Spiral Knights - Making LD teams fair - Introducing LD prestige points

Making LD teams fair - Introducing LD prestige points

22 replies [Last post]

Mon, 09/09/2013 - 12:24

Reto-Da-Liz

The idea is fairly simple.
It's clear to everyone that there will NEVER be a way to make teams 100% fair, but I'm sick of ending in teams with five 3* people with a 4* sword.
It's good training and all, but it's truly not fair. This is a general problem of Lockdown, not a problem I have and want to be fixed. It's a thing that should have been done right in the first place.
That should not be considered Tier 3 in the first place, but I guess that's how it goes.

So let's introduce the idea of Lockdown Prestige Points!

WHY PRESTIGE POINTS
There's no doubt that many great LD players don't play too much, or that many fairly bad players play a lot (me included).
So of course there will still be a factor of unfairness, but it would still be better than total, complete, absolutely nothing but pure RANDOMNESS.
Prestige points (which exist in almost all games that have PvP features) would help making some order.

HOW TO ACQUIRE POINTS
Playing will be the best way to acquire points.
The number of Rank Points earned will also be counted as Prestige Points.
Bonus point could be given to the one who gets the most damage, the one who gets the most caps and the one who gets the most defends. Let's say +25 points.

Teams would be made so that the number of prestige points on the two sides has to be as even as possible.

POSSIBLE PROBLEMS, SEEKING IDEAS
As we all know Tier 2 LD is pretty active.
So, when the time comes, some of these T2 players might want to come play T3.
Problem: they don't have 5* gear but they still have 50k Lockdown Prestige Points due to the fact that they play a lot of T2.
How could this be avoided? Introducing different points for each Tier would be the best idea, in my opinion, but the thing could get somewhat messy and might take more time to develop.

Any suggestions will be appreciated.

P.S. Contri gets 999'999 points cause he's awesome.

Mon, 09/09/2013 - 12:50

Bleyken

+1 Spam vs noobies isn't awesome.... and my spam must be awesome!

Mon, 09/09/2013 - 12:58

The-Mighty-Potato

Although I don't think they should also be named prestige points; I think it needs a different name.

Mon, 09/09/2013 - 13:44

Reto-Da-Liz

@potato: Eh i felt like sticking to the idea of PvE Prestige Points, but sure, what counts is the concept. We can work on a better name :)

Mon, 09/09/2013 - 13:47

Theirillusion

Mon, 09/09/2013 - 13:50

Darkcub

Mon, 09/09/2013 - 14:10

Valorai

This is a GREAT idea. And if there weren't one problem, I would +1 it right here and now.

But...

It wouldn't work. Not much, anyways. (Note: What I am about to say is strictly my opinion/theory. Please don't rage, or anything else childish.)

I believe it wouldn't work much because SK's fanbase isn't big enough. How many people do you suaully see in the quene at a time? i don't check too often, but it's around 12-20. With only a dozen or more people to be quened with, it's not very likely you'd get anyone remotely close to your rank. I'd rather play with noobs then wait an hour for a fair team. Also: This is why we don't have Blast Network Prestige. It wouldn't work. You'd be lucky to get a game at all, let alone someone in your rank.With so few poeple playing lockdown as it is, who's to say it won't be another BN when (Please SK, make it a WHEN) another Colesium game joins the two.

Quite frank, we can't do this unless SK gets a Bigger fanbase. And we all know that won't be for a while. (Just kidding SK, I wuv you. :>)

Mon, 09/09/2013 - 14:54

Reto-Da-Liz

Not saying you have to play with people of your rank.
If there are 6 players with 50k prestige, and 6 players with 1k prestige, put 3 50k on one side and 3 on the other. Not 6 and 0, which happens rather often, making games awful and boring.
It's about making teams somewhat balanced.

Mon, 09/09/2013 - 15:14

Deleted-Knight

+1 but skeptical of it actually happening

1) A "noob" that played 100 games of Lockdown is not necessarily a better player than a "pro" that only played 10.

2) Defends shouldn't be counted because that basically unjustly rewards those who happen to get kills while standing on a team point.

3) Coding it would be a pain in the rear for OOO. They will have to write an efficient algorithm to balance prestige points on both teams.

4) If everyone presses "play again", most likely the exact same teams will result. The losing team will have less incentive to play again unless it's a very close match.

5) Random teams is good in that it exposes people to different play styles of other people. It's not as evident in T3 where everyone dies in a couple hits, but I know in T2 "combo spamming noobs" sometimes make surprise kills on "pros". Usually people play multiple Lockdown games in one sitting. Under a prestige system, there is less chance to play against different people during those games.

I think a better option would be to sort people by stars instead of by tier. In your own example, the problem is noobs who are completely outclassed in gear (owning a single piece of T3 gear). Balancing people by skill is tricky not only because it's hard to measure, but also because it's very susceptible to changes. It will take a long time for someone's "new strategy" to be reflected in his Lockdown prestige, especially if he plays a lot. Gear power is quantifiable, so it will be easier to balance.

Mon, 09/09/2013 - 16:10

Reto-Da-Liz

Thanks for bringing up points, any feedback helps.
I'll answer to them with what i think :)

1) Totally agreed, which is why I said that "there will still be a factor of unfairness".
2) Defends are both somewhat random and somewhat not. Being able to defend a point is the way you win games. Killing someone on a point just means you were doing your job: fight on points.
3) No clue about this. Could be hard (it probably is) but I think Lockdown deserves more attention (on the devs' side).
4) Doesn't happen often that all players play again, especially in a 6v6, especially if the match was quite unfair. But yes, it's a fair concern.
5) It's true that you might end up fighting many times the same people, which would surely be not a great thing. Fighting different styles is definitely a good experience for everyone. I still think that having somewhat fair teams would prevail over fighting different people with the stupidest team combinations.

