• The forum has been migrated from Enjin. There still may be bugs and various issues. If you would like access to your account, please contact us.
  • Make sure to read the forum rules before creating a new thread or commenting on someone else's thread. The forum rules can be read on this page.

Planned Map-dependent and player-dependent balance fixes

This suggestion has been accepted for implementation and will be added in a future update.
To raise another suggestion on the issue of balance (which to me seems to be the most significant issue in the game right now), I think that the balance of the game should be more context-specific. The balance feels very off on certain maps with certain numbers of players.

E.g. Minas Tirith is great and well-balanced when there are loads of people, but with only few people it is unplayable and defenders have such an advantage due to the map design. Whereas Eoford is the opposite; really great and well-balanced with few people. But soon as there are lots of people (e.g. 20+), the attackers steamroll.

My suggestion is:

1. The ratio of attackers:defenders changes based on the map, and based on the total number of people online. If there are not many people, and the map is Minas Tirith, the attackers should have significantly more than the defenders, for example. But at Helm's Deep, this probably isn't necessary.

2. Every player on one side receives some kind of buff or debuff in these unbalanced situations. If there are lots of people playing Eoford, maybe the attackers could have weakness, or start with less health or something? So it is more of a horde of weaker players. But then these effects should not apply if there are <10 people playing.


these are just examples of things that might help, I don't know if those specific examples would solve the problem. My overall point is that for the health of the server, balance fixes need to be more context-specific and change according to the map and the number of total players.
 

De_Mik

Head Moderator
Staff member
Head Moderator
Moderator
V2 King
Requires a lot of testing to see which ratio is good for which player count, but is a really good idea. I hope the devs can make this work.
 

Cotander

Admin
Staff member
Admin
Lead Developer
Developer
In general I agree with the idea of better balancing. I am not sure about your two points however, and the second one I think is unlikely to be implemented.

However for the next update some balance additions to game elements have been integrated already, so in general this is "planned" and I shall tag this thread as such.
 
In general I agree with the idea of better balancing. I am not sure about your two points however, and the second one I think is unlikely to be implemented.

However for the next update some balance additions to game elements have been integrated already, so in general this is "planned" and I shall tag this thread as such.
Glad to see some changes are planned - really hope they improve things, and I look forward to trying the server out!

Could you please let me know what specifically you disagree with about my proposals for player-dependent ratios and buffs/debuffs? Do you disagree with the idea? Or would they be too hard to implement?
 

Cotander

Admin
Staff member
Admin
Lead Developer
Developer
Glad to see some changes are planned - really hope they improve things, and I look forward to trying the server out!

Could you please let me know what specifically you disagree with about my proposals for player-dependent ratios and buffs/debuffs? Do you disagree with the idea? Or would they be too hard to implement?
I think the second would make balance worse. It would be almost impossible to correctly balance automated buffs/debuffs.

However the first point is more trivial and would be fine to implement. We already have per-map ratios, but there's also some weird behaviour where at lower player counts people get stacked onto one team - even though the ratio does not technically permit it.
 
Top