Jump to content


Introducing Balanced games


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

croki974 #1 Posted 08 July 2018 - 10:49 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 11530 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    09-01-2012

Hello All;

 

Instead of trying to find the ultimate matchmaking , developpers can create a new game where balanced actions are intoduced by WOT server.

Server can introduce a " Random " counterbalance when score come to 10/15 -- and some time we can see an avalanche effect that end with 0/10-15 score : totally boring --

The Server choose the 5 most powerful actors and add "Handicap" to couterbalance the game.

The form of Handycap could be : scope reduced to x2 / no more radios / blind minimap / Hydraulics sterring troubles / motor defficience and so on.

If the unbalance of game is not reduced, server add more actors with handycap. An extra money/EXP could be of course awarded to " Handycaped gamer "

Could be helpful ?

Regards

Croki



Enforcer1975 #2 Posted 08 July 2018 - 11:37 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 19850 battles
  • 10,295
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

No thanks. That sort of balance is the last thing any sane player would want. Getting gimped only because you played well....NOPE. But then again it could only come from a certain type of player...... :facepalm:

 

Git effing gud instead then you will see how stupid your idea is!



Dorander #3 Posted 08 July 2018 - 11:53 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17854 battles
  • 2,171
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

I don't think your new game mode would be very popular, unless it was done wrong. I've seen this kind of "balancing" in other games before, where the lower number of players got buffs because they were outnumbered, the main difference being that this buffing was done because the game starts out unbalanced, rather than because one side was playing better than the other. I have never seen this result in balance, the buffs being either so powerful that it was advantageous to be outnumbered turning people into one-man armies, or the buffs were so weak they might as well have been superfluous.

 

While I agree the game has plenty balance issues that need adressing, I don't think people should be penalized for playing well. Balance is not punishing good players so that poor players can deal with them more easily. Balance is giving everybody the same opportunies/mechanics and may the best player win.



Xandania #4 Posted 08 July 2018 - 01:23 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 35072 battles
  • 948
  • [-DGN-] -DGN-
  • Member since:
    05-16-2013

View PostEnforcer1975, on 08 July 2018 - 10:37 AM, said:

No thanks. That sort of balance is the last thing any sane player would want. Getting gimped only because you played well....NOPE. But then again it could only come from a certain type of player...... :facepalm:

 

For some reason these proposals seem like a major buff to red line campers.

AvengerOrion #5 Posted 08 July 2018 - 01:59 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25328 battles
  • 1,021
  • Member since:
    12-21-2013

Block Quote

Dear Wargaming,

 

I can't win fair and square.

Please make me win by hindering the enemy.

 

Love,

 

croki974

 

 

croki974 > Report > Unsportsmanlike Conduct.


Edited by AvengerOrion, 08 July 2018 - 02:02 PM.


Bordhaw #6 Posted 08 July 2018 - 03:16 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 10446 battles
  • 1,771
  • Member since:
    01-29-2017

View Postcroki974, on 08 July 2018 - 09:49 AM, said:

Hello All;

 

Instead of trying to find the ultimate matchmaking , developpers can create a new game where balanced actions are intoduced by WOT server.

Server can introduce a " Random " counterbalance when score come to 10/15 -- and some time we can see an avalanche effect that end with 0/10-15 score : totally boring --

The Server choose the 5 most powerful actors and add "Handicap" to couterbalance the game.

The form of Handycap could be : scope reduced to x2 / no more radios / blind minimap / Hydraulics sterring troubles / motor defficience and so on.

If the unbalance of game is not reduced, server add more actors with handycap. An extra money/EXP could be of course awarded to " Handycaped gamer "

Could be helpful ?

Regards

Croki

 

Right, so penalise the good players for being..good. LMAO

 

 



Jigabachi #7 Posted 08 July 2018 - 03:35 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17852 battles
  • 18,225
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
Rigging the game against good players. What about no?
That's pretty much the most stupid idea that got suggested here in all those years.

RamRaid90 #8 Posted 08 July 2018 - 03:47 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20305 battles
  • 6,174
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

Only a fail bot could come up with such an imbecilic idea.

 

Why on earth should good players bepunished just because you suck?

 

Where the **** s the logic in that?! :facepalm:

 

Maybe we should punish everyone who cant manage at least a 50% win rate by making it so they cant take any shells into battle? And anyone who doesn't move for more than 30 secods instantly gets blown up.

 

Thats a good idea.



NUKLEAR_SLUG #9 Posted 08 July 2018 - 03:52 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27266 battles
  • 1,844
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

Soo.. do too much damage in a game and your tank randomly develops 'problems'. Get a topgun and you get instantly ammoracked...?

 

Seems legit!



HundeWurst #10 Posted 08 July 2018 - 03:54 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 67720 battles
  • 4,269
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012
Thats the worst I have ever seen. Git Gut

Lord_Barbarozza #11 Posted 08 July 2018 - 03:59 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 5877 battles
  • 79
  • Member since:
    03-22-2015

I would like to see you get experience = your performance, not only when you win, but then you lose. You will still get negative winrate and less credits, but you wont feel robbed if you had 1k base xp on a loss which really would be 2k  base xp I believe.

