level 30-32, the maximum level you may fight is level 33.
At level 33+, the maximum level you may fight is level 36.

Of course, the first complaint would be "I don't want to wait in my battles", however, many-a-neophyte have suffered a consecutive fight against a level 35-36 for the umpteenth time, thus leading them to completely abandon 1v1s unless they are fully kitted and cored or they require it for some quests.

In short, the moment a lvl 35 pops up to fight a level 30, the outcome is most usually a "Free win" for said level 35, which I presume will have a smirk on his face while blurting out "Another noob"



Another suggestion would be to give anyone with a 4-5 level difference a 100% first turn while anyone fighting with a 1-3 level difference gets a higher initiative (Higher than the current calculations) chance than progressively lower the smaller the level gap.


quote:

For 2v2s

In my opinion, the whole "Combined total level" system is not proper at all, rather:

4 players of the same level range (For example 26-30) will be matched with each other. If their level difference is 0-1, they will be on the opposing team.

The matches would look like this:
(25 + 28) vs (26 + 29) (At worst)
(25 + 29) vs (26 + 29)
(25 + 29) vs (25 + 29) (At best)

Rather than this:
(25 + 25) vs (25 + 31) (At worst)
(27 + 27) vs (25 + 29) (Averaged vs Min-Maxed)


quote:

And another option~

Make stat points and damage for armors progressive, not sporadic.

Ex:

Every x level, your maximum armor cap increases by 1.
Every level, your maximum stat cap for weapons increase by 2.
Every level, your maximum weapon damage increases by 1.

NOT:

You get +5 armor at level 25 (I think), +8 armor at level 30, and +10 armor at level 35.
You get 2 extra points for stats, but get none the next level.
Every level, you can raise your weapon damage by 0-2.



This suggestion actually makes stats progressive RATHER than having extreme jumps of power at certain levels.


Comments, suggestions?
(Unless you're going to add the wait-time factor, then there's no need to state it's obviousness unless you have something enlightening to say about it)



Mother1 -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/2/2013 10:07:09)

Balanced at all levels? Sorry but I would have to disagree on that one. I have been using my alts as well for a bit and have talked with many lower level players as well and they have been experiencing the same problem with mismatches. I have been experiencing this also at these levels with my alts at those levels so this is an all level thing not just a level 30-36 thing. As for why this is happening. And that is the major reason why I don't support this idea.

We don't have enough players to go around to support something like this yet you want something to go into play that will hurt one group of players for another. If this filter was suggested for all levels that would be one thing but you are also suggesting it for the group that has the smallest levels ranges. While you say you don't want to hear that wait time thing remember people do cancel fight searches if they can't get fights as well. Cutting the level range like this will make it a lot easier for that to happen, and anyone who doesn't like to wait will also quit which in turn will hurt the game.

Please note that I am not suggesting we do nothing and leave things as they are now. I am saying lets find a solution that won't punish one group of people for another. We need as many people as we can get in this game and punishing one group of players for another won't help the problem either. If you need proof look at the game now. As it is now we have it for those who want to get fights period over balance and those who want fair fights are leaving. Doing this will be pulling a 180 which isn't fair either.



Khalix -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/2/2013 11:47:05)

I'd like to explain my opinions in a simple model.

The total amount of advantages will be represented with 100 units. The two variables represent the advantageous and its negative counterpart.

In my opinion, ED in its current state:

40a - 60b

You cannot balance something without sacrificing something. "Punish" is not the right word- At level 34+, players begin to slow down, eventually condensing and increasing in number. This condensation has lead to plenty of inconveniences for those under them (Primarily because they have high-end equipment already).



I'm not the kind of person who would present a problem and let whoever fix it, as a result these are my suggestions to said condensation problem. I'm not fond of waiting for months to resolve a problem that's not prioritized because a solution wasn't discussed. Therefore, the suggestions presented above are done as an outline.



danirasab -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/2/2013 12:18:37)

Firstly that is going to be very hard to code and could take a long time.

Secondly I do not understand half of what you are saying (sorry).

So I'm disagreeing to this suggestion.



Mother1 -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/2/2013 12:38:27)

@ Khalix

If we have so many level 34's condensed then why is it that there are so many level 31's and lower levels complaining? I mean shouldn't the higher levels be getting 34's the majority of the time instead of the engine pulling in someone lower? Cause as the engine is now it looks for you level first and if it can't find it after a certain amount of time it goes lower until a match is found.

Now if we had all those 34's as you say then the engine would be pulling in those 34's to go against the 35's and 36's and not all those lower levels. However, because we don't have enough players to go around especially at that level this isn't the case.

As for a solution I actually thought of 2.

The first one being increase the EXP curve at lower levels so it can be decrease at the higher levels and the other one was to do the thing they said would happen in the infernal war which is add NPC to the mix to fill in the holes. However, with the later it would be when no human player at your level could be found.

Combining both of these ideas would help solve this problem, since the first solution would help all those Condensed players level up quicker since the level curve wouldn't be so steep, and the second solution I thought up would ensure lower and higher levels get fair fights without the need to in your own words "Sacrifice" fast pairings.

