Faction imbalance

I believe there was mention of 2 AI factions that we could bribe to fight on regions and recruit/hire their AI units. So maybe get those implemented before a third faction? A third faction really interests me by the way. Could be a lot of fun. However I also think that people would have to reset to that third faction. There would be no "migrate" or keep all your progress/items/resources.

Dobraine wrote:

This was my reply to Ysosad in-game, modified a bit for forum.


Essentially it all breaks down to: we need more time to verify any kind of 'active' population difference between the two factions because the data is a tad too murky.

There are players, such as Elventheelf who log on periodically to gain a few thousand CPs once in a blue moon...and in ten days it is likely we miss many players who do play the game, however irregularly.

I also don't believe 20CP is a great floor to go for, even in counting active players. I imagine 100 to be a more map impacting number...that seems to work out to be around 1% on a hex. (though I believe 1% is a bit more...but regardless...)

Having the ability to remove players from the equation who haven't been active in three weeks/1 month would be nice when we reach that point.

21 days would be an ideal reference point I imagine...and again at a month. I simply don't want people to get riled up about something that may yet prove to be false, as it strains the factions and developers in ways.

The argument could go either way in time, once we have useful data...and i'm not adverse to change, I'd simply rather verify our information before pressing for it.

More time is required to determine whether the imbalance will persist, but you can take preventative measure to ensure it doesn't happen without that information.

However, I'm not making that argument that we cannot wait to implement a measure or even saying that this discussion necessarily lead to a change. What I'm asking is for people to think, in a hypothetical if it makes it easier, on what to do if  there is a persisting balancing issue within this game.

If it makes it easier, we can talk in hypotheticals:

Given 1: The rules of a game allow for players to join either of two teams without restriction.
Given 2: There is a balancing mechanism to sway new members to join one side so as to keep membership roughly even.
Given 3: To this point, these mechanisms have failed to keep membership roughly equal.
Given 4: A balancing mechanism is used to give the side with less players a bonus to their contributions. This feature is effective when populations are within a given range of membership levels, but begin to fail beyond a given threshold.
Given 5: There is currently no additional mechanism in place to counteract an imbalance that meets or exceeds said threshold.

If you look at the hypothetical, it should become apparent that we can have the discussion on how a solution to such a problem. It might not ever be necessary, but it is the responsible thing to do.

---

The imbalance is 48% at 130 CPs, Fyrr made a post at the 100CP mark. The difference persists at most cutoff until you reach the highest echelon of players, where it still exists but is not quite so disproportional.

I'm all for more information, but considering the CP bonus is still in place, however 'activity' is defined by the developers...we have some sort of imbalance in the factions right now. Further, the best information that we do have at our disposal...better than any information we ever had before since the inception of the game (as we never could sort by CPs)...points to an imbalance existing as well.. However, again, it is not necessary that there be an imbalance at all to have the discussion...that there is simply makes the matter more pressing.

Scaren wrote:

The dark side already has the beginner bonus.

Can you tell us how big bonus is it? And how fast do you get all that bonus by yourself?
Delete your acc and start again, I'll give you 5k gold for that... do you want that bonus for free or not?

Xviper wrote:

I'd like there to be an option to filter players of a certain activity level.

Some players just login to collect ressources, but not to fight. So it won't tell much.

Xviper wrote:

understand the concern here, but isn't the stronger side MEANT to win?

The last thing I want to happen is to go back to the 6-8 month stalemates where noone ever wins.

Agree to both. But ofc, the system when same faction wins 5 times in a row (which will happen if nothing changes) surely isn't good.

Metalsiagon wrote:

That would probably help balance it out a little, but its not an easy problem to begin with, and would most likely require some form of extensive bonuses to Dark players starting off to attract more people to their side.

Good idea, something like reward bonus will help. But it must be big enought to be noticeable and attact players.

Xviper wrote:

I must say I'm surprised that Dark isn't doing better considering how badly they steam rolled Olympus multiple times over.

Dark side rolled Olympus 2 times, last time because light side wanted Aether too. But you couldn't expect dark Olympus players will ballance things out, some of them are just superior (e.g. Anduin), but most of others are below Erevos standards, due to progress time and significally higher prices.


Edit: I missed 2nd page lol... so my response is a bit outdatted... i thought of deleting post, but I think it still represents some important points.

The link will redirect to the second post. That post lists out the suggestions users have made followed by some unanswered and potential flaws with those suggestions (potential, not necessarily).

