Battle Matchup suggestions (Full Version)

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



Message

Silver Sky Magician -> Battle Matchup suggestions (12/26/2013 12:56:36)

1. Lower level ranges of opponents to +/- 2 your level for 1v1. I would say 3, but that's not very fair.

2. Lower total level ranges of opponent teams to +/- 3 your level for 2v2 (i.e. when the levels of the two opponents on each side are added together, there should be no more than a 3 level difference between teams) The devs' long-held defense that it would take too long to find battles is invalid; what they don't realize is that players not only have to wait for a battle, they also have to lose an unfair battle, wait for another one, lose a few more, and then finally get a fair matchup. An unfair matchup is not superior to no matchup at all. Which means that a lot more time is lost through the current system. Furthermore, the blatant unfairness of current 2v2 limits the 2v2 pool as people are turned off by it; conversely, greater equity would attract people and result in a larger pool.

3. For 2v2, all players above level 15 must be equipped with a gun to play, and all players above level 30 must be equipped with an aux to play

4. If a player runs away in 2v2 when still alive, he will be banned from playing 2v2 for one week if he runs more than 5 times within a day. (I personally prefer 3 times)

5. There should be a 'report' option against inactive 2v2 players (skipping 3 turns or more).



Altador987 -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (12/26/2013 13:02:45)

1. supported

2. kinda supported but we need a larger crowd of players before puttin this in action

3-5 not supported:

3. you can't exclude anyone just so you can win the game isn't about just you, killing one person in 2v2 gives a better reward than winning a 1v1 match

4. you can't tell if someone has run or simply lagged out and just because you THINK someone may have run you can't prove that unless they tell you they're running

5. it's a game you win some you lose some it's not that serious, your partner might have had something come up stop thinking of yourself


also you should prolly post this in Epicduel suggestions



Mother1 -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (12/26/2013 13:13:51)

quote:

1. Lower level ranges of opponents to +/- 2 your level for 1v1. I would say 3, but that's not very fair.


With such a small player base? Wait times will be increase but on another note It would be funny to see those who rush to get to the level cap not get fights and rage quit.

quote:

2. Lower total level ranges of opponent teams to +/- 3 your level for 2v2 (i.e. when the levels of the two opponents on each side are added together, there should be no more than a 3 level difference between teams) The devs' long-held defense that it would take too long to find battles is invalid; what they don't realize is that players not only have to wait for a battle, they also have to lose an unfair battle, wait for another one, lose a few more, and then finally get a fair matchup. An unfair matchup is not superior to no matchup at all. Which means that a lot more time is lost through the current system. Furthermore, the blatant unfairness of current 2v2 limits the 2v2 pool as people are turned off by it; conversely, greater equity would attract people and result in a larger pool.


I have to disagree since with an unfair match up at least you get the chance to play where as not getting a match up at all you don't get to play. A game is made for you to play not to wait and not play period so that is where I disagree. Also why do you think we don't get fair match ups? Due to the small player pool we have. Not to mention the legion vs exile filter they threw in which plays some hand in giving unfair matches due to it pulling players based on what side they are on over their level.

Lastly cutting the player pool will not solve this problem. It will only punish players who don't want to wait, and will still have players complaining about not having fair fights. If you are going to punish people who just want to play you need to remove the level range completely, and even with this there is still no grantee of a fair fight. Why because even without level advantage build advantage, and other factors you can't affect come into play which will make a match sway to one side.

quote:

3. For 2v2, all players above level 15 must be equipped with a gun to play, and all players above level 30 must be equipped with an aux to play


This problem could be solved easily if the staff made it so all starting player would have a start weapon, aux, gun, and armor.

quote:

4. If a player runs away in 2v2 when still alive, he will be banned from playing 2v2 for one week if he runs more than 5 times within a day. (I personally prefer 3 times)


They already have a system for runners. if you run 5 times you do get a ban from playing 1 vs 1 and 2 vs 2. Just not as strict as your idea.

quote:

5. There should be a 'report' option against inactive 2v2 players (skipping 3 turns or more).


I don't support this one. Real life come into play and if something pressing comes that causes the person to go AFK they are going to go AFK. Punishing players for this is not only wrong, but will discourage players from playing because they will have to worry about punishment for real life happening.



