Lvl 40 rank 20+ vs. lvl 38- = balanced? (Full Version)

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



Message

SS -> Lvl 40 rank 20+ vs. lvl 38- = balanced? (7/3/2014 5:18:33)

Does putting a lvl 38 (or even much lower in 2 vs. 2) against a lvl 40 rank 23 (or more, I don't know the current maximum reached) look balanced? Or fair? Then why make it possible?!?

Why stack the equivalent of around 30-50 levels in one and have them fight lower levels? They have to either be split in separate levels, or rank should also count when matchmaking, otherwise it's just non-stop wins for high rank level 40's, and lots of frustration for levels just under 40 and lower rank 40's. Why instead of improving matchmaking, you go and make it much, much worse?



Mother1 -> RE: Lvl 40 rank 20+ vs. lvl 38- = balanced? (7/3/2014 10:15:04)

Here is a news flash before they even made it like this they had it where level 40's could face as low as level 35 in 1 vs 1 and 34's in 2 vs 2. they cut the level 40's range to what it is now because of these legendary ranks and if you are a level 40 it takes a lot longer for you to find a match because of it.

What you are suggesting would isolate level 40's even more and in some cases they wouldn't even be able to find matches either. That also wouldn't be fair since they wouldn't be able to play at all.

As for why they leave it like this it is because they

1 Refuse to remove the legendary ranks
2 Don't want to further isolate players.




SS -> RE: Lvl 40 rank 20+ vs. lvl 38- = balanced? (7/3/2014 11:25:52)

I see 2 solutions off the top of my head:

1. Remove the legendary ranks at all and let all the lvl 40's be in one pool, but with the same sum of stats (like it was before). Boring for lvl 40's, but at least balanced.

2. Split the ranks into levels, widen the level range for matchmaking and reduce the difference between levels, so that the lower level has real chances to win even if he encounters the highest level possible for him. To explain: let us have 60 levels, let the maximum difference between two opponents be 5 levels again, but make each level bring only half the improvements it does now (like only half the stat points and one skill every 2 levels).

I'm sure there are more solutions, if you think about it a little.



Mother1 -> RE: Lvl 40 rank 20+ vs. lvl 38- = balanced? (7/3/2014 11:32:41)

@ SS

The staff also knows that players care about wait times as well.

That was why when they changed the matchmaking range for level 40's they didn't completely isolate them to other level 40's. As a result of this wait times for them increased since they have an even smaller level range.

Also I have to ask what about players who are so high up in the ranks that this they would be completely isolated from everyone? Comicalbiker is a good example of this since he has 100+ ranks. Players like that would be punished because they played harder than the others which isn't fair either.

Then as I pointed out before what about players who play when the servers are the least populated? This will hurt them most of all since as I pointed out several times the player pool sometimes gets as low as 200-300 from what I saw and one time even as low as 100-200. Not only that, but exactly how many of those players are in your level range? That will also cause issues.




SS -> RE: Lvl 40 rank 20+ vs. lvl 38- = balanced? (7/3/2014 12:49:53)

You have a point, but leaving things as they are benefits the higher ranks lvl 40's and is very unpleasant for levels just under 40 and low rank 40's (which could be one of the reasons why the servers are so poorly populated compared to, let's say, one or two years ago). That means high rank lvl 40's win 99.9% of all battles, because they are matched with much weaker opponents, and get stronger faster than their opponents, because they get more experience from each battle, compared to their opponents that lose. This means they are only getting farther and farther from their opponents, and nobody that is low rank will ever reach them. The gap is only widening. Does this sound normal? Or is this the purpose, to advantage the high rank 40's and discourage all that reach level 38-39 from playing? Something has to be done, I'm not saying my solutions are perfect, but the current situation is anything but balanced.



Mother1 -> RE: Lvl 40 rank 20+ vs. lvl 38- = balanced? (7/3/2014 12:58:43)

@ SS

Well the legendary ranks were made for those hardcore players who moaned and groaned about being bored which has been pointed out from the start. Many of those players now say the solution is to NPC battle since you can get EXP from them.

However at the same time this is also causing 1 vs 1 2 vs 2 and Juggernaut matches to take longer to find, as well as extra lag due to so many players NPCing.

While I can agree with you on that one, the problem is that with such a small player pool and even smaller pool during non peak hours the staff has to move very carefully since they can't afford to have people quit on them. this means they can't just side with one side but come to a compromise.

One of the solutions I thought off was to remove the power given by legendary ranks and replace it with something that doesn't affect balance. Here are some of the few I thought off

Increase drop rates for mission items as well as war drops
Increased sell back by a percent
Decreased costs on items and so forth.

This way players with ranks would still get perks of being high ranked player and it doesn't screw up balance in the process. This is just one solution I thought up.



SS -> RE: Lvl 40 rank 20+ vs. lvl 38- = balanced? (7/3/2014 14:13:28)

My second solution would solve the problem: make the differences between levels smaller, and then you have a bigger pool of opponents to battle, and besides, this will make the player behind the character more important than the level or class of the character. It's like in all modern racing championships: level out the cars, so that what matters is the driver.



