Ultimate Balance thread (never will need to balance again if you do this)

[CrazyCracka420]

Balance the teams better based on the classes of the player.  Also balance based on the equipment used (so that people with 3 riding who are on foot aren't considered cavalry).

This is the way I would balance teams, highest in the list, is the variable weighted the most:

Skills of the player (to determine a "class")
Equipment used
Banner used

The classes AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE BALANCED.  Ranged is supposed to be strong at hitting you from a distance, and weak up close.  Pikemen are supposed to be good when they have a buddy assisting them, but weak vs 1v1.  These are just 2 examples, every class and playstyle has strengths and weaknesses.  That's what makes this game so great.  Not every peasant with a torch is supposed to be able to survive against great lancers bearing down on them.  That's kind of the point.

Do a decent job balancing the teams, and you will never have to hear people bitching and complaining about the classes being unbalanced.
If people want to stomp the enemies into the ground with the most overpowered and unbalanced team, and gear, they can.  It's called STRATEGUS (or setup a scrimmage).  Public servers should never, ever be the domain of stomping grounds.  Pub stomps aren't cool, but cRPG encourages it...what's up with that?

Also while you're at it, change the experience/gold system so that you're not punished for having teams that are well balanced.

[CrazyCracka420]

Just to note, I think whenever possible (or even if it's only going to throw the classes off by 1 or 2 on each side) you should keep people with the same banner together.  Also I think with this system, if one person is raping and is part of a larger faction, you'd still keep them with their faction mates since you already balanced based on skill/class.

Also it may not work to balance on equipment due to people not always using the same gear every round.  So maybe take that out of the equation.

[San]

First, balance by distributing based on the worth value we already have.

Use a hierarchy:

horse+ranged
horse
bow
shield+1h
Weapons labeled as 'support' (would be most 2D polearms, many anti-cav weapons)
Xbow/Thrower
Everyone else that is none of the above.

Banner balance within each class by comparing total worth of each banner(same class more likely to stick together). If the numbers are too split, move some people around starting from the highest level banner. Having one strong banner against 3 weaker ones has to be avoided.

The ones at the top overlap the ones beneath, in the case of hybrids.

Obviously it has many flaws with hybrids, but it's a start without looking into a character's wpf spread.

I think if the numbers aren't that different, it wouldn't matter if people switched equipment, unless it was a massive shift. Even so, why use suboptimal equipment?

[Joker86]

The classes AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE BALANCED.  Ranged is supposed to be strong at hitting you from a distance, and weak up close.  Pikemen are supposed to be good when they have a buddy assisting them, but weak vs 1v1.  These are just 2 examples, every class and playstyle has strengths and weaknesses.  That's what makes this game so great.  Not every peasant with a torch is supposed to be able to survive against great lancers bearing down on them.  That's kind of the point.

Do a decent job balancing the teams, and you will never have to hear people bitching and complaining about the classes being unbalanced.

I think you are understanding the word "balanced" in a wrong way. A balanced class doesn't mean it is equally good against every enemy. It rather means that the advantages and disadvantages are of the same extend, giving you an average winning chance of 50% on long term.

Of cource classes have strengthes and weaknesses. But still they ARE supposed to be balanced. Following your definition of balance, you could also have Space Marines as a class, with 120 armour and Bolters who hit with 150 piercing damage, fully automatic, of course. As long as both teams have the same amount of Space Marines, you consider the game balanced. And regarding the outcome of the round it probably is, because the deciding factors are distributed evenly among the teams. But the deciding factors are NOT distributed evenly among the players, because only those with a Space Marine character have fun, the rest is just meat for the meat grinder. You see what I am aiming at?

Yes, the teams need to be balanced, of course. And yes, all classes have strengthes and weaknesses. But at the end of the day all classes need to be equally powerfull. So having a working team balance will always be only one part of the solution.

[Life]

C-rpg will not be nerfing or buffing because you refuse to use teamwork or tactics.  Have a good day sir

[oohillac]

C-rpg will not be nerfing or buffing because you refuse to use teamwork or tactics.  Have a good day sir

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


my sides

In all seriousness, here are some patterns I've noticed:

people who face "cav-stacking" refuse to carry a cheap polearm (bamboo, trident, fork, etc), despite having spare slots
ranged refuse to shoot at horses
let's all try to face packs of enemies/good duelists one at a time
peasants bring short weapons instead of polearms
2h complain about "archer-stacking," yet refuse to drop IF or WM for some Shield skill

All of these "team imbalances" can be remedied with little effort.  This isn't a game issue, it is a player mindset issue.

Banner-stacking can be whacky, yes, but applying the above can mitigate the supposed imbalances.

