Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

two players against one, in the mode of three points. How to win provided that you are on the Agamemnon, and the players of the opposing team on Indefatigable, and the second on rename, which captures the point, is it possible for people to make a fair balance, not least mirrored in the number of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kill the Other teams ai.  They will track the players just have to go with flow on keeping Boats out of Cap.  Any match can be won if you play smart.

But I agree 3 points need to go

Edited by JobaSet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JobaSet said:

Kill the Other teams ai.  They will track the players just have to go with flow on keeping Boats out of Cap.  Any match can be won if you play smart.

While this statement is true, it is not reliably accurate. Yes it is possible, in a few battles to win if the "flow" is going your way and you play smart. Just as it would be possible to lose any engagement if the "flow" was not going your way and you played dumb. In fact I would say that winning or losing in a mismatch is more up to the player who has most of the cards in his hand. These mismatches can possibly be won if everything goes your way and the other guys is drunk off his rocker. Better it would be better if there were a more equal distribution of assets on a more consistent basis. Unfortunately with the game at its current level of population this is difficult to manifest. One must assume at this point in development that you will have to suffer through some pretty unequal contests. I am sure it will get better with time, at least I hope it will.

 

I of course mean no disrespect to JobaSet. I just want the OP to know that there are others that feel his pain. I personally feel that there are truly unwinnable matches except by exploiting the circles. Which makes for dull play on both sides. These matches shouldn't be foisted on players, as it is not good for the game in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, rosebud2 said:

These matches shouldn't be foisted on players, as it is not good for the game in general.

 

Nothing is foisted on you. You decided to play this game in EA, suffer the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Galileus said:

 

Nothing is foisted on you. You decided to play this game in EA, suffer the consequences.

Maybe you misunderstood the context of the statement. A reread of the surrounding sentences might be in order. Matches that are truly unbalanced are not good for the game. They are unwanted in general, so the term foisted is used properly in this instance. As for suffering the consequences, I guess, however I believe its better to work toward improving the circumstance. If all you have to offer is "if you don't like it, lump it" then you've not much to offer at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't tell you one way or the other if "foisted" was used right or wrong in the sentence. What I can tell is that the balance problem posed by this thread is related to low population situation we're facing in EA, and as such looking for solutions to said "problem" is counterproductive. This is EA, this is going to face a series of EA related problems, fixing them should not be priority.

 

Improving the circumstances is a fool's job. The circumstances will automatically get improved on launch, and if afterwards the game falls down to 30 pop it - the problem is how to raise it to playable levels, not how to keep it on life support.

 

And yes, this is what I have to offer, and if you're going to point out that's "not much", I would at least expect you to shine by example and do better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 12:00 PM, Galileus said:

I couldn't tell you one way or the other if "foisted" was used right or wrong in the sentence. What I can tell is that the balance problem posed by this thread is related to low population situation we're facing in EA, and as such looking for solutions to said "problem" is counterproductive. This is EA, this is going to face a series of EA related problems, fixing them should not be priority.

 

Improving the circumstances is a fool's job. The circumstances will automatically get improved on launch, and if afterwards the game falls down to 30 pop it - the problem is how to raise it to playable levels, not how to keep it on life support.

 

And yes, this is what I have to offer, and if you're going to point out that's "not much", I would at least expect you to shine by example and do better.

If you would please take the time to reread my original post, you will find that I had already put most of your concerns to bed.

Low population and balance (quote) "Unfortunately with the game at its current level of population this is difficult to manifest (meaning balance)" CHECK.

EA related problems (quote) "One must assume at this point in development that you will have to suffer through some pretty unequal contests" CHECK.*

*note that I did not mention the need for them to be fixed at this point.

 We are actually on the same page here, as you reiterated my points. The hard nosed "just deal with it" attitude of your first post was out of line in my opinion, hence my reply. If my pushback against that attitude seems harsh, I apologize. We are approaching the same solution from different tacks. Mine was just a touch softer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The balancer is one of the most common complaints at this stage

Currently the balance allows you to see ships 2.5 BR lower or 2.5 br higher than yours.
Bots could be causing problems with balancer for 2 reasons
we switched off player priority from them
we reduced their effectiveness (caved in to complaints that bots fight too well)

As a result the following battle is no longer balanced
player           player
player           player
player           bot
player           bot
bot                bot
bot                bot

The team on the left will always win despite balanced numbers in BR even if the right team is stronger

Maybe for this stage we should allow them prioritize players again and buff them back so you don't feel disadvantaged and actually would prefer bots as team mates.
Also we need to remove tower maps (which steal kills) until boarding towers come back
And we need to remove all 3 circle maps and bring back open sea combat in addition to 1 circle battle

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin said:

The balancer is one of the most common complaints at this stage

Currently the balance allows you to see ships 2.5 BR lower or 2.5 br higher than yours.
Bots could be causing problems with balancer for 2 reasons
we switched off player priority from them
we reduced their effectiveness (caved in to complaints that bots fight too well)

As a result the following battle is no longer balanced
player           player
player           player
player           bot
player           bot
bot                bot
bot                bot

The team on the left will always win despite balanced numbers in BR even if the right team is stronger

Maybe for this stage we should allow them prioritize players again and buff them back so you don't feel disadvantaged and actually would prefer bots as team mates.
Also we need to remove tower maps (which steal kills) until boarding towers come back
And we need to remove all 3 circle maps and bring back open sea combat in addition to 1 circle battle

 

3 circle battles or even more circles(like 5) just need to change some.  Taken one at a time and not all at same time.  A progressive Cap, 1 for each side/team as a base then fight over the middle then you can cap the/a base.  type thing. That will stop the running(ers) cold. 

But if you don't want to do that much work, just make bow chain work like it use to and Stern Chain Chasers not as effective like they use to be.  As is just one person can Stop a 20-30 min game turn it into a 1 hour game with no one winning.  (This may have changed as I won a game when time ran out yesterday not why but I had points, maybe they fixed this)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a veteran of the WoT, WoWP, WoWS, I can say that you will face much more brutal match ups, more often in those games, than you will in this one. To me the inequality in NAL is at it worst when the human player is placed in a battle as the smallest ship. The feeling that you can not influence the outcome against bots is demoralizing. Defeating your contemporary on the opposite side, only to watch your cannon balls bounce harmlessly off every other ship is frustrating. I believe that is what the OP was lamenting. As for the general balance, meaning team vs. team, I think the balance is spot on. I can think of only a few battles that consisted of ships that were not similar. For the majority they are same vs. same. As far as I'm concerned that is about as fair as you can get at this point.

 

The circles are necessary to keep a badly beaten opponent from just running away and dragging out a conflict. At some point if larger contests are added, then three circles might work. At this point they are unnecessary. One is enough to prevent the type of player that just doesn't want to sink and is willing to avoid fire till the hour ends.  My one caveat to this would be if you started ships in different areas. ie. One to the north, three to the center, two to the south. then the three circle format would serve a purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×