| Author |
Semi Balance the MV Map |
Dionysian *EP5* (Angel of Destruction)
Grand Admiral
*Renegade Space Marines*
Joined: November 21, 2003
Posts: 135
|  Posted: 2008-01-22 19:04
Something thats been niggling me over the last few weeks has been the unbalance between the number of players on different factions. Ugto with over 14-15 players in a MV of mid 20's isn;t uncommon which makes combat "interesting" and also mens that ugto gets lots of noobs, some of which will hopefully stay.
A suggestion to combat this would be a semi balanced map.
This would work so that if you're fleeted - you join whichever faction your fleet is with.
If you're unfleeted you can;t join a faction with over X% of the active players.
I would suggest X to be maybe 50% as that allows 2 sides of 50% each or for 2 sides of 25% each taking on the 50%.
Thiswould then force those who want to always be ugto etc to join a fleet and would encourage the noobs to try different factions. should make combat more balanced.
_________________
|
Leonide
Grand Admiral
Templar Knights
Joined: October 01, 2005
Posts: 1553
From: Newport News, Virginia
| Posted: 2008-01-22 22:15
i like that rule. better than the prestige value balance system the Admiral uses currently.
_________________
captain of the ICC Assault Cruiser C.S.S. Sledgehammer
|
Rae
Admiral
Raven Warriors
Joined: May 23, 2002
Posts: 284
From: 10 minutes away in a fast boat
| Posted: 2008-01-22 23:10
i third this idea... sounds like one of the better ones in the past while!
_________________
-so precious lovin the thrill...
|
Smartin
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 04, 2005
Posts: 1107
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2008-01-23 08:23
Although I don't think balancing the MV out is a bad idea. I wonder how fair it would be to someone who is paying to not be able to choose what side he has. I say this only because each faction is very unique in it's own way, and most players choose a faction by their playing style. I would fear players would just rather not play then to be forced onto a faction they don't care to fly.
_________________
DarkSpace Community Website
|
Ospolos
Grand Admiral
Joined: January 31, 2004
Posts: 567
From: ON, CANADA
| Posted: 2008-01-23 09:17
Smartin brought up a good point. Joining the faction you like to play, but dont want to be in a fleet needs to be protected. So, for a fix to that problem, once your on that faciton, your locked to it regardless of the balance numbers, and your only penalized for joining the other 2 factions. So it's only tuff luck when your wanting a faction change after being kluth for a while to join say, ICC or UGTO, and not for the same faction you have been playing with for that while.
Which means there needs to be something where a newbie can freely choose his choosing to find the likes. Maybe disable the penalization when they have the newbie trial coupon activated or something, or newbie server has no balance.
_________________
Honoured,
Osp
|
-Daedalus-
Grand Admiral
Joined: September 26, 2006
Posts: 549
| Posted: 2008-01-23 13:45
Yeah you can't punish non-fleet users by not allowing them to join the faction they want.
Anything you impose on non-fleet should be imposed on fleet players and vice versa.
_________________
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2008-01-23 15:20
This a horrible problem in any PvP centered game : balanced teams.
Its virtually impossible, because people want their freedom, which is usually the freedom to pick the most powerful team/faction/ship, etc. Though since those dont really exist (per se) in Darkspace, it usually a matter of play-style which is infinitely more important.
Technically.
But the problem is that it really isnt often the choice with the majority of players.
People tend to pick the faction with:
- The most competant people
- The most people
- The most advantegous ships
And if anyone really thinks otherwise then I suggest paying stronger attention to the way the players on the amount of factions really swerve over time.
The end result is that there is often one faction with too many people which kills the whole point (its inevitable - its happened in every single version I've been here.)
So I don't think limiting unfleeted players is a bad idea. Why? Because since the only real factor is playstyle, people can choose a fleet and jump on that faction whenever they want.
Or if they dont want to be in a fleet, then deal with it. Theres advantages and disadvantages to being in a fleet, I think the same should apply to non-fleeted players.
Want to try out ships? Scenarios are good for that. Or find a new fleet.