[Joker86]

In all seriousness, here are some patterns I've noticed:

people who face "cav-stacking" refuse to carry a cheap polearm (bamboo, trident, fork, etc), despite having spare slots
ranged refuse to shoot at horses
let's all try to face packs of enemies/good duelists one at a time
peasants bring short weapons instead of polearms
2h complain about "archer-stacking," yet refuse to drop IF or WM for some Shield skill

All of these "team imbalances" can be remedied with little effort.  This isn't a game issue, it is a player mindset issue.

Banner-stacking can be whacky, yes, but applying the above can mitigate the supposed imbalances.

It can, but yet it shouldn't be something you can expect or demand from the players, as it requires to change their build.

Let's take the shield example for 2hd. Having less IF or WM affects you directly in your "duels", which is what the 2hd class is made for. The shield skill only affects you on your way to the duels, where you can be shot. But as soon as you draw your man weapon, the invested skill points have no use any more => wasted. And if you are putting emphasis on speed, the weight of the shield will slow you down considerably. Let alone the additional upkeep costs.

Of course a 2hd player should be more vulnerable to enemy fire than a shielder, there is nothing wrong with it. And if a 2hd players wants to make his build less specialized and more, I say hybridized, then it is perfectly fine to trade some deadliness for flexibility/toughness. The problem I have is when people expect certain classes to hybridize that way by default. If the game becomes near to unplayble if you do NOT invest into a shield and get shot to pieces due to an excessive amount and/or unbalanced deadliness of archers, the problem does not lie in the missing will of most 2hd to bear a shield.

Note that this is an example and I am not a 2hd hero or don't think that archers are too deadly or something like that. It is only to show mechanics.

Don't expect people to change their builds. Pure builds should be as effective as mixed builds. People should be forbidden to say "go get a shield/spear/melee weapon", at least in my opinion.

[Malaclypse]

Dozens of posts have been made over the months requesting a change in the way teams are balanced. Encouraging pub-stomps is and always has been lame, even when I've been on the side receiving the multi. I too would like stat/skill/gear to be taken into greater account than anything else when balancing teams. I like playing with my CHAOS bros on my team, but I'm fine playing against them too.

I'll acknowledge that the whole "balance stack" that comes along with banners is a desirable thing mostly because round victory has a direct impact on character progression. If the way XP and gold are earned ever veers away from this system, there would be absolutely no reason to continue balancing primarily by banner.

[oohillac]

It can, but yet it shouldn't be something you can expect or demand from the players, as it requires to change their build.
Let's take the shield example for 2hd. Having less IF or WM affects you directly in your "duels", which is what the 2hd class is made for. The shield skill only affects you on your way to the duels, where you can be shot. But as soon as you draw your man weapon, the invested skill points have no use any more => wasted. And if you are putting emphasis on speed, the weight of the shield will slow you down considerably. Let alone the additional upkeep costs.

"Duels" are on the duel server, where there is no cavalry or archers.  Duel builds are not the same as Battle builds, just as those two are not the same as Siege builds (strength-heavy, no riding).

The way you put this, it sounds like you see carrying a shield or polearm as some huge skill investment.  It's not.

Trading 1 or 2 points for 1-2 Shield is nothing.  For a Battle mode build, having an arrowsoaker for such a small investment is certainly not too much to ask, and "additional upkeep costs" would be nothing.

Carrying a low-level polearm for anticav purposes requires zero WPF investment, and a bamboo, trident, or military fork will not affect upkeep.

People should be forbidden to say "go get a shield/spear/melee weapon", at least in my opinion.

This is ridiculous.  Using knowledge of basic game mechanics (spears stop horses, shields block arrows) should be encouraged. 

[CrazyCracka420]

(click to show/hide)

I think you are understanding the word "balanced" in a wrong way. A balanced class doesn't mean it is equally good against every enemy. It rather means that the advantages and disadvantages are of the same extend, giving you an average winning chance of 50% on long term.

Of cource classes have strengthes and weaknesses. But still they ARE supposed to be balanced. Following your definition of balance, you could also have Space Marines as a class, with 120 armour and Bolters who hit with 150 piercing damage, fully automatic, of course. As long as both teams have the same amount of Space Marines, you consider the game balanced. And regarding the outcome of the round it probably is, because the deciding factors are distributed evenly among the teams. But the deciding factors are NOT distributed evenly among the players, because only those with a Space Marine character have fun, the rest is just meat for the meat grinder. You see what I am aiming at?

Yes, the teams need to be balanced, of course. And yes, all classes have strengthes and weaknesses. But at the end of the day all classes need to be equally powerfull. So having a working team balance will always be only one part of the solution.