That is followed by the concerns other posters have mentioned, not with a specific suggestion, but related to this topic nonetheless. I make an attempt to answer to those concerns and assuage the fears of the posters.

http://www.battleconforum.com/t2245-faction-imbalance#17850

I'd added a variant to the idea I put forward, the details of which are below.

---

One alternative is not allow any new player to join a Faction that has a superior membership advantage when they come to the Faction/Race selection screen. However, this new player will be informed within 2 hours that s/he may reset their account (which is an option already, it would simply be more conspicuous here, in-game message/prompt or such) and switch to a race in the other Faction if they so choose. Thus, no player is prevented from going to the Faction of their choice, it is merely a slightly delayed option.

In that narrow window, the trailing Faction has the opportunity to convince any new recruit that they should stay in the Faction. Some would have chosen that Faction anyway, some never would have and will switch, but some could be convinced...and maybe that will help maintain some sort of balance.

Again this feature would be an amendment to the current recruitment incentive...it only kicks in when the imbalance reaches a point (e.g. I recommend a 25% active membership differential) and ceases once it drops below a point (e.g. I recommend a 20% active membership differential).

Meaning, one side could have 81 active players for every 100 on the other side and this would not kick-in.

Ysosad I don't think that is a good idea. One of the appealing things about this game was the selection of races. Not allowing a new player to see all the races that they could choose would be... unsatisfactory. They should be allowed the freedom of choice.

Scaren wrote:

Ysosad I don't think that is a good idea. One of the appealing things about this game was the selection of races. Not allowing a new player to see all the races that they could choose would be... unsatisfactory. They should be allowed the freedom of choice.

I agree with Scaren.

The new players should have a choice. Otherwise new players would join the prescribed race/faction and be influenced to stay.

The world is a free place.

-Gimlithedrunk255   

Scaren wrote:

Ysosad I don't think that is a good idea. One of the appealing things about this game was the selection of races. Not allowing a new player to see all the races that they could choose would be... unsatisfactory. They should be allowed the freedom of choice.

I'm too tired to argue this at this very moment.

---

People seem not to care if the selection screen had better recruitment incentives. So, I'm just going to move conversation that way for the time being.

The offering at the selection screen has no meaning to any new player whatsoever, even though it was a coin toss between DL and Dwarves, it literally did nothing to tip the scales. It might be more inviting to put: "Receive $XX.XX worth of in-game bonuses, including fragments, items, faster upgrades to research and buildings and a bunch of other crap too!"

I have no idea if this will work because people choose their race for various different reasons (though exceedingly few, to my knowledge, because they have a compulsive need to be such and such race in every game they play), but at least people have a better understanding of real currency than they do of 'common' or 'uncommon' and how useful it actually is.

Bribery, something we can all stomach much better.

Faction imballance = racial appeal. Apart of ppl who reset, new players do not know jack about the game. Usually they have no idea what race is strongest or underdog. Ballancing the races, or buffing darks will have close to no impact on the faction ballance.

Ppl mostly choose their race based on visual affect and their expectations.

1. You have basic ideology of a starting player - dark or light. Many ppl would never consider dark and no bonus items or resources will make them think otherwise, just because they want the good to win.
2. Fantasy is stereotyped to - Elves being fastest and have best archers, Dwarves to be slow but tanky, Humans ... kinda not be any special at all, Undead - necromance/raise dead/suck life, Orcs to be brute force and no brain, the only thing ppl are not quite sure what to expect is dark legion.
3. The visual impression. Be it the first symbol for the race or maybe some go to wiki and check army pictures. Latest here they lose any motivation to even consider humans. Human pictures are ugly as night, followed by orcs and dwarves. (Sorry devs). There is also a short expectation waging process to play style - speed vs armor vs strenth vs magic vs mass vs elite. Whatever playstyle ppl like and what race they expect to suit that.

.. and that fantasy fotm aspect. If we didnt have LotR less would play elves, if Legolas was a goblin we may have a lot more orcs.

Major reasons why there is always more light than dark. Being evil is not everyones thing, while anyone could consider being good. Popular fantasy settings always make the good guys win. And then well, apart of dwarves ppl are probably visually more attracted to humans and elves than orcs and undead.

If you want to ballance the odds for racial choice you need to play with those elements. Visually give ppl a better impression how "fun" orcs or dark legion could be - a monumental dl winning battle picture, iconic hero statements, boozing dwarves, noble humans, laughing camp fire orcs. Something along the line that is making ppl step back from their prejudices and look at this game as a new experience that would not be yet another counterfeit.

