in NA we have the cavaliers. But that is like 7 people on at the same time at max, usually just 2 or 3 on at a time if any.
We Have GG which is really just smoothrich and badplayer and tydeus on cav
although we have those times when 10 really good cav (from different clans) will all choose the same banner to be balanced together, and roll everybody that doesn't stick together. It's horrifying to pub play. The rounds last a minute or so and maps change fast. However, that happens maybe once a week for like 30 minutes at max on NA. Rare, really.
BACK ON TOPIC:
I honestly like the current balance system, it isn't as bad as most people put it out to be, it usually results in pretty close games. The problem is that it isn't always even AND NEVER WILL BE. Generally, what people suggest to fix it would either result in even worse balance (class-based instead of skill based system, etc, etc).
What people don't understand is that cRPG is so incredibly volatile as a a battle system. If One good player does good one map, but misses a block/gets hit by an arrow and dies the next map right away -- the entire team's fighting potential is permanently changed for that round. It causes a cascade effect of who he WOULD have killed suddenly being alive and able to kill OTHER people. multiply that by 20 people vs 20 people (for a representation of a smaller scale battle) and you can see how balance systems are going to be incredibly fucked up all the time.
The thing is, when one team gets rolled horribly twice in a row, if they stick together and play safe they almost ALWAYS roll the other team in reverse -- even when people say it is "clan stacked" "banner stacked" etc.
I don't know. Making it a class based balance system (infantry/ranged/cavalry) would make the distribution of classes more even, more bland. If you make it balance based on classes it has to balance based LESS on individual effect to the team. Ie; 2 good cav + 2 good infantry + 3 decent archers vs 2 decent infantry + 2 bad cav + 3 decent archers. We know how that will end up. If it had distributed them based on impact into the game (what it currently does after the INITIAL first round' banner balance) it would result in a more balanced game... what we currently have (and by god what we currently have isn't good)
The problem is you guys are looking for an algorithm that can't exist to really fix this more than what we already have. if one team is unbalanced, it will put more people on one side to even it -- move an influential player to the other side to make it even. What we have is sadly, really the best option. cRPG is volatile.
tl;dr Nobody has suggested anything better than what we currently have, and I don't know if anyone ever will. Banner balance was implemented and resounded happily by everybody for a long time for a simple reason: We like to be able to play with our friends. When it gets turned off for any amount of time, people start to complain WAY MORE about not being with friends than they do about the slight balancing of the FIRST ROUND...
