New Idea for Rebalancing Maps

[Baby_Sam 614]

I have recently suggested the map score/crystal multiplier to promote less popular maps. That was a pretty intrusive and tough solution to implement given everything else. Now, I have a different suggestion.

 

Let's take Polygon CP. It is one of the most dense score/crystal maps if not the densest one. Let's assume that it is capable of generating 1000 crystals per minute. That is 60 crystals per tank.

 

If we take Monte Carlo, it is one of the sparsest score/crystal maps. [Let's take this assumption for granted even if it is not the case.] It is probably capable of generating 15 crystals per tank. [The actual values should be extracted from actual data.] That is 300 crystals per minute, so in every minute, there is a deficit of 700 crystals.

 

The probability of dropping gold boxes can be used to cover this deficit. For Poly CP, the expectation is that for every 7000 crystals, there is a gold box, i.e. a total of 8000 crystals. To make MC equivalent to that, there needs to be for every 7000/4 = 1,750 crystals enough gold boxes to make it 8000, that is 6.25 gold boxes, so the frequency of gold boxes in Monte Carlo, should be about 6.25 times that of Polygon CP. Naturally, different battle modes should have different probability factors. That means instead of a 1/7000 probability, Monte Carlo should use 25/7000.

 

I believe something like this can be used to balance the popularity of maps.

 

What do you think? :)

[genak138 950]

Yet another awesome idea! :D

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

It is recognized now that increasing fund of battles on certain maps is not the ideal thing to do but that increasing of Golds is still possible. Your idea is also rather intrusive as its suggesting different probabilities for maps of different sizes. Note that to make it uniform, you would have to start with the smaller maps with the lower probability and gradually work up to the larger maps of the game. It is as suiting as the fund counterpart suggestion, however, both are harder to implement compared to telling the server that the box is worth more and putting in the special texture in with it.

 

But whatever the devs are willing to implement to solve this issue, I'm all for. If this is the solution, then so be it.

[jkyle109 69]

Good idea!

[Potatoe10937 165]

i hate math but i was going to create the same suggestion :)

 

+1

 

basicly, (ididnt read the whole topic but i got it xD) some maps generate less crystals becaus its a big map, less ppl or something... 

polygon generates LOTs of crystals becuase of the randomized spawning and kinda random big court 

while sand box example, less ppl, slower crystals <<< ppl still join because its good training but not rlly for cry i guess,,,

 

i agree, for harder maps like Monte Carlo, ive never seen a gold there yet :/ 

admins should take some research time and see which maps are harder to get battle fund higher and make the % of chance for gold higher

[Baby_Sam 614]

It is recognized now that increasing fund of battles on certain maps is not the ideal thing to do but that increasing of Golds is still possible. Your idea is also rather intrusive as its suggesting different probabilities for maps of different sizes. Note that to make it uniform, you would have to start with the smaller maps with the lower probability and gradually work up to the larger maps of the game. It is as suiting as the fund counterpart suggestion, however, both are harder to implement compared to telling the server that the box is worth more and putting in the special texture in with it.

 

But whatever the devs are willing to implement to solve this issue, I'm all for. If this is the solution, then so be it.

The problem with increasing the size of the gold box is that for the example I gave, the size of the MC gold box is 25,000 crystals. If you win one of those, you can take a break for a week. That is too big and infeasible. However, if you make it instead of dropping a gold box every 10 minutes in a small dense map, you drop a gold box every 2 minutes in a huge map, it is not a big deal, especially that it would not disturb the battle too much since most players would be too far from it to make sense to try to go for it.

[dilsharox 2,395]

your idea is related to battle funds & not any changes in maps 

good idea

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

The problem with increasing the size of the gold box is that for the example I gave, the size of the MC gold box is 25,000 crystals. If you win one of those, you can take a break for a week. That is too big and infeasible. However, if you make it instead of dropping a gold box every 10 minutes in a small dense map, you drop a gold box every 2 minutes in a huge map, it is not a big deal, especially that it would not disturb the battle too much since most players would be too far from it to make sense to try to go for it.