Mother1 -> RE: Lvl 40 rank 20+ vs. lvl 38- = balanced? (7/3/2014 14:24:15)

@ SS

There is one problem within that.

You would still be isolating 40's with other 40's and this group still has the smallest group of players.

If you continue to ignore this flaw it will also cause problems within the game.

Had we a bigger player base where this wouldn't hurt so much I would agree with you, but when you have a small player base like this one and have the servers going as low as 200-300 players or less during none peak hours you can't afford to do something that would upset either side.

My other solution was to add NPC to the pool when you press 1 vs 1 2 vs 2 or juggernaut like we had in the infernal war (minus Juggernaut) This was if wait time got too long a NPC would fill in as an opponent or partner. In two vs two there would never be one NPC on one side while two human opponents on the other if this was done. With something like this in play you could accommodate and cut the level range or flat out make it 0 for matchmaking purposes, while not having to worry about wait times.

Or as mentioned before change the legendary ranks so they give bonus rewards and not power since it was that same power that cause level 40's player range to get cut to what it is now.



SS -> RE: Lvl 40 rank 20+ vs. lvl 38- = balanced? (7/3/2014 14:36:54)

You probably didn't understand that I mean making the differences between all levels smaller, and eliminate ranks by creating more levels. So that all players are in one pool, not two separate pools like now, intertwining in 2 vs 2, but totally separate in 1 vs 1. Let's say we get levels 1-60, with stats increases in such a way that a level 40 player has a chance against a level 45, which he could meet in battle. Or make them even closer, if the pool is still too small and waiting times are too big. Make it so that a level 40 can fight a level 50. As long it is a true "can fight", and win, not like now, match a lvl 40 rank 1 against a lvl 40 rank 40 so that he can be a training dummy for the rank 40 to gain experience on.



Jacobfarrow1 -> RE: Lvl 40 rank 20+ vs. lvl 38- = balanced? (7/3/2014 14:44:00)

Oh, I have something about Mother1's example of high-Ranked players: They stop gaining Legend Points after Rank 60, so maybe group all the Rank 50-60+ together (Example)? That way, both parties would have a chance to win.

@SS This would happen, except for one thing: ED's playerbase cannot support it. Decreasing level ranges would make even longer wait times, and players would (And have) quit because of it... But seeing as the level ranges can be unfair for some ranges (1-5, how is a player with no extra skill points or stat points going to defeat someone with a new Tier of skills?), players are quitting already. I, personally, am fine with the Ranges at the moment, because they're what the playerbase can support, as well as giving a very good challenge when I face a Level 36 on my Level 32 main. It's a tough fight, but a good one.



SS -> RE: Lvl 40 rank 20+ vs. lvl 38- = balanced? (7/3/2014 15:10:24)

@Jacobfarrow1: do you fight 1 vs 1 or 2 vs 2? In the latter case - wait till you get to level 38, in the former - have fun at 40, when you only fight other 40's, and all of them are higher (some much, much higher) in rank than you; you are literally at the bottom of the food chain.

Anyway, I said increase level range while decreasing difference between levels, I don't know why you understood wrong.



Mother1 -> RE: Lvl 40 rank 20+ vs. lvl 38- = balanced? (7/3/2014 15:19:33)

@ Jacobfallow1

So we isolate them so badly that while both parties have a good chance for a fair fight they have a very high chance of not getting a fight at all? That is why I am against this idea.

for starters we don't know how many legendary players within each rank bracket we truly have. Look at comicalbiker he has over 100 ranks is there anyone even close to his range? Not that I know off so something like this would hurt those players the most with either extremely long wait times, or no battles at all.

Don't get me wrong I know something needs to be done about this problem, however pleasing one group of players while punishing another group of players is not the solution.

They did this to level 40's matchmaking range because of these ranks and what did it do? It not only made it harder for cap level players to find fights, but hurts the players within their playing range even more.

This was why I suggested changing the legendary ranks to something that doesn't give power as well as my suggestion to add NPC to the battle modes like the infernal war.



Jacobfarrow1 -> RE: Lvl 40 rank 20+ vs. lvl 38- = balanced? (7/3/2014 16:27:26)

@Mother1
I was just adding on to the suggestion, but I see your point. Helping one and hurting the other isn't the right answer, like you said.

@SS
I mainly play 1v1, and I've heard about how bad it is at 38 for 1v1. I will most likely NPC until I get a decent Rank, or try to fight against these Legend Players (And almost certainly lose).

Oh, I thought you meant decreasing the range for fights, not the other way around :P
How big of a difference would you suggest? Maybe 2-3 stat points per level? Not sure how they should divide up the Skill Points, though.


Why does everyone spell my name wrong? >.< OWA calls me jacobfarrows, Mother1 called me Jacobfallow1, what's next? xD

All-in-all, not sure where I stand on this suggestion.



