| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
EVR1022 wrote:Khralaen vs Sapien remains a problem match up in my opinion. If you watch the Feb champ round 7 game between Fobos_rus and UniKZ, it's clear that the Khralaens simply have no chance of victory. Marines are just too strong, and the Khrals have no efficient way to take them down. Underlings get annihilated by helicopters. Swarmers don't do enough damage, and are very vulnerable to marines, marauders and helicopters. Garuda vs marines is laughably bad. That leaves the Pinzer and Wyrm, which are both relatively slow, unable to navigate terrain, and too expensive to be an effective countermeasure.
My proposed solutions:
Option A
Buff Swarmer defense +1 and ground light attack +2. This will enable two Swarmers (500c cost) to take down a marine in terrain most of the time. If necessary, the Swarmer could be debited elsewhere. Perhaps -1 aquatic, or -1 aerial (which might help KvK balance as the Garuda becomes a more viable option).
Option B
If it's not the Swarmer's job to kill marines, then it has to be the underling's. Buff ground light attack +2.
Krahlean
I like most other people like a), though only the +2gl part
idear 2 will make underlings very overpowered especially in kvt as a hidden underling will be able to kill a assimilator on a base!
I would like to point out that EARTH always wanted the swarmer to have +1 gh.
I also agree that the garuda feels weak and would like it to have +1 defence -1 air... but I think that the swarmer update is much more important, and it's hard to balance 2 units from the same race at the same time
finnaly I would like to suggest that hidden underlings should be able to jump adding their 4 unburrow damage to their base damage of 0... this would be marginally usefull vs sapiens as the helicopter can move after attack and has 10 defence, but it will be very strong in kvk making the underling viable.
Titan
the eclipse is not good enugh in solo, it's very good in duro.
I think it should get: -50 cost, -2 air, -1 defence, +2gl, +1 speed
I also like the reduced vision when teleporting idear
|
|
|
Suggestions to improve team tournaments (2 player):
Player 1 moves "after his team mate player 4" and player 3 moves after his team mate (player 2). Thus it would be nice if one could choose which player is the supported (player 1 and 3) and who is the initiator (player 4 and 2)... as it is now the captain is always player 1 or 2 which is sub optimal.
For me as a khalean it makes a huge difference if I am player 1 I can snipe bases my team mate cleared for me, if I am player 2 we can't do the reverse as his marine is slow. Furthermore he has 2-3 move after attack units, so he can attack and leave room for me, I can't do the opposite. Thus we play much better when we are nr 1 and 4 than 2 and 3
I think ranked random should be random races.
think (some?) tournaments should be mirored with random races and then knock out like the regular tournaments
|
|
|
If you play tournament and is winning in one map and loosing in the other you can simply make sure the one you are loosing game in is a few rounds ahead of the one you are winning in.
Then when the time runs out you will be declared winner in the game with the fewest rounds and progress to the next round.
I (azorius) did this by accident in titan vs titan round 5, where I lost (completely all bases captures in round 30) and won the other game in round 29 by having killed a little more, had the games continued I would at best have won in round 35, and should thus not have been progressed to the next round.
I would suggest an alteration to the tournament rules such that: if both games are not finished, "roll back" the furthest game such that they have progressed equal and let the winner be the one with:
most total bases in both games,
if equal then:
most total kills in both games
This suggestion would have made me loose as in round 29 of the 2 games I 1 + 4 bases and my opponent had 7 + 4 bases
|
|
|
Demer11 has a large starting advantage to first mover in TvS and SvT, one can build a speeder or marauder in the first turn, the other player has to do the same because if he builds a marine/mecha you can attack and block the path to both bases, if he builds a speeder/marauder you can move after attack to a healing pad while blocking his access to the healing pads.
Balance is impossible to win in any matchup except kvk, because the large amount of resources means that one artillery unit can be bought pr round, but there is only a narrow and curvy path between the two sides of the map making it impossible to attack the other player, I agreed to a draw having killed 11.000 and lost 5000 because it was impossible for any of us to win.
|
|
|
you decreased the Finished games to 2 and archived games to 1, that makes it very hard to archive potentially unbalanced maps and replay them... a few days ago I lost a match to jish in kvs, we tried mirror and it was impossible to win with s, (we both have ratings around 2300-2350)... but I could not archive it and therefore have no clue what the name of the map was. if I had access to my conversations with him or my previously played games I could know much more easily.
I understand the need for Xavi to make a living on this game!, but this new change is counter productive if he wants us to help in this endeavor... maybe reduce the cost of archiving a game to 20, or let us see our last 20 games...
Alternative put all conversations between me and player X on player X's profile would make me able to go back and find all conversations about game balance.
I would also like to point out that all maps that are not mirrored like Amarica and Africa (team map) are unbalanced.
|
|
|
|
Changes for this balance update :
Marauder - 1 GL (designed to prevent the marauder from stopping a cap attempt by itself)
Pinzer +1 air (Prevents multiple helicopters from killing a pinzer without taking any damage, but still allows the helicopter to counter the pinzer.)
Wyrm +1 air (Not intended for KvS since most agree this will not make much difference. Designed to encourage more usage of wyrms in KvK. This will indirectly encouraging usage of underling which will encourage cap attempts which has been almost nonexistent in high level KvK match ups.)
