Declined Handicap battle fund in PRO battles based on map popularity

[LittleWillie 3,199]

The PRO battle section allows players to create battles on dozens of maps.

 

Players actually create battles on about a half-dozen maps. This is done because a few maps allow for large Cry pay outs. Unfortunately those battles are repetitive. The potential variety TO offers goes un-used. 

 

Variety would improve if the battle fund grew exponentially faster the less often a given map was out into play in the PRO section.  

 

Island CTF and Sandbox account for well over half the games in play at a given time. Poly CP amounts to an even higher proportion of PRO CP games. Payouts would remain the same on these over-used maps. Parma CTF (random example) games are, in short, never seen. Payouts on these maps would be set much higher.

 

Each day's server update could include breakdown of usage over the past seven days. The Battle Fund on any map / mode that had not played at all during the past week would grow (example) 4x as fast as normal. Map / modes amounting to less than 0.1% of games played grow at 3,5x and so forth. The less often played the greater the bonus,

 

The PRO section should offer the most variety in game play but in practice it offers virtually none. Players go where the easy Cry can be had. Since players create 1`00% of all PRO battles, the game should provide strong incentiv to use the available maps.

 

 

[Maf 32,333]

Under review

Declined

 

I actually posted pretty much this exact idea a while ago :P

 

Although I no longer think it's necessary. Normal battles already have randomised maps, meaning that each map has an equal chance of being created and therefore they are all equally popular. But when it comes to PRO battles, I think it's best to let players choose whichever map they want to play on without punishing/penalising them for their preference.

[LittleWillie 3,199]

Under review

 

I actually posted pretty much this exact idea a while ago :P

 

Although I no longer think it's necessary. Normal battles already have randomised maps, meaning that each map has an equal chance of being created and therefore they are all equally popular. But when it comes to PRO battles, I think it's best to let players choose whichever map they want to play on without punishing/penalising them for their preference.

Giving a bonus is "punishment" how? That is exactly why I suggested a bonus ratehr than the "punishment" route - which would be to reduce payout of Poly CP etc.

 

I did not propose this for normal battlles. I proposed this for the PRO section only. There is no way to deny the lack of variety here.

 

Players could still choose any damn map theylike. But guess what? Some players will choose to make a lot more Cry.

 

I CANNOT chose the maps I want, because 99% of the players in PRO go straight for the meantgrinders. Rather I can "choose" them but the effort is futile.

 

Why perpetuate a flawed system? I am not saying this is the exact fix, but it is an attempt. The PRO system today is flawed badly. 

I just read your posted that you linked. Yes it is essentially the same idea, down to the 7-day usage concept. =The only difference is I aply it to the PRO section only.

[a7x_Pedro48 13,999]

I like your idea Willie.

 

And I agree, pro battles are a joke. I always try to find a Subway, a Bobruisk, a Novel battle, but I always find Sandbox, Zone, Polygon, Noise...

 

I think that each week, developers should pick one or two unpopular maps, and make funds x2 for a whole week, only in those maps.

 

Like, week 1 : Deatchtrack and Esplanade : funds x2.

 

Week 2 : Gravity and Magadan : funds x2 (and back to normal funds for Deathtrack and Esplanade).

 

Week 3 : Sandal and Short Bridge : funds x2.

 

And so on. There are literally like 25 maps or more that are very rare. Factory, Gubakha, Opposition.... But developers don't want to promote those maps...

[LittleWillie 3,199]

I like your idea Willie.

 

And I agree, pro battles are a joke. I always try to find a Subway, a Bobruisk, a Novel battle, but I always find Sandbox, Zone, Polygon, Noise...

 

I think that each week, developers should pick one or two unpopular maps, and make funds x2 for a whole week, only in those maps.

 

Like, week 1 : Deatchtrack and Esplanade : funds x2.

 

Week 2 : Gravity and Magadan : funds x2 (and back to normal funds for Deathtrack and Esplanade).

 

Week 3 : Sandal and Short Bridge : funds x2.

 

And so on. There are literally like 25 maps or more that are very rare. Factory, Gubakha, Opposition.... But developers don't want to promote those maps...

That is another way to approach it and it has the advantage of being simpler.

 

Last Christmas season I suggested something like that, a featured map of the week  with special missions on it.  The payouts would be bigger than normal if not as large as the holiday specials. There was almost always a full game to be found on the Christmas map. And a featured map would at least rotate some variety.

 

If I were the game owner and had all these maps representing all that hard work .... I would take it as a point of honor to try to see that effort got used!  The number of maps available in TO is actually extremely impressive. But what gets played? Poly CP, Noise. Sandbox. Arena. Zzzzz. Oh wait that last one isn't a map.

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

Or maybe just let players create normal battles without PRO pass, that will solve sooo many problems.

[Maf 32,333]

Giving a bonus is "punishment" how? That is exactly why I suggested a bonus ratehr than the "punishment" route - which would be to reduce payout of Poly CP etc.

I may have missed the part where you say that unpopular maps get a bonus  :rolleyes:

 

The only difference is I aply it to the PRO section only.

Back when I suggested that, there wasn't such a strong difference between PRO and normal battles :P

[LittleWillie 3,199]

I may have missed the part where you say that unpopular maps get a bonus  :rolleyes:

 

Back when I suggested that, there wasn't such a strong difference between PRO and normal battles :P

Well that would explain it. ... I wasn't criticizing your proposal just highlighting the single difference. If I had known of your proposal I would have just bumped it instead of duplicating it.

 

 

Or maybe just let players create normal battles without PRO pass, that will solve sooo many problems.

 

 

 

 

 

No that would simply fill the basic section with the same 6 maps we see in the Pro section. That is why the change was made. Doing this would kill TO.

