32 replies to this topic

[Cato Zilks]

BearFlag, on 06 February 2017 - 07:32 PM, said:

One problem requiring some thought, I have no immediate answer for. The resolution or density of divisions exceeds their current 3.33% increment. At 2.5% modes would be hopped over. You could use 2.5% for each game - one mode increment per game. But the problem is also complicated by the fact that multiple games can be running concurrently. So three games ending about the same time, all going to one side, would kick the ticker three modes up. It might feel more chaotic than sequenced. I suppose you could run the planet battles side-by-side with the matchmaker deciding which planet you're shuffled to. That would slow things down on each planet - but might also break partial victory. Dunno. Thorny problem.

Honestly, if we are breaking up the victories we could drop the percentage down a lot. It would make getting all four much more difficult and require a full 8 hours of dominance by one side.

This evening I went offline at ~6:30PM (PDT) (that is just over halfway for the NA timephase) and IS had already pushed well into assault. It is not unreasonable to think that we might want to drop the percentage gain by 50% or more.

[Danjo San]

Cato Zilks, on 06 February 2017 - 10:52 PM, said:

Honestly, if we are breaking up the victories we could drop the percentage down a lot. It would make getting all four much more difficult and require a full 8 hours of dominance by one side.

This evening I went offline at ~6:30PM (PDT) (that is just over halfway for the NA timephase) and IS had already pushed well into assault. It is not unreasonable to think that we might want to drop the percentage gain by 50% or more.

Yeah I think the gain can be dropped especially as there most likely still be one or two planets flipping at the of the phase

[1 21 Giggawatts]

This is so much better than the all or nothing system thats in place now - how do we take this to PGI? I dont think they read the FW forums much.

And agreed you would need to change the percentage / win to a maximum of 2% i think. Please drop skirmish replace skirmish segments with increased invasion. Not sure about domination, I dont really mind it, but I love a good brawl :-P

10xDom-10xConquest-10xAssault-20xInvasion Job Done :-)

[Cato Zilks]

There is not a clear way to submit things to them. I tweeted this thread at him earlier, but he gets a lot tweeted at him. Try reaching out when you have the chance. Tweet, email, do what you can. I have asked to be allowed to organize stuff here, no response as of yet.

[BearFlag]

Cato Zilks, on 06 February 2017 - 10:52 PM, said:

Honestly, if we are breaking up the victories we could drop the percentage down a lot. It would make getting all four much more difficult and require a full 8 hours of dominance by one side.

This evening I went offline at ~6:30PM (PDT) (that is just over halfway for the NA timephase) and IS had already pushed well into assault. It is not unreasonable to think that we might want to drop the percentage gain by 50% or more.

I like the idea. The smaller bump would make the 'pegged bar' more distant. Meanwhile, the 2.5% width of each mode should make stagnation pretty rare.

If one mode were dropped, the width would be 3.125%. I would not venture to suggest one, since any choice will upset someone.

OK. I'll venture.

Skirmish seems to be mentioned most often. It lacks a game shortening victory condition. The kill all condition takes every match to the bitter end with spawn camping a more common occurrence. Of course, Skirmish could be easily fixed by Auto-victory/Mission Abort conditions to mitigate run-away matches.

Ultimately, there's a balance to be found in the number of planets, number of modes and the per game size of the increment.

[Cato Zilks]

The bar is fully to the left with 4 hours to go. We should implement these changes with each battle marking 1%.

[Holy Jackson]

Also this way if there is a big scrum one day and the winning side only moves the bar past one planet, then only one planet flips, but that's better than none and units are still getting rewards.

Now if there was only a way to get a reward if you're part of a small or mostly non cw unit. Maybe giving mc to everybody on the team that pushed the bar over the planet capture edge? Comp 12 man groups will still get this most often, but at least then the little units have a chance.

I'm thinking back to the frustration of the DIS offensive and hammering away for 8 hours only to miss the 4 planet flip by a sliver.

[QueenBlade]

Tug of War system that changes the mode based on Phases of 20% for each side of the line.
0-20% : Skirmish
21 - 40%: Conquest
41 - 60%: Domination
61 - 80%: Assault
81 - 100%: Invasion

Players have been requesting more randomization towards Game modes. If possible, I’m wondering if the engine could handle changing the value of a variable based on the changing of the tug of war bar. As the bar crosses into the different thresholds that would normally change the gamemode, how bout instead it would change the weights of the possible gamemode that would get picked.