Why on earth would it be 25k. That has never been done before and never will; thats not a realistic example. The suggestion intents on increasing the gold from 1,000 to, at the most, 5,000, which was their cap on the recent eSports promotion. If your going to say yours is better, please have a better understanding of what you're speaking of.

 

If every 2 minutes a gold would fall in a large map, it would turn them into gold farms, which I don't know about you, but thats not the goal here. Getting people to just PLAY on the unpopulars and OCCASIONALLY GO FOR GOLD seems more reasonable than dropping seventeen or more  golds per hour.  Or maybe your purpose here is just to get more golds. Whatever. So every 2 minutes while I'm playing a Lost Temple CTF, 90% of players in the battle would disregard flags and search for gold. Great solution.

[Baby_Sam 614]

Why on earth would it be 25k. That has never been done before and never will; thats not a realistic example. The suggestion intents on increasing the gold from 1,000 to, at the most, 5,000, which was their cap on the recent eSports promotion. If your going to say yours is better, please have a better understanding of what you're speaking of.

 

If every 2 minutes a gold would fall in a large map, it would turn them into gold farms, which I don't know about you, but thats not the goal here. Getting people to just PLAY on the unpopulars and OCCASIONALLY GO FOR GOLD seems more reasonable than dropping seventeen or more  golds per hour.  Or maybe your purpose here is just to get more golds. Whatever. So every 2 minutes while I'm playing a Lost Temple CTF, 90% of players in the battle would disregard flags and search for gold. Great solution.

First, let's go over some elementary math. :)

 

In the assumption, the battle fund growth in Poly is 4 times that of Monte Carlo. That means that if it took Poly 7 minutes to gather 7000 crystals and the expectation of 1 gold box, resulting in 8000 crystals total.

 

For Monte Carlo, you would need 4 x 7 minutes = 28 minutes to gather 7000 crystals and the expectation of 1 gold box. In that time, the 28 minutes, Poly would have 4 x 8000 crystals = 32,000 crystals. If you want your 1 gold box to bring the 7000 crystals of Monte Carlo to 32,000 crystals, you would need a gold box of 32,000 - 7,000 = 25,000 crystals. This shows that your proposal is unrealistic as you called it. I just said infeasible, which you can take it to mean the same thing.

 

Now, someone can say we do not need to make MC on par with Poly. Making it halfway is good enough, so that would make it a gold box every 4 minutes, or in your weird proposal a gold box of 12,500 crystals with the normal probability (once every half hour). It is still infeasible.

 

If you find both proposals silly, you have a couple of other options that I can think of.

 

One option is to do with the deficit gold like they did with the change crystal boxes--add it to the battle fund. So you would still drop a normal gold box every half hour in MC, but the battle fund would grow by a 1000 crystals every 2 minutes or whatever.

 

The other option I can think of is to make the gold box probability according to time. That means, make it the expectation is that a gold box would drop every 7 minutes (or whatever) as long as the battle fund is growing but regardless of the rate of its growth. That way, MC would get 4 gold boxes in half an hour, and there will still be a deficit of 32000 - 7000 - 4000 = 21,000 crystals. It is still pretty bad but not as bad as before.

 

I think adding the crystals to the fund is the better option of those, but I still think changing the frequency of gold drops according to map is the better option. If you think 2 minutes is too often, make it 5 and optionally drop the frequency of gold in Poly to 1 in every 15 minutes.

 

Naturally, the easy option is to leave everything as is and let maps die quickly, and maybe add maps as fast as they die.

[C-O-O-L-G-U-Y 131]

I have never thought of this as a factor to why some maps are popular while others arent. Very good thinking! Also another thing to add to this: Big maps take much longer to build a fund on. This is not only becuase its harder to kill others or that there are too many players but rather that it takes a very long time to have enough players on both teams to start playing.

[C-O-O-L-G-U-Y 131]

I mentioned this earlier in another post regarding the exact same thing. "Large maps lag and are boring becuase a team might have 5 or more players defending/camping at a flag which sets a very slow pace to the game. Also these battles take a very long time usually. If you make a Berlin battle it will take maybe 20 minutes just so that people start joining. Players get bored and leave"

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

For Monte Carlo, you would need 4 x 7 minutes = 28 minutes to gather 7000 crystals and the expectation of 1 gold box. In that time, the 28 minutes, Poly would have 4 x 8000 crystals = 32,000 crystals. If you want your 1 gold box to bring the 7000 crystals of Monte Carlo to 32,000 crystals, you would need a gold box of 32,000 - 7,000 = 25,000 crystals. This shows that your proposal is unrealistic as you called it. I just said infeasible, which you can take it to mean the same thing.