 

Which also means, if a player plays bad and his team wins he wont get that 500 xp out of nothing.

In Ranked battles the top 5 losing players are rewarded and the 5 worst on the winning team get no reward as far as I remember, its similar, just you get the full xp instead of half the xp.



NUKLEAR_SLUG #12 Posted 08 July 2018 - 04:05 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27266 battles
  • 1,844
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View PostLord_Barbarozza, on 08 July 2018 - 03:59 PM, said:

I would like to see you get experience = your performance, not only when you win, but then you lose.

 

You already do. Courageous Resistance bonus.

malachi6 #13 Posted 08 July 2018 - 04:08 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 48976 battles
  • 3,183
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011
So I am having one of my rare good games and the game punishes me arbitrarily.  That will fair and balanced when it is happening to me.  How will you feel when it happens to you?

Edited by malachi6, 08 July 2018 - 04:09 PM.


RamRaid90 #14 Posted 08 July 2018 - 04:14 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20305 battles
  • 6,174
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View Postmalachi6, on 08 July 2018 - 03:08 PM, said:

So I am having one of my rare good games and the game punishes me arbitrarily.  That will fair and balanced when it is happening to me.  How will you feel when it happens to you?

 

His point is it wont happen to him, because he's terrible.

Lord_Barbarozza #15 Posted 08 July 2018 - 04:30 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 5877 battles
  • 79
  • Member since:
    03-22-2015

View PostNUKLEAR_SLUG, on 08 July 2018 - 04:05 PM, said:

 

You already do. Courageous Resistance bonus.

 

True, I have gotten that, but you know what I mean, maybe give the top 3 or 5 losing players full xp, you wont get the daily double still, and give 3 bottom winning players half xp. Or even the top 1 losing player and 1 bottom winning player.

If I win and end at the bottom of my team I dont really care about xp other than the fact I was lucky and won.



RamRaid90 #16 Posted 08 July 2018 - 04:35 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20305 battles
  • 6,174
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostLord_Barbarozza, on 08 July 2018 - 03:30 PM, said:

 

True, I have gotten that, but you know what I mean, maybe give the top 3 or 5 losing players full xp, you wont get the daily double still, and give 3 bottom winning players half xp. Or even the top 1 losing player and 1 bottom winning player.

If I win and end at the bottom of my team I dont really care about xp other than the fact I was lucky and won.

 

Why do you think you deserve to have more XP for not winning?

 

It should not work like that since all that will schieve it people camping redline even more hoping to farm more damage once their team is defeated rather than actually helping them to win.

 

IMO you should have a base XP that is -50% for losing and +50% for winning.



Browarszky #17 Posted 08 July 2018 - 04:53 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 15609 battles
  • 3,359
  • [I-S-L] I-S-L
  • Member since:
    12-03-2013

:popcorn:

 

Is this a double feature, anyone know? :unsure:

 

 

:popcorn::popcorn:



Enforcer1975 #18 Posted 08 July 2018 - 05:13 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 19850 battles
  • 10,295
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

View PostRamRaid90, on 08 July 2018 - 03:47 PM, said:

Maybe we should punish everyone who cant manage at least a 50% win rate by making it so they cant take any shells into battle? And anyone who doesn't move for more than 30 secods instantly gets blown up.

 

Thats a good idea.

 

There was this anti camp script i a game i was playing...iirc it was a huge smiley face to show the spot.....is a better idea imo. 

 


Edited by Enforcer1975, 08 July 2018 - 05:14 PM.


arthurwellsley #19 Posted 08 July 2018 - 05:26 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 51069 battles
  • 2,734
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View Postcroki974, on 08 July 2018 - 09:49 AM, said:

Hello All;

 

Instead of trying to find the ultimate matchmaking , developpers can create a new game where balanced actions are intoduced by WOT server.

Server can introduce a " Random " counterbalance when score come to 10/15 -- and some time we can see an avalanche effect that end with 0/10-15 score : totally boring --

The Server choose the 5 most powerful actors and add "Handicap" to couterbalance the game.

The form of Handycap could be : scope reduced to x2 / no more radios / blind minimap / Hydraulics sterring troubles / motor defficience and so on.

If the unbalance of game is not reduced, server add more actors with handycap. An extra money/EXP could be of course awarded to " Handycaped gamer "

Could be helpful ?

Regards

Croki

 

No Croki.

Terrible ideas.

Players who work hard to win a game getting penalised? No.

WOT is harsh. It's like real life. If you play hard you win.

Git Gud



Zinomov #20 Posted 08 July 2018 - 05:26 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 19982 battles
  • 193
  • [DIGIN] DIGIN
  • Member since:
    10-13-2014
you know that what you are suggesting requires a lot of coding ? and WG staff is too busy sucking the cash out of your pockets to bother making any change




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users