BLOOD WOLF, on 21 December 2016 - 12:14 AM, said:
yea, we all get that. Over an extended period of time the clans will keep gaining on the tug-of war, because its increasing on an average of 7% over X period of time.
1. How is this unique to tug of war, given that the clans over a period of time will start to win more anyways.
2. give a system that would even if the clans has a higher win rate, not allow them to take the planets in succession.
All you are going to end up doing is ending up where you began.
1) the problem is unique to the current tug-of-war system because it's inherent to its design. The system cares about one criteria, win differential. It does not care about, specifically, win percentage except in that in order to maintain a pre-existing win differential the winning side must also maintain a positive win percentage. Of course, we know that they wouldn't have a win differential at all if they couldn't maintain a positive win percentage.
2) Are you asking me to propose an alternative system that would work better? Because I've done that already over several other threads once talk of FW changes first came about prior to the FW roundtable. I could, of course highlight certain concepts, if it helps, to steer where a system should be going, if not outline specific changes.
First, move away from fixed amounts the bar moves based on real-time recorded wins. This is the primary factor that causes the bar to wing in one direction and stay there.
As highlighted by even yourself, and many others in this thread, most people put their faith in win percentage instead. This alone isn't a good basis for the tug-of-war system, as it would tend toward static and unchangable conditions just the same as the current system does... it just wouldn't be pegged all the way to the end. The idea system would consider multiple factors.
My initial proposal for incorporating QP modes into FW included a scoring system to allow QP matches to count toward FW border skirmishes. In that system players received points for their faction for the match result. A win gave your faction a point, a loss awarded none. I also factored in actual individual performance by adding an additional point for any player who reached a specified performance threshold during the match. So players on the winning side could receive either 1 or 2 points for their factions, while players on the losing side could receive 0 or 1 point for theirs.
This system rewards both wins, and performance, which is important if you want to judge just how much better one faction is over another. The idea was to compare the accumulated points for each faction in a border skirmish - modify based on the population(match participation) differential for fairness - and whoever has the most points wins.
This doesn't work purely within the scope of the tug-of-war system as it stands, because it's only concerned with absolute win differential, whereas there must be a degree of "march" present for the tug-of-war system to progress from mode to mode. So instead, we use the points system to modify the amount the win nets the winning team. So instead of 3.33% (or whatever other arbitrary amount), we modify that amount based on the actual match results. It's possible, then (though unlikely), that a faction could win a match and still not have their bar increase - if, for instance, the winning team performed poorly individually (thus receiving only the win point) while every member of the losing team performed well (gaining them a point) for a 0-point differential.
What such a system would allow for is the tug-of-war to continue to march through all modes to the win condition at the end, but more slowly, and in keeping with a rate more consistent with actual faction performance.
In order to ensure that the defending faction can still rally and push the attackers out of a win condition, once we get to the red zone we can return to a pure win-based system as we have now. The advantage here is that the attacker will have had to EARN getting to a win condition, but both the attacker and defender theoretically have a more equal fight over that win condition.
On the whole, that gives you a better tug-of-war experience which is much more fair to each faction, and largely negates inherent faction advantages in favor of actual performance.
One other change I'd make that I'd suggested before is that planets don't flip directly from one faction to the other on a win. They go to neutral first, where neither faction owns the planet. This adds a LOT more strategy to the meta-game, as it requires a lot more thought as to where best to place your efforts. But this was back before the change to the current system of planet swaps, so not sure how well it applies to the changes.
2