-Ent
_________________
|
|Kakashi|
Fleet Admiral
Joined: April 04, 2007
Posts: 448
| Posted: 2008-01-24 03:11
I dont really like that idea - It'll be to troublesome.
_________________
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2008-01-24 12:40
From a developer standpoint, that's not a bad idea, since one faction does tend to get overly strong relative to the others, for the reasons Enterprise went into.
From a player standpoint, I don't like it at all. I am unfleeted precisely so that I may switch factions whenever I feel like it. I don't do it per se to get the strongest faction at the time, nor to steal tech or other questionable reasons... I just do it to play with a person I like, or to help the underdog, or (as staff) to be able to deal with a problem on a certain faction.
If I were restricted in this - and yes, you could say staff could be exempted in case of a need to get on a certain faction, but then I'd potentially be exploiting a staff advantage for personal gain whenever I joined the MV as a player - I would be unhappy. I can see some of the logic to it, but it would still annoy me. And its quite possible I'd just opt not to play (at least in some particular instance) if I couldn't get the faction I wanted, since I tend to choose based upon the personalities within the faction more than anything. Another faction, in that case, isn't a viable substitute.
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2008-01-24 14:15
And as Shig said, thats the main reason why it would never actually happen. There are a sufficent amount of people who want their freedom to keep it from happening.
Of course, old problems do persist anyways. So if anyone has any alternative suggestions...
-Ent
_________________
|
Dionysian *EP5* (Angel of Destruction)
Grand Admiral
*Renegade Space Marines*
Joined: November 21, 2003
Posts: 135
| Posted: 2008-01-24 16:45
An alternative then might be via prestige - making it better prestige wise to be on the smallest faction rather than the largest. This would also be more realistic. e.g. if yoiu take on an equal enemy you gain prestige for winning but you gain more prestige for defeating an enemy greater than yourself.
e.g. Ugto has 30 players, Icc 25 KLuth 3.
If you join as KLuth fighting the others you get more pres for an action than if you join the others .( or lose less if you die) UGTO players would be penalised.
Wouldn;t want the penalty / reward to be 2 big and would only want it to kick in above a certain size advantage.
I've seen similar modifies implemented in other games with some success. e.g. star fury - limit in place to stop big players attacking small ones.
Benefit of doing this is that if you wat pres - you'll join the smallest fleet. If you want to play with your friends you'll join them.
It won;t balance things as much as my 1st suggestion but will be more flexible
_________________
|
doda *EP5 no longer exception...*
Grand Admiral
Joined: December 11, 2005
Posts: 1012
From: happy land
| Posted: 2008-01-24 23:41
now thats a great idea, rewarding players who fly on the less numbered side. I also think you should have a system that takes into account player ranks along with numbers. Because 2 stations fighting 3 cruisers will be a lot different in comparison to 2 stations fighting 3 cruisers (1.484 in mind, not 1.483)
_________________
Please resize your Admin - signature
VCA since June 5th 06
|
Ospolos
Grand Admiral
Joined: January 31, 2004
Posts: 567
From: ON, CANADA
| Posted: 2008-01-25 08:26
An incentives system could work, and may be the answer we are looking for, based on numbers and ships in the play field (not rank).
_________________
Honoured,
Osp
|
Dionysian *EP5* (Angel of Destruction)
Grand Admiral
*Renegade Space Marines*
Joined: November 21, 2003
Posts: 135
| Posted: 2008-01-25 14:37
Maybe the balance can be calculated according to ships HP then. Add the m all up for each side and base the pres bonus / penalty on that.
_________________
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2008-01-25 17:11
You'll notice there's already a count of ship class on your faction on the nav map - a nice little listing of # of ships, and the type of each. So in theory we can just use that data; give each class a weighting and then base the pres variable off that.
However, that would also require the recalculation of pres values every time there's a new ship on the field. In that case, rank would be the easier way to go since we just update it when a new player joins the server. And rank, even if the player doesn't choose the max ship they can get, in theory correlates with skill.. so if you have a GA in a cruiser, they're in theory more threatening than a 2RA in a cruiser. In that regard, they should be ranked higher, right?
Just throwing out ideas.. I like where this is going.
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