@ Above

in a nut shell it is another way of suggesting to cut the level range at the cost of higher wait times so players who want fairer fights can have a better chance of getting them.



ValkyrieKnight -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/2/2013 13:51:53)

Why is it so difficult to simply decrease the range from 1 -3 levels instead of 1-5?



Mother1 -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/2/2013 14:45:39)

@ Valkyrieknight

Answer decrease the range, and you will get longer wait times. While some people like yours and OP wouldn't mind waiting for more fair fights, there are others who aren't as patient. Now if we had a player base that could support this kind of change (meaning no backlash from doing such change) or the entire player base felt the same way (meaning everyone wouldn't care about longer wait times for a better chance at more balanced fights) that is one thing, however this isn't the case. The staff also knows that the player base isn't large enough to support this change without that backlash.

Remember the first legion vs Exile filter? That first filter made wait times much longer while throwing those extremely unbalanced matches. While the extremely unbalanced matches were the result of a bug, which was reported people were harping about the long wait times they had to endure because of said filter and wanted it removed. That right there showed the staff that the players don't want to be forced to wait a long time for fights either which is something else they have to consider.

The staff has to consider both sides in this game, and if they choose to cut the level range to appease one side, they are in turn punishing the other side especially those who have the smallest player range and players within that group.



ValkyrieKnight -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/2/2013 17:05:55)

@ Mother1

That's isolating big groups of players based on faction, that does much more damage than knocking off 2 levels from the level range. I do not claim to speak for the whole EpicDuel player base but I for one would not mind waiting a bit longer if it assures me I won't be put in a fight that is unwinnable. The price of losing is too high and the irritating of not having a chance to win outweighs waiting a bit longer for fights. Many times you are put against someone around your level with no wait time whatsoever so it appears its just really bad luck and lots of it when you're put in unwinnable situations multiple times in a row.



toopygoo -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/2/2013 18:00:05)

@ mother1

I still find that argument of yours really vulnerable: as a 35, i fight more 36's than 30-34 combined i feel. im not sure on this, but i will provide precise numbers in one of the upcoming days. i think 36's are aplenty and even with a 3 level range, they wait times would not be too long anyways.
No rebuttal needed for this yet. i will provide data soon.



Mother1 -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/2/2013 18:17:57)

@ Toopygoo

I find a few issues with your claim as well. For one what one person experiences =/= what everyone experiences. While you can be fighting all those players within that range, others may be getting something else.

Also if what you were claiming is true and their are more than enough players to go around, Then why is it that these lower levels are getting paired against them when the engine is suppose to do that only as a last resort?

Cause if there were honestly enough players to go around, then we wouldn't have these complaints since lower levels wouldn't be seeing so many impossible or close to impossible battles, as well as the higher levels would almost always have someone at their range or close to their range to fight with and not these lower levels.



toopygoo -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/2/2013 18:26:02)

@mother1

but thats the thing: right now 5 levels is the standard. i can wait 3 seconds and be paired with a level 30, its happened before, and happened all the time. even as a 30, getting paired against 35's can happen within mere seconds. This sytem you speak of, where it is the "last resort" i dont find effective the way they have implemented it. Perhaps if this were advertised more, and explained better people might understand why this is happening, however i have yet to find the link which eplains the current system. if you know where it is, please post it here. if not, then how can you be sure that this system you speak of exists?



Mother1 -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/2/2013 19:11:52)

@ Toopygoo

While you might only wait for 3 seconds your opponent sometimes has waited longer. Some players including myself have waited for a bit of time only to get paired with a group of lower levels where as those same players can get paired with you in mere seconds.

As for the thread, I will have to find it, But the reason I know of it is because a member of the staff explained how it worked sometime ago. But for the sake of argument I will search for it. But on the last part of your post yes I can agree on that one. This game need more in depth tutorials explaining how everything works.



lionblades -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/2/2013 19:20:32)

During this Dread War I find there are a lot of complaints of the level range unfairness, but I find this mainly due to the flawed Exile/Legion Filter.
Before this filter was even implemented I was having a lot more fair fights (ie. 35 &36 vs 35 & 35).

So rather than the level range deduction suggestions, I think the filter should be gone first. Then we shall see, but imo, with the filter gone there will be a lot more fair fights for everyone and this might not be needed.



toopygoo -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/2/2013 19:41:42)

@ mother1

dont you agree that the system should give newly joined players (to the queue) some time before expanding their search boundaries as well? i mean, that can make a bigg difference... sometimes, its just that 5 more seconds for another 35 to join and take your place, against another 35.

btw, i started recording my battles... so that task is underway as promised. i will post a screen shot after 100 battles. :)



ValkyrieKnight -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/2/2013 20:27:23)

My main argument is, I and I would hope to believe others would rather play a fair balanced fight than one they can't win at all. I wished more people gave input on this but I fight far more higher leveled opponents than lower and when I fight lower level opponents, I do nothing but strike and still win.