We are also applying the first wave of vision updates:
Marauder - 1
Tank - 1
Helicopter - 1
Destroyer - 2
Speeder - 1
Pinzer - 1
Garuda - 1
Leviathan - 3
These changes are final for this update and will be implemented in the next few days. I know many, like me, are sad that the swarmer was not able to be fixed in this update, but it will likely be our main priority for the next update. Since this update is smaller, we will not wait as long before discussion begins on the next balance update. Discussion for the next update will begin about a month from now on the 1st of April.
I like these changes, I would prefere for the leviathan to only loose 2 vision so it can see all it can attack
I would also like for the wyrm to get +1 speed instead of +1 air as it would make it able to get away from swarmers and closer to helicopters, because deseart tiles are tough on the wyrm.
Lastly
I would likewise prefer the swarmer to get +2 GL instead of +1 GH, I feel that the marauder is not the issue in SvK but heli/marine, and allowing the swarmer to kill marines more easily might help this match up much more.
I also think eclipses should get -1 (or 2) air and -50 cost, they are used vs kha but never vs sap as sap dont use helicopters vs titan, making them cheap infantary killers might make them more useful in both games, while he -air would encourage sap to get helicopters
I don't think that the marauder should get -1 GL as this is a large nerf to sapians, rather see eclipse and swarmer boostet
I also like the idea that only healers can detect, though I think that artillery should be able to detect as well.
Finally as a crazy idea, I think that hidden underlings should be able to "jump" getting 0 + 4 air attack, this could make them okish vs helicopters (0-1 damage w/o gang up and tarain bonus), but more importantly it would make them dangerous to swarmers changing the KvK metagame
|
|
|
I agree that KvS is different from SvK.... but I don't understand how a map can be balanced for KvS and not for SvK
I think a that there should be 6 different "badges" a map could get for the 6 different combinations, so a map could for example get the KvS and the SvS map meaning it is rated for thouse match ups and unrated for all others.
I do however agree that there should be a sufficient amount of votes from both SvK and KvS as humans prone to blame losses on maps and victories on their own skill 
I would however prefere to use the accuall win/loss ratio of the map or update the ELO formular so winning on an unfair map gives more points and loosing on on an unfair map looses you less (See http://forum.uniwar.com/posts/list/2272.page)
|
|
|
Sorry for the late reply
The problem with using data from win/loss is that you will have to use data from only the best players., thus gathering enough data for this to work properly will be an issue on most maps.
While this is technically true, even if noobs win 60/40 and 2000+ rated players win 90/10 on a map, my formula would still be more fair since 60/40 is closer to 90/10 than 50/50
There are currently some things in the works that will affect this:
- weighted vote, giving more influence to better players - this will probably remove some of the unfair maps over time
- new pro solo ladder with mirror games. This will negate the effect of bad maps
but these are not enough...
I don't understand why mirror will change the bad maps, if a map is unfair and you play it mirrored the you are playing two unbalanced games one which looses you 30 points and one which gains you 3.
I like the weighted vote idear, but are we sure that people only vote based on balance. if a map has 30% down votes is that then because players find it unbalanced or boring?
the most important 2 things to improve:
1. There should be a limit to how little ammount of points that can be won in random.. for example 8 points
2. Reduce the impact of a loss on unfair map. This can for example be done by automatically lowering the K-factor in the ELO forumula if the difference in points is big (either based on %difference in points or perhaps to a set value - K=16 if points more than 200 in difference)
if you always win 8 points then everybody can get infinite score by playing against bots, they also get an infinite score against everybody they are more than 80% likely to beat.
if you change the K factor when the difference is more than 200 then a player like Earth will get half points vs all but 15 players and now he will loose 16 and gain 1-2 instead of loosing 32 and gaining 3... so I don't see how that changes anything
I think that is a good idear, but appart from "creating points" if active players win more than inactive players i don't see how it is much different from ELO...It has the arbitrary score floor... but I don't think that is the correct solution, because people don't complain that they lose every now and then due to RNG, they complain they loose due to maps.
|
|
|
Motivation
Some maps are unbalanced and will at high level play lead to near 100% win percentage for certain race combinations. Intuitively this should balance out in the long run as you get the same amount of good and bad maps, this is however not true for the top 100 players, as a loss to a low rated player on an unfair map looses you a lot of points and there are now high rated players you can steal points so the reverse never happens.
suggestion
Record the number of wins and losses for all 9 race combinations (kha vs sap is different from sap vs kha) on all maps and use this modified formular:
Ea = Expected score player A
Eb = Expected score player B
Ra = true strenght player A (current points)
Rb = true strenght player B (current points)
Ma = Chance that player A wins on this map
Mb = Chance that player B wins on this map (1 - Ma)
Ea = 64Mb/(1+10^((Rb-Ra)/400))
Eb = 64Ma/(1+10^((Ra-Rb)/400))
Please note that if the map is fair Ma = Mb = 0.5 then the formular defaults to the current formular
Ea = 32/(1+10^((Rb-Ra)/400))
Eb = 32/(1+10^((Ra-Rb)/400))
limitations / Suggestions
maybe cap the map win/loss to 10% and 90%
use pseudo counts (ie 5 fake wins and losses for all combinations) to make it work on less popular maps
only count ranked random games as other games might be biased by one player playing the same map over and over again
The formula:
Ea = Expected score player A
Eb = Expected score player B
Ra = true strenght player A (current points)
Rb = true strenght player B (current points)
Ea = 1/(1+10^((Rb-Ra)/400))
Eb = 1/(1+10^((Ra-Rb)/400))
|
|
|
![[Search]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_search.gif){kind=icon}
![[Recent Topics]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_recentTopics.gif){kind=icon}
![[Login]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_login.gif){kind=icon}
Login