So what's the weakness of the space marines?  i think you are misunderstanding my view point.  I'm not saying we should just let certain classes be overpowered with no weakneses, and no counters (besides themselves).  Every class should, and currently does, have a counter that is not the same class.  My whole point was that "too many cavalry" or "too many archers" aren't the problem.  The problem only occurs when too many cavalry or archers are stacked on one team.  They aren't OP by themselves in a vacuum.  They are weak to other classes and situations. 

And hooli, you know I agree with you, and I think the players should be required to adapt to the conditions on the battle field.  Even playing devil's advocate and taking Joker's stance on the subject, which I disagree with, one could say those 2h's with no shield skill, no ranged, no riding, and no shield, could still easily adapt to the situation by protecting an archer, or protecting a pikeman, or standing behind a shielder.

[Joker86]

"Duels" are on the duel server, where there is no cavalry or archers.  Duel builds are not the same as Battle builds, just as those two are not the same as Siege builds (strength-heavy, no riding).

This is true. But with the word "duel" I just wanted to make clear what most 2hd players are specializing for: the moment when they enter melee with one or more enemies. Most of them neglect their abilities/skills considering other stages of a battle to exceed in melee, and in my opinion this is a valid strategy, because I am also a supporter of the philosophy "specialists > allrounders". But that's a question of personal taste. Like your opinion that there are different builds for different game modes.

The way you put this, it sounds like you see carrying a shield or polearm as some huge skill investment.  It's not.

Trading 1 or 2 points for 1-2 Shield is nothing.  For a Battle mode build, having an arrowsoaker for such a small investment is certainly not too much to ask, and "additional upkeep costs" would be nothing.

Carrying a low-level polearm for anticav purposes requires zero WPF investment, and a bamboo, trident, or military fork will not affect upkeep.

For people who want to min/max and reach certain builds every point is valuable. Ask Artie, who made a build where one point in WPF was missing to be able to use 13 Power Throw. Do you think he got any points left for anything else?
 
In my eyes everything which forces you to move away from your desired build to not suck on the battlefield is asked too much. It can't be that we have different classes on the battlefield, and still every player is forced to be a mixture of different classes to persist somehow. It goes against the idea of personal freedom in building your character, against the idea of variety on the battlefield and against the concept of teamplay.

This is ridiculous.  Using knowledge of basic game mechanics (spears stop horses, shields block arrows) should be encouraged.

As should specializing on one aspect of the game to achieve maximum performance. In this particular aspect, of course. If you want t stop horses or to block arrows, play the corresponding classes. The game should be playable even without the possibility to stop horses and block arrows. That's why you can't request players to spec as hybrid. The "natural" amount of classes and their combination should be enough as a prereqesite for fair battles. The natural amount of pure shielders should be enough to cover a team against the natural amount of archers, and the natural amount of spearmen/pikers should be enough to cover the natural amount of cavalry. Skill and tactics have to win battles, not certain class combinations. That is why you class should not have impact on your success. And that is why you can't tell people to change their class. And yes, already 1 or 2 points are a change, as I stated above.

[Joker86]

So what's the weakness of the space marines?  i think you are misunderstanding my view point.  I'm not saying we should just let certain classes be overpowered with no weakneses, and no counters (besides themselves).  Every class should, and currently does, have a counter that is not the same class.  My whole point was that "too many cavalry" or "too many archers" aren't the problem.  The problem only occurs when too many cavalry or archers are stacked on one team.  They aren't OP by themselves in a vacuum.  They are weak to other classes and situations.

THat was the way I interpreted "classes are not meant to be balanced". I thought you wanted to say: "If there are differences in the effectivity of certain classes players won't notice them that much when the teams are always fair, because they will negate each other", something like that. Because you said in your title you don't need to balance ever again if you do it, which sounds to me like you could later implement handgonns and whatever (I know this will never happen), and you don't need to balance them, because there will be an equal amount of them in each team.

Even playing devil's advocate and taking Joker's stance on the subject, which I disagree with, one could say those 2h's with no shield skill, no ranged, no riding, and no shield, could still easily adapt to the situation by protecting an archer, or protecting a pikeman, or standing behind a shielder.

That is what I wanted to say. I don't say it is dumb or bad to have a build which is hybridized. But if you don't want to hybridzie, which is your good right, you shouldn't be punished. If the community reaches 80% archer percentage, not having a shield will most likely lead to your frequent death before you even reach melee. It would be wrong to say that it is your own fault that you don't have a shield, because this would mean that a shield always belongs to a proper 2hd build, which is wrong. Especially if you wield an unsheathable two handed weapon. The entire design of the classes would change with the "get a shield" philosophy in such a case. The devs would have to do something about that archer percentage, so that shields become an option again, not a neccessity.