Mother1 -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/2/2013 20:46:21)

@ Toopygoo

On the first part of your quote I remember Rabble asking the higher level players if they would be ok with something like that (Adding a possible 5 second wait period before it started searching for lower levels) and I actually remember which thread this was asked in as well.

here is the thread and post here




toopygoo -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/2/2013 20:54:11)

@mother1

Thanks for the post, i was looking for something like that. and unless i am asleep already, i think i totally missed a part where he said that this 5 second waiting system is to be implemented. I did see that they capped how many times you can fight the same person per hour, however that does still not restrict the level gap to be barred at 1,2, or 3 levels fro the first 5 seconds. I remember reading design notes since about this time, and i STILL don't recall him actually implementing his suggested system (which i too suggested by the way about 3 months back, because i was unaware of it.)

Btw, I'm done about 20 1v1 battles, my argument is standing stronger than your right now. i will refrain from taking measurements during power hours because a) it may provide false data due to player # spike during those times, and
b) they only pertain to 1/12 of the day, and are irrelevant for the other 11/12.

is that okay with you?



Mother1 -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/2/2013 21:00:36)

quote:

Question for level 35 players: Would you prefer a system that initially attempted to only match you with other level 35 players, and expanded the search to lower levels after a small amount of time (5ish seconds)? In other words, matches might take *slightly* longer to find, but on average would be more fair for everyone near the level cap.

EDIT: There is also already a system that prevents you from fighting the same person more than a few times in a given amount of time. Pretty sure it's per hour, but not 100% sure without looking it up.


Here is the post Rabble made asking if the higher levels would want a system like the one you were suggesting being put into play.

As for the part about fighting the same person several times within an hour yeah. Depending on the time of the day and how active the servers are you can end up fighting the same person several times in a row. Quite a few times I got someone close to my level however it was the same person 3-5 times. I kind of take that into account when I look at match making as well.



toopygoo -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/2/2013 21:09:19)

quote:

Question for level 35 players: Would you prefer a system that initially attempted to only match you with other level 35 players, and expanded the search to lower levels after a small amount of time (5ish seconds)? In other words, matches might take *slightly* longer to find, but on average would be more fair for everyone near the level cap.

EDIT: There is also already a system that prevents you from fighting the same person more than a few times in a given amount of time. Pretty sure it's per hour, but not 100% sure without looking it up.

@ mother1
in this i still dont see where he has clearly stated that this system has been or will be implemented. he asked a question, which many of you answered, and thus i too feel it was agreed upon that his new system would be successful when it comes to players opinions. HOWEVER, there is nothing along the lines that say "this may sometimes in the future actually come into gameplay" or ANYTHING along the lines. the situation seems hypothetical, so i dont actually believe that he has coded for this to take effect yet.

i want to believe you, however i have no experiences, or evidence to prove i should.

im have currently been through 25 battles.
2 against 30, 2 against 31, 1 against 32, 0 against 33/34, 13 against 35's, and 6 against 36's.
13+7=20
2+2+1=5

as of now it really seems like lowering the level gap wouldnt have a drastic effect on higher level players, but not yet concluded.



ValkyrieKnight -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/3/2013 5:02:31)

http://prntscr.com/21lzp5



Pemberton -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/3/2013 8:04:27)

Making the range too small and you won't find any fights. 5 levels is ok although you can only win with some luck lol...



Mother1 -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/3/2013 10:24:42)

@ Toopygoo

I see your results so far and I have to ask a couple of things.

1 Did you get repeat fights?
2 What time of the day you were playing while doing this?

While I won't factor in power hour, I do factor in different times of the day as well.



danirasab -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/3/2013 10:54:27)

Ok, I will test my hypothesis tomorrow at reset even though I hate playing 1v1:
My hypothesis states that as the hours go by at reset, the more amount of Lvl 34-36 players will increase thus more Lvl 34-36 playing 1v1s

Independent variable:
The players
Dependent variable:
Amount of players from lvl 28-36 periodically.
Control variable:
3 players each hour 5am, 6am, 7am, 8am etc. (How am I going to show 72 pictures? lol, 100% you guys aren't going to believe so I'll need pictures I guess)
The same build with the same weapons (Could effect the results if I change)
The same level (barely close to 36 so it is ok)

Maybe you guys could try this hypothesis?



toopygoo -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/3/2013 19:06:07)

@ mother. i did the 25 starting at about 7:30, and stopping at 9:30

yes i got a few repeats (3 35's and 1 36) which i can omit if you want me to, and henceforth ignore replays. i cannot do morning battles to be fair, so perhaps someone else can test that, however i find that im during a busier time of day, when i have friends from Asia and America, Great Britain and Canada online



Mother1 -> RE: Revised Level Ranges for Random Fights (11/3/2013 19:32:26)

@Toopygoo

If I had recording material on my computer I would do it during the resets since I can play all times of the day. To be fair as well I get most of my repeaters and lower levels during reset due to there being less people on.

As for why I asked those question I will explain. Getting too many repeats serve to prove the point that there aren't enough people to go around since if there were enough to go around you wouldn't get the same people over and over again. As for the second question I asked that one because everyone plays within a different time zone, and as we all know different times of the day there are different numbers of people and a change like this will affect all times zone not just one.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.109375