[marc.jp_44 20,837]

Although I no longer think it's necessary. Normal battles already have randomised maps, meaning that each map has an equal chance of being created and therefore they are all equally popular. 

I'd still debate this. Yes, they have an equal chance of being created but what's important then is whether the Map survives or not, no? I mean, there could be 10 Tribute battles created but maybe only 6-8 actually attract players. It depends a lot on the Rank Limits too, you'd always go for the rank limit where yours is towards the higher end of the spectrum.

 

TL;DR - even if battles are randomly created and with equal chance, they do not have an equal chance of surviving because people will always go with ones they like and which ones have the best payout. Vikrall is going in depth about this dilemma soon.

[a7x_Pedro48 13,999]

No that would simply fill the basic section with the same 6 maps we see in the Pro section. That is why the change was made. Doing this would kill TO.

If I am correct, soon, with the Match Failing system, all the standard battles will disapear of the battle list. Pro pass will be gone too. So the battle list will be full of battle created by players. Yes we will see a lot of Polygon Sandbox... But maybe we'll have a chance to play some Rift or Short Bridge, maps that will not be available in Match Failing system.

[LittleWillie 3,199]

I'd still debate this. Yes, they have an equal chance of being created but what's important then is whether the Map survives or not, no? I mean, there could be 10 Tribute battles created but maybe only 6-8 actually attract players. It depends a lot on the Rank Limits too, you'd always go for the rank limit where yours is towards the higher end of the spectrum.

 

TL;DR - even if battles are randomly created and with equal chance, they do not have an equal chance of surviving because people will always go with ones they like and which ones have the best payout. Vikrall is going in depth about this dilemma soon.

Oh well this is a very good point. When a Highways map is created (example) you can be sure Shafters looking to join a battle will keep that map going. But the maps do get used several times in a 7-day window. So any bonus under this system would be too small to bother with, probably..

 

If I am correct, soon, with the Match Failing system, all the standard battles will disapear of the battle list. Pro pass will be gone too. So the battle list will be full of battle created by players. Yes we will see a lot of Polygon Sandbox... But maybe we'll have a chance to play some Rift or Short Bridge, maps that will not be available in Match Failing system.

When that happens yes the only battles on the battle list will be PRO battles. So this idea would apply to them but not the MM battles.

[r_trooll15 827]

I like attack, madness, hill, wave, highland, Iran, romance, barda, esplanade, gravity, garder, sandal, solikamsk, Isa, Parma, and Monte Carlo. I don't really see these maps anymore. I rarely see any pro battles at all! When i do, it's poly, sandbox (I like), Alessandro so, and Rio (parkour)

[a7x_Pedro48 13,999]

Romance? It's a new map? ^^

[r_trooll15 827]

Romance? It's a new map? ^^

I played on it and ranked up quite a bit on it. I also met my GF on it, so... yeah.

[caiosilvac 567]

If this were to happen, the grinders would simply move to the next grinding opportunity (Boombox) while getting bigger payouts than usual. Then, when maps like Polygon become unused, everyone would flock back to it, due to the increased rewards/high potential for grinding crystals. It would be a loop, nothing changed. This idea would benefit the grinders only, I doubt it would increase variety in maps. The way I see it, this idea only stimulates greed, but I recognize this isn't your intention.

 

I agree that we need more variety however.

 

I for one wouldn't play in, say, Magistral if the rewards were bigger, I would stay in Sandbox because I genuinely like it. I rarely join Polygon battles so one can't say I'm a grinder. Other players think different though

[LittleWillie 3,199]

Of course maps would cycle. That is the intent. Since this iis based on a moving 7-day window the time it woulk take to cycle through the 70-80 available maps would be on the order of three months boore we were back at Poly CP. During that threemonth window, under your prediction, each map would get roughly the same play time. Right now Poly CP gets played solid all the time.

 

The words "nothing would change" do not apply to a situation where things would change dramatically.

 

No one would force you to play Magistral. just like no one forces anyone to play Poly CP. which I hate.  My system gives a bit of fairness to everyone, not just the people who like Sandbox or Poly.

[Maf 32,333]

Declined

 

The map variety issue has been solved by the Matchmaking system, while in PRO battles it's best to let people play wherever they want without unnecessary penalties.

[BouDy 110]

Giving a bonus is "punishment" how? That is exactly why I suggested a bonus ratehr than the "punishment" route - which would be to reduce payout of Poly CP etc.

 

I did not propose this for normal battlles. I proposed this for the PRO section only. There is no way to deny the lack of variety here.

 

Players could still choose any damn map theylike. But guess what? Some players will choose to make a lot more Cry.

 

I CANNOT chose the maps I want, because 99% of the players in PRO go straight for the meantgrinders. Rather I can "choose" them but the effort is futile.

 

Why perpetuate a flawed system? I am not saying this is the exact fix, but it is an attempt. The PRO system today is flawed badly. 

I just read your posted that you linked. Yes it is essentially the same idea, down to the 7-day usage concept. =The only difference is I aply it to the PRO section only.

Man just pro battles are like custom battles you just spend some time with your friend

While Matchmaking is like Ranked batttles that you play to get more rewards from missions , challenges ,weekly missions etc ( and soon you expect to see Ranked MM with more prizes and new system )

If you want to play on your favourite map , just play PRO battles .. But actually I'm sure that playing on the same map again and again will make you boring.. That's Why you play on a different map everytime in MM " They  will add more in the future " ................

[Okami 3,041]

Declined

 

The map variety issue has been solved by the Matchmaking system, while in PRO battles it's best to let people play wherever they want without unnecessary penalties.

It's a motivator, not a punishment. But, if someone makes an uncommon map, people may start to join. About a week ago, I made a Fort Knox CTF and eventually it became full of players.