Noobatron x3000 -> RE: Lvl 40 rank 20+ vs. lvl 38- = balanced? (7/3/2014 20:14:36)

The only options they really have here is removing the ranks or severely nerfing them so they give almost no advantage.

It is simply unacceptable to leave them the way they currently are and I know anyone with a high end legend rank will viciously argue against this point till they realise if people are levelling past 36 they either aint buying varium because of how bad game play is or they are going extremely inactive playing rarely , Or just restarting new toons till they get bored and leave . Or just flat out leave.

This isn't healthy for a game that's already in bad shape.

If they decrease so you can only face some1 with 20 legend ranks of you legend rank 1 vs 21 (40v45) I suspect the 40s will get mad.

These are your options make it so every 5 legend ranks counts for one level and you can only go 5 up or down you cant go below 39 or nerf hard or flat out remove.

Let me make this clear lowering the range would be how it works for everyone else but legend ranks now there wouldn't be able to be a fight where one side had more then a combined 24 legend rank advantage in 2v2 (6 levels) 20 in 1v1 (5 levels)



suboto -> RE: Lvl 40 rank 20+ vs. lvl 38- = balanced? (7/3/2014 20:40:13)

give it time the scaleing will get fixed. power weekend ups the numbers of 40's. making a bigger player base in about a month or two the battle scaleing will improve. not drastically but slightly.
to be honest if the jug mode was rescaled like this:
current scale is 30-34 vs all 40's
new scale:
lvl40 rank 1-20 vs 29-32
lvl40 rank 21-40 vs 30-32 maybe 33 also
lvl40 rank 41+ vs 30-33 and maybe 34
just an idea of jug mode.
the lvl40's do 1v1 and 2v2 mainly because we cant do jug mode so fixing jug mode is a major improvement to the game.
main thing i find wrong with jug mode is 33 and 34 in the mix. i enter a battle with them is automatic lose. im rank 7 also.




Rui. -> RE: Lvl 40 rank 20+ vs. lvl 38- = balanced? (7/5/2014 4:30:34)

your right its not balanced if your determined to go 1 vs 1. Thats why you have an npc option.. If you refuse to utilize it no use crying. Now since most lvl 38 to 40 npc all we so called legendary rank players face each other which doesnt make it any easier for us.. Cause we do not get an advantage.. Which really isnt fair for us either. Be glad you have an alternate way to level up



Noobatron x3000 -> RE: Lvl 40 rank 20+ vs. lvl 38- = balanced? (7/5/2014 13:23:39)

^ I get you want to keep your advantage and pound the lowbs into quitting , I get that , I get you think its reasonable to force people to avoid 2v2 at level 36 . avoid 1v1 at 38 , I get you think its reasonable to npc from about 38- legend rank 10 at the earliest to be able to have any chance of winning.

I get all that but the amount of people other then 40s will continue to decrease as more and more people who aren't 40 reach 36 and quit within a day or two when they find out the score. So are your free wins worth a game with one server open most of the time with 500 players max usually online rare occasion 700ish losing players on mass?



Mother1 -> RE: Lvl 40 rank 20+ vs. lvl 38- = balanced? (7/5/2014 17:27:32)

@ Noobatron x3000

not that I don't agree with you on that matter (since i actually do) but making a move to give these players relief without accomadating for the wait times that will come and saying "We need to accept wait times in the short run to save the game in the long run" will also cause anyone who is level 40 and not patient to quit as well.

Also if you haven't noticed the last time they made that move for lower level facing these players guess what happened? it was a band aid fix that cause those same players who got relief before to quit once they got back into legendary player range. It did nothing but make wait times longer (since nothing was put there to compensate for them) as well as only delay the suffering of those lower levels.

look at 1 vs 1 now. Hardly anyone plays it anymore once they reach level 38 because of these legendary ranks and sadly the staff refuses to get rid of them.

There are two solutions I can think off for this problem.

The first would be changing what benefits the legendary give. If they gave something besides power (such as increased drop rate, better sell back, cheaper prices buying and other non battle effecting things) the balance of power will go back to what it was before legendary ranks were added and this way those players still get something for their hard work that doesn't punish those players that face them.

The other solution is the one I mentioned several times fixing up NPC and adding them into the battle modes. If don't correctly it will make wait times go down drastically while still giving fair fights for players.



darkscanner -> RE: Lvl 40 rank 20+ vs. lvl 38- = balanced? (7/8/2014 18:54:58)

Perhaps they could give some sort of handicap to 40's fighting lower levels?



Dual Thrusters -> RE: Lvl 40 rank 20+ vs. lvl 38- = balanced? (7/8/2014 21:34:33)

@Dark

Then Legend Ranks would lose their purpose :P



Noobatron x3000 -> RE: Lvl 40 rank 20+ vs. lvl 38- = balanced? (7/8/2014 21:40:50)

If your fighting a level 38 and your above legend rank 12 (means you have more then a 5 level advantage)

You should get the following message at the end of the battle

" sorry no experience win or credits were rewarded for your act of seal clubbing, Please fight a battle that requires skill to win for rewards"



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.078125