Example: 0-20%: Skirmish = 1
Conquest = .8
Domination = .6
Assault = .4
Invasion = .2
21-40: S = .8
C = 1
D = .8
A = .6
I = .4
41-60: S = .6
C = .8
D = 1
A = .8
I = .6
61-80: S = .4
C = .6
D = .8
A = 1
I = .8
80-100: S = .2
C = .4
D = .6
A = .8
I = 1

[Cato Zilks]

QueenBlade, on 24 February 2017 - 03:17 PM, said:

Tug of War system that changes the mode based on Phases of 20% for each side of the line.
0-20% : Skirmish
21 - 40%: Conquest
41 - 60%: Domination
61 - 80%: Assault
81 - 100%: Invasion

Players have been requesting more randomization towards Game modes. If possible, I’m wondering if the engine could handle changing the value of a variable based on the changing of the tug of war bar. As the bar crosses into the different thresholds that would normally change the gamemode, how bout instead it would change the weights of the possible gamemode that would get picked.

Example: 0-20%: Skirmish = 1
Conquest = .8
Domination = .6
Assault = .4
Invasion = .2
21-40: S = .8
C = 1
D = .8
A = .6
I = .4
41-60: S = .6
C = .8
D = 1
A = .8
I = .6
61-80: S = .4
C = .6
D = .8
A = 1
I = .8
80-100: S = .2
C = .4
D = .6
A = .88
I = 1

If they could do that, it would be awesome. But by making the game mode slivers so small it is very unlikely that we will get stuck in one game mode. Each zone has only 3 or 4 matches.

[Cato Zilks]

bump

[Tarl Cabot]

The issue is not the divisions nor the percentage of each win, the issue is each section is the SEED for all the drops happening at that time, be it 2 teams (1 combat drop) or 42 teams (21 combat drops). For the 1 combat drop, a win moves the line over 3.3%. Each sector is 6 mini-sectors so starting with skirmish, it will take Team A 7 straight skirmish wins to move into the next sector.

Now, increase the number of combat drops to 21 launching within a few minutes of each other and finishing up with a few minutes of each other. 11 wins vs 10 loses. That line has been moved over one mini-sector or 3.3%. The game can have drops like that all day, all night and have that line move a tad one way or a tad the other way unless one faction is really steamrolling the other faction.

Any revisions on the percentage for each mode will not change the above if wins/loses are not lopsided. Each wave should be made up of x-amount of modes, seeded by which mode sector the line is on, so as a unit drops, they take one rung of the ladder and the ladder/wave does not have to include all modes, just the seeded, one other than siege mode, such as 4 skirmish, 3 conquest, 2 siege. The rung or sector the game is at may still not move much if wins/loses even out but more than one mode would be possible.

With that said, changing the layout so if one side does move towards the end of the scale, each sector mode would be 5 sections (3.3%), leaving Siege sector a total of 33% or 10 sections. Now when the scale gets to the Siege, it breaks down to 4 siege drops + 2 random modes.

Team 1 -4 are on siege, the 5th and 6th units get skirmish and conquest. The next unit to drop, provided the line is still in siege mode, would loop back around to siege 1. Again, it is using the meter to determine which mode is seeded first but towards the end it is not pure siege but emphasis is on siege maps.

edit Queenblade method would be more randomize while mine is more... lined up.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 12 April 2017 - 06:55 PM.

[Cato Zilks]

Cato Zilks, on 05 February 2017 - 01:29 PM, said:

Here is my picture of the bar fully fleshed out:



The bar inside of the invasion segment represents the capture line and an important split in matches. I think the "invader" should only be assigned "attacks" until that line is crossed and after that line it goes to a random selection for which side gets to attack or defend. I do this as I think the defenders should have some advantage.

The original goal of Hobbles, I think, was to vary up our matches. So here are the benefits to this kind of bar.
1) planets are not 4 or nothing; only in the most extreme cases of imbalance will we all 4 and extreme cases of balance will we get 0.

2) given that most sections are only three battles wide, it will be rare to get stuck in one type of battle. It is likely that early timezone players will get a taste of Siege, and last time zone will get some skirmish.

3) It can reward factions like FRR for carrying their weight, and punish Kurita and Clan Wolf for being bad (Wolf is the worst clan, but has taken the most planets.)

4) It does not suffer the randomization problems that Russ addressed before (eg. people complaining that "I always get 'X'!"

5) It is not complicated and can be implemented with little hassle by PGI.

[MischiefSC]

A wider, more consistent variety is good. At this point I don't even care how/why. I just want to get some Invasion play in.