|
goldslayer1 -> RE: War 2.0 Redux (2/6/2016 18:40:56)
|
My idea and suggestion to fix this war issue, from my perspective.
The issue seems to be balance in wars (Player pool of Exile vs Legion), and the Pay to Win aspect of it.
Here's the solution I propose.
Solution: Balance between player pool
Dont make the wars about Exile vs Legion.
Change it up to something else, so that its unrelated to Legion and Exile.
The reason being that the player pool of Legion and Exile will have already been pre-determined before the war even starts.
Thus you can most likely calculate the winner based on the player pool each side has.
By making the wars not directly about Legion and Exile, it allows you to balance the player pool for each side better, since they wont be predetermined before the war starts.
An example I have is this, 2 Sides (Or even 3, doesn't have to be limited to 2) in where the player Opts-in to the war, and the game RANDOMLY places them on a team.
It should be Opt-in based so that the game places the players on a side based on the balance of the war after it has started, and so inactive players dont count as part of the player pool.
The player does not have a choice of picking a side during the initial start. They could, but at first they wont, and ill explain what I mean soon.
Say for example you have 2 or 3 sides.
The Wolves
The Eagles
The Sharks (For the laughs of adding a third team, otherwise just keep it at 2)
So you have Wolves vs Eagles.
When the opt-ins start, the game can place players on a side as best as possible to keep the sides balanced. This ensure that the player pool for each side isn't predetermined before the war starts.
Another reason for the opt-in is that after the war starts and is along the way and more players decided to participate, it would allow the devs to balance depending on current results.
(Example numbers)
So if the Wolves are winning 250-180 against the Eagles, then when more players start opting in, the game can place them on the Eagles team to account for the imbalance.
This is fluctuating balance, and should be able to work a whole lot better than unbalanced predetermined teams we current have.
To expand on what I meant by players being able to change sides, its simple.
At any time, when the difference between the winning team and losing team is greater than 20%, Allow players from the winning team to switch to the other team.
Players from the losing team can not switch to the winning team.
Solution: Varium
This is one of the most complained about issues when it comes to wars.
While the issues are understandable, at the end of the day the developers are going to put something in the game that makes them money, regardless of what the players want.
So here's my solution that can address the needs of both. And it primarily is based around altering the way wars affect influence.
Varium Canisters (I'd rather not have to call them by the B word) should NOT give personal influence.
Influence was supposed to be a way to award 2v2 and juggernaut players for their efforts in comparison to 1v1. It was completely ruined by Var Cans by causing massive inflation in influence for players who spammed Var Cans vs players who actually did battles.
You can still maintain a system with Var Cans without it massively disrupting balance.
So my solution is, battles give personal influence and War influence, Var Cans do not give personal influence. What Var Cans should do is give War Influence, different from personal influence.
Have the war rankings based on War Influence so paying players can still rank it up.
The war rank should be similar to a Reputation from AQW.
The higher the score, the higher rank achievement you get.
The price of Var Cans in this scenario wouldn't matter, but ultimately free players should be able to get high war ranks based on effort, whereas Varium players are free to spam Var Cans without needing to put in as much effort as free players. The difference between the 2 in the end should be negligible, and both should be able to get good rewards out of whatever method they choose.
Which segues into the next portion of the suggestion,
Rewards:
Rewards should be independent of winning/losing, and more dependent on war rank (and in turn, war influence).
This ensures that the non-paying players dont feel shafted by losing a war to a glut of Var Can spammers.
Whatever side you're on, you should be able to unlock war rewards if you achieve the necessary rank, regardless of the winning side.
The winning side gets another achievement for winning the war, losing side doesn't.
The ranks, Whether achieved via battles or Var Cans, is what decides the war rewards.
And you can have special items awarded to high ranked players. The majority of items (aside from Cores and Robots) are mostly cosmetic now due to them pretty much all having the same stats.
This basically rewards the productivity players had in the wars, rather than rewarding the winning of the war.
This way, even players on the losing side could feel rewarded if they were still very productive in the war.
Which is the way it should be IMO.
As a bonus reward, if the war happens to be mismatched and the score ends up greater than 20% difference, players who switch side get an extra achievement for switching sides.
Since you can only switch sides from winning team to losing team, it should further help balance out the player pool for each team. (NOTE: player keeps same war rank and war influence.)
The achievement can be called *Insert theme of war here* Underdog Achievement.
Solution: Match Making
Another problem in wars is match making. Previously in wars, you wouldn't be able to fight against your own team. This feature seems to have been removed due to smaller active player base.
I wanted to note that this happens because there are only 2 teams (Legion and Exile).
With the above solutions of opt-ins, and be able to make multiple teams, this no longer has to be the case.
Example: With 3 teams, Team A can fight vs players of team B and Team C.
That's 66% of the active player pool in war, as opposed to the current theoretical 50% (Or otherwise lopsided teams, resulting in less opponents for one side to fight). Thus it allows teams to have greater variety of opponents without having to fight their own teammates.
This effect is noticeably greater when you increase the amount of teams. 4 teams = Each team can fight against 75% of the war player pool.
5 Teams = Each team can fight against 80% of the war player pool.
By increasing the amount of teams, you statistically condense teams and allow them a bigger pool of opponents.
To further increase this solution to match making, while players who opted in are in a team, players who did not opt-in to the war aren't.
Since they aren't in a team, you can still have war players fight against non-war players, and the non-war players would be considered casualties or bystanders to the war.
This work around would be great to increase the pool of opponents with a good explanation for having non-war players involved vs war players.
So in this match making, a player in the war can fight a player that's not in, and still get score from that non-war player. Which further increases the pool of opponents each team can have.
Extras:
Some extras that you can add are changing the color of player names based on the team they're on.
for example
Wolves: Gray
Eagles: Yellow
Sharks: Blue
Players who have not opted in to the war dont have a color.
Overall, I feel that this would fix a lot of the issues related to the wars and make it more balanced and enjoyable.
If I get any more ideas or little extra fixes, ill come back and add it to this thread.
|
|
|
|