Steel Slayer -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (12/26/2013 13:17:24)

1+2: Agree with this, it's been suggested many times, would love to see this get implemented, I could even live with 3 in 1v1, way more fair than 6.

3: As good as this sounds on the surface, it wouldn't really solve the issue, peeps could just buy a bunch of UNUPGRADED gear, and it would be just as bad. Also, the devs have said flat out that they don't want to exclude people in this way. The better idea would be for them to put in a tutorial, and use it to explain to people WHY they should be fully geared.

4:This made me laugh, but it ignores 2 things: First, theres already a ban system in place for quitters, they have to do it 5 times in a row though. 2nd, and more important, not all quitters are quitting on purpose. You know when the "starting battle" screen just stays up and the screen freezes until you refresh your browser? You show up in the fight to the other 3 people. Then it looks like you quit, even though you never actually got into the fight to begin with. If they could fix that, I'd be all in favor of a stronger ban system for quitters.

5: Not supported, there could be way too many real life issues going on, if it happens a few fights in a row, the in game reporting system now has a comment line.



Ranloth -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (12/26/2013 13:20:14)

I won't bother with other points, since Mother1 has covered me on that one.

quote:

3. For 2v2, all players above level 15 must be equipped with a gun to play, and all players above level 30 must be equipped with an aux to play

Simpler idea. Give every new player a full Basic Set; Armor + Primary + Gun + Aux. They'd always have a weapon, could sell all these items - but Armor, which has restriction - and the only excuse for being underequipped, would be own foolishness, by selling literally everything - something that balance shouldn't even consider, because different players think differently. Putting restrictions for weapons, and then, say, getting hacked, would end up very badly; can't farm NPCs, can't play PvP, nothing.



Altador987 -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (12/27/2013 9:44:44)

^ what if the basic weapons (they'd add an aux and gun at a certain level) leveled with you so all you'd have to do is arrange the stats when you're low on cash



Ranloth -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (12/27/2013 12:49:03)

That'd render buying new items useless, unless you cared about looks and rare cores. There has to be some cost and incentive - instead of getting everything for free. Indirect nerf to Varium as well, since you'd get no drops levelled up to your level.

There could be a level penalty though, such as -3 to your level. So you always have items upgraded, but not to your level, thus weaker than everybody else but if you get hacked, you ain't gonna be useless either.



zone tan -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (1/4/2014 6:15:53)

why my rage was so slow and lame even my support higher than my opponent? on any level lower same higher... even i only did rage once after they did 2 rage?
did i need something to make my rage faster except support?[:@] [:@] [:@]
i'll always lose if my rage that lame? need help plz [:(]



Teserve -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (1/4/2014 9:51:20)

@above
Well, maybe you could provoke discussion in this thread.

@Trans
There already is no need for me to buy weapons because my current ones level with me.



toopygoo -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (1/4/2014 11:17:21)

I think these ideas were not thought out very well, and just written down as soon as you got the chance. Take time to work out your ideas. If you think you have an epihpany, write it down in a file, revisit it in a few days, and make any changes you see fit.


since the levels wwere just upgraded that would be a terrible solution. That means that a lot of people in the 39-40 range would get like 5 games an hour L:/ thats not fair. please try to think of the effects this would hve on all players. not just yourself



Silver Sky Magician -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (1/4/2014 11:19:00)

^

Well if there are 'a lot of people in the 39-40 range', they can just fight each other. Are you telling me that the number of level 35s and 36s so exceed the number of level 37-40 players that a 3 level range would be excessive? You do not think there is something fundamentally wrong if, as you are suggesting, a significant portion of level 40 battles come from level 35 and 36 players?