This is if your idea was to be implemented WITH mine. You can't mash them together and say that the one is false. My simplistic suggestion doesn't mix with the "elementary math" you call a solution.

 

If you find both proposals silly,

No, I just find your attempts to bash the other silly.

 

Naturally, the easy option is to leave everything as is and let maps die quickly, and maybe add maps as fast as they die.

Huh...Really? ...I wouldn't have known if they hadn't already done that...

[TankDestroyer890 135]

I like the idea

[Baby_Sam 614]

This is if your idea was to be implemented WITH mine. You can't mash them together and say that the one is false. My simplistic suggestion doesn't mix with the "elementary math" you call a solution.

 

No, I just find your attempts to bash the other silly.

 

Huh...Really? ...I wouldn't have known if they hadn't already done that...

I suggest that you brush up on match before you analyze this. I showed you that your suggestion leaves a deficit of 21,000 crystals in half an hour in Monte Carlo. That did not involve mine.

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

The other option I can think of is to make the gold box probability according to time.

So you're talking about your suggestions? I think you're a bit confused mate. Its okay, I was earlier in this spiel where I also assumed a bit much, which I apologize for.

I suggest that you brush up on match before you analyze this. I showed you that your suggestion leaves a deficit of 21,000 crystals in half an hour in Monte Carlo. That did not involve mine.

Please tell me where on this suggestion topic do I speak about anything to do with time or frequency at which a gold drops. That is the topic from which I come over to here from after noticing similarities in goals.

[Baby_Sam 614]

So you're talking about your suggestions? I think you're a bit confused mate. Its okay, I was earlier in this spiel where I also assumed a bit much, which I apologize for.

Please tell me where on this suggestion topic do I speak about anything to do with time or frequency at which a gold drops. That is the topic from which I come over to here from after noticing similarities in goals.

Okay, I think I know where the confusion came from.

 

First, my suggestion that I provided here without knowing anything about your other thread was an improvement on my previous suggestion that was simply associating a factor for each map to multiply the battle fund by, e.g. Poly 1, Monte Carlo 4, etc. That means for the same act you would get more funds. I called that map score/crystal multiplier.

 

The current suggestion I provided here was about focusing on the rewards and leaving the score as is. My suggestion was using a probability multiplier for the gold boxes, so there would be enough gold boxes in Monte Carlo that if you played there on the average you would earn as many crystals as you would if you played in Poly.

 

You came and said that is too many gold boxes, and that disturbs the game play. I actually do not think it is that bad. You suggested (in this thread as I understood it) that instead use bigger gold boxes for the less fortunate maps.

 

In answer to your suggestion, I showed you that if we went with your suggestion and wanted to make Monte Carlo on par with Poly, the gold box size would be 25000 crystals, and that is ridiculous as we both agree. You said 5000 crystals is enough. I showed that that 5000 crystals would not bring the crystal deficit down by much. Instead of being down by 25000 crystals, you would be down by 20,000 crystals in half an hour. That is still huge, and I would never play Monte Carlo for that.

 

Because one of us or the other does not accept the other's suggestions so far, I put forth two new suggestions: One is to grow the battle fund by the deficit (just like they said they did with the old crystal boxes), so that way the Monte Carlo battle fund after half an hour would be 28,000 crystals (given the activity levels are equal). This option is not likely to be taken. The other alternate option I provided was to cut the deficit by half or tone down the gold box probability in the fortunate maps to remove the deficit but still increase the gold box probability in Monte Carlo so it would happen every 5 minutes as compared with Polygon 15 minutes.

 

I hope this clears the misunderstanding and shows that I am not confused. :)

[jazz20 1,181]

Interesting idea ;)

[Vikingsrallentando 3,058]

Bump. *bows*