Here is a good point to get a story into the game that is starting before racial selection and gives you some short bit of main quest line when you click on a race.

Simply ask yourself why you chose your race and why you did not consider certain other race as you started and express that opinion. Suggest to devs how to change it and you get a step closer to racial ballance.

I did not consider human, darks. Because boring and dark. I suspected light would have more takers
I considered dwarves and elves, chose elves because i expected them to be mobility masters, turned out well yay

While we are on the topic I think that not only should the race be given a more in depth description but I think two other things would be good. An indicator of how populated a race is. I imagine elves and skellies would be very populated. I like Tibr's idea of showing more pictures of the races but I think it would also be good if when they clicked on a race they could see all the units.

OK...I've got an idea that I think is actually pretty good...but I've been wrong before:

Firstly, I have to acknowledge clambam and others that inspired this idea.

Now...

A third 'set' of races is introduced. I say set because players that pick a race from this group may be assigned to either the Light or Dark Faction based on which has less active players OR if they are roughly balanced the assignment will be random.

Players choosing a race from this set are informed before making the selection that this will be the case and unable to choose their affiliation to the Light or Dark Faction.

Myself and one other person (whom I won't name, unless he'd like some acknowledgement here) thought up some interesting scenarios for members of this group...but let's see if the idea itself has any support for the community first before we go any further.

So, what do ya'll think?

So you want players to have a random button. A common mechanic in games with replayability character.

Here in BC you are pretty much stuck unless you want to lose all your progress. Fix that fix everything.

This option may be used by few, only ppl who dont really care about the game and just want to take a quick look. Odds are they will get stuck with something they dont enjoy. From here they would either reset or quit. I think if ppl choose something they are more likely to get happy with it, if they get something chosen for them they are more likely to not take it too seriously. The better good is to have more players in the game instead of to have equal playerbase light and dark.

Make darks more appealing

Tibr wrote:

So you want players to have a random button. A common mechanic in games with replayability character.

If you choose to be a Dwarf, Human, Elf, Orc, Dark Legionnaire, or Undead you know exactly what Faction you are going to be in.

You may also choose the race(s) in the 3rd section. let's say you choose Tiefling, a player reads that if they choose this race that they will be assigned to the Light or Dark Faction, but they have no say in the matter.

That is the only "random" part of it. Race selection is not random, Faction affiliation is not random for 6 of the 7 races.

Tibr wrote:

Here in BC you are pretty much stuck unless you want to lose all your progress. Fix that fix everything.

I highly doubt that. It would cause many other problems like players switching mid-war to get Aether rewards, collusion for a given group of players to win, and might make the imbalance even worse if Light sticks it out for the win and Darks switch to join in on the merry. Giving players free reign creates chaos, a bit of which is fine (even desirable), too much is game-breaking.

Tibr wrote:

This option may be used by few, only ppl who dont really care about the game and just want to take a quick look. Odds are they will get stuck with something they dont enjoy. From here they would either reset or quit. I think if ppl choose something they are more likely to get happy with it, if they get something chosen for them they are more likely to not take it too seriously. The better good is to have more players in the game instead of to have equal playerbase light and dark.

People that come into the game don't care about the game, you have to actually play the game to get invested in it, I didn't see the selection screen and become a diehard. If there were a race that could be either Faction that would have changed nothing of my initial opinion and had I chosen it I would have been in the Dark or Light Faction and been as active as I am now.

There are many people and a good proportion of one prominent guild that have played as characters in both Factions. The choice of Faction affiliation is not a major¹ factor for many (as opposed to a "few") players.

Here is what I don't enjoy when I have my choice: that we're severely outnumbered, that my HI and my race seem inferior to most of the others. I'm not thinking, that if I can't be a Light/Dark Faction member then I won't play the game at all. Now, if YOU feel that way, you would just have chosen the race that you did, I presume, and would be just fine.

It is possible that you were talking about a specific race, not a Faction, if that is the case: the player can reset, quit, or stick it out. This is the same trial every new player has when they come into the game currently and chooses one of the 6 races, it is not any different for players of the new race(s).

In every way the choices that are available to new players have increased with this idea, but you act as if players are having something forced upon them.

"Better good" in this context basically implies that both can't happen, you're wrong...plain and simple.

Tibr wrote:

Make darks more appealing

Fine and then make Light more appealing and we're back at square one....

Listen, I don't have a problem with your idea, it is a great idea in my opinion to draw people into the game. I'd prefer that each race had this detailed description and some ridiculously great animation or drawings to entice players to