That being said, thanks again for bringing up smart concerns!

Mon, 09/09/2013 - 20:08

#10

Momofuku

+1 I like this.

Point system should be simplified though: +5 for winning, -1 for losing. Basing it on achievements in-game (most damage, caps, etc) could result in more havoc: people will focus on just getting most damage than actually winning the game. (Some people already play like this and refuse to cap, too)

I like adding a penalty to losing though: helps level things out since otherwise, you can pretty much gain nonstop points from just playing in general. But it's a simple solution to help balance teams with the overall intent of the game in mind (random lobbies were made to prevent purposely stacking teams).

Mon, 09/09/2013 - 21:22

#11

Batabii

I have a better idea:

Make each piece of gear worth a certain amount of "points".
UVs cost extra points
Trinkets, weapon slots, etc add up.
Then, put a limit of how many points any given player can have, depending on a set total to be agreed on before the match.

That way you don't have someone with 4* common gear vs someone with Fully Loaded 5* triple-uv stuff.

Mon, 09/09/2013 - 22:42

#12

Hexzyle

@Batabii

I feel that that system is overly cumbersome, it's essentially a "restrict UVs in lockdown" affair, and you'd always having to be mucking around trying to get your sets to be balanced. Then what about the people who don't have enough equipment to make it up to their quota? They're wasting precious points by not owning enough gear.

I do have another solution, but I'd rather start a new thread on it later.

Tue, 09/10/2013 - 00:29

#13

Theirillusion

If you get points ONLY by winning, people will start bombing and capping more. How funny is it with mist bomb matches?

Also I can easily make a fake loadout to trick the system into thinking I have 3 star items and 1 4 star item. Then just change in the LD lobby, so the idea of gear based balanced teams is sooooo bad.

Tue, 09/10/2013 - 12:20

#14

Batabii

If they don't have enough points to equip, then either lower the max number of points the other players can use, or get better gear! And isn't restricting UVs better than eliminating them entirely? Heck just make uvs toggle-able and it's not nearly as much "mucking around".

Tue, 09/10/2013 - 18:29

#15

Zeddy

@Theirillusion

"If you get points ONLY by winning, people will start bombing and capping more. How funny is it with mist bomb matches?"

Mist bombs are a far cry from being autowin. If everyone started mistbombing, more people would pick up alchemers and blitz needle, mercilessly slaughtering the mistbombers. In response to all the guns, people would pick up swords.

Mist bombs only appear impenetrable to swordsmen.

Wed, 09/11/2013 - 01:12

#16

Theirillusion

I get what you mean.

In what way is swords anti gunner? All gunners do is shoot and run away. It's a walk in the park to hit any chasing swordsman.

Wed, 09/11/2013 - 01:58

#17

Zeddy

I dunno, swords and guns don't interest me.

However, given that people use swords, they must be good for something? They're useless against bombs. Are skolver-strikers just challenging themselves? Why isn't LD flooded with guns only? Why is everyone complaining about AA toothpicks if they're so easily countered by 60% of the game's arsenal?

Wed, 09/11/2013 - 05:37

#18

Hexzyle

@Zeddy

Why is everyone complaining about AA toothpicks if they're so easily countered by 60% of the game's arsenal?

It's so funny because it's true.

Wed, 09/11/2013 - 06:43

#19

Theirillusion

I'm a sword user because both bombs and guns depend on the enemy player being the one to initiate the fight. You can't chase a player with bombs that easily, and when was the last time you saw a gunner who didn't back away from the enemy?

Anyway, I'm not a coward that depend on fleeing or hiding.

Wed, 09/11/2013 - 07:54

#20

Snarbolars

This is a great idea Reto!!

Wed, 09/11/2013 - 08:03

#21

Autofire

You are experiencing a PICNIC ERROR!

I believe it wouldn't work much because SK's fanbase isn't big enough.

Oh, it's big enough. It's just that no one plays LD because it isn't good enough. If this were implemented, T3 would become much more fair. Everyone with UVs would be in the pro ranks while UVless and noobs get lower ranks. It would have a higher chance of putting all the low ranks back together.

You see, before LD was the 'go to' for many knights who burned their energy. Now that we can't run out of energy, LD has lost a huge portion of its players. It needs to be enhanced so that it can compete with other parts of the game. (I think that Heat Crystals should be available via coins with the advent of this system to induce a greater incentive into playing LD and getting the field balanced sooner.)

@OP

I think we need to adopt Elsword Online's rank point system. Losing actually makes you LOSE points. This way, people don't get a ton of points all the time. If the teams are scrambled between games, then it will still amount to most players who've reached their skill level winning half of the time. Their points will stay roughly the same. It's only players who are excelling who get greater rank point amounts.

Fri, 09/13/2013 - 07:09

#22

Reto-Da-Liz

Thanks for the comments.

@Autofire: I haven't had a chance to play Elsword, even if I'd like to.
The chance of losing points would possibly make some people play a little differently (less damage hunt - more caps)... Who knows...
It's for sure a viable option. Something like:
Players on winning team --> +100 points
Players on losing team --> -25 points

Could work. For sure we need some kind of system. Pure randomness can't be a good way.

Search

Making LD teams fair - Introducing LD prestige points