Ranloth -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (1/4/2014 11:19:16)

quote:

There already is no need for me to buy weapons because my current ones level with me.

Difference is, you have to upgrade them - and if you get hacked/scammed, you may end up with nothing to upgrade your weapons with. My suggestion is basically full Basic Set, which scales with your level but has penalty (such as -3 levels), for free, so even if you get hacked, you can use these until you save enough Credits to upgrade.



Mother1 -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (1/4/2014 11:32:56)

@ SSM

while there maybe a bit are they all doing the same battle mode, are they available to battle? Are they legion or exile (Legion vs exile filter added this) what time are they playing (since different times sometimes has less people then others) you have to ask those questions as well.

plus there is a limit on how many times you can battle the same person as well within an hour. When that limit is reached that person is excluded until the next hour.




Remorse -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (1/4/2014 11:37:54)

Supported with all of them.


If people leave 2v2 matches more then 5 times in one day due to connection issues, then they shouldn't be playing anyway and should receive full punishment in doing so.



Silver Sky Magician -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (1/4/2014 11:45:28)

@Mother1

By the time the devs get around to considering this, let alone implementing this, the player demographic would have made the adequate shifts.



ValkyrieKnight -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (1/4/2014 12:27:47)

Sick of this man, just sick of it



CN2025 -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (1/4/2014 15:22:05)

dont play on ur alt xD low player base + war filter = no place for underlvls



ED Divine Darkness -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (1/4/2014 16:43:18)

xD lol valkyrie

kinda worrying [>:]



GearzHeadz -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (1/4/2014 16:46:49)

I would support this, but we don't have enough players.



toopygoo -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (1/4/2014 17:36:59)

@ SSM but we dont know that

if they get around to it in 6 days, i guarantee that the player base of level 40's still wont be very high to guarantee fast fights in the 37-40 level range. I find a lot of people are experimenting with juggernaut, and there are a lot playing 2v2 and 1v1. you cant make them play the same game type to have for lower level differences between levels.



Elite Tuga -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (1/4/2014 17:48:51)

+1 Silver Sky Magician
I agree with this whole concept, I & many have had enough of unfair battles especially in 2v2. Its not any fun & needs a fix like stated above.



Silver Sky Magician -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (1/5/2014 1:30:45)

@toopygoo

LOL 6 days? Are you serious? I expect it to be more along the lines of 6 months, if at all.

In any case, obviously the staff can't arbitrarily decide 'oh, let's make level ranges 3 next week!' They have to review battle matchup data and decide when demographics have suitably shifted for such a change to have minimal adverse effect. All balance reforms must be data-driven, not done on a whim.



Mother1 -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (1/5/2014 1:36:51)

@SSM

That is assuming the user population actually increases enough for this to work. With the latest increase to levels they really messed up balance. Now those level 40's can get more power which in turn will really hurt those lower levels they go against even if the level range was cut like you desired.

If you read the DN it shows the more these player play the more power they will get when they pass certain bridges. IMO within that amount of time (6 months as you say it) unless you are doing battle with another level 40 at your level any level 40's going against level 38-39 will make punching bags of them, and the same can be said of 2 vs 2.



Silver Sky Magician -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (1/5/2014 6:50:50)

So what are you suggesting - that level 40s own everyone from 35-39?

We have no idea how substantial these boosts will be. They can be something like +2 stats or +1% block chance per legendary rank, for all we know.



Mother1 -> RE: Battle Matchup suggestions (1/5/2014 11:18:40)

@ SSM

I wasn't suggesting that at all.

I was stating that

1 This change might happen assuming we get an increase in players (which i barely see)

2 The extra stats given for each range from legendary stats could give so enough power over time that it might a fair fight with the level range of level 38 or 39 vs a 40 would be impossible.

I never said anything about letting 40's own 35 up to 39. but on another note when I was level 37 was able to take down some of those level 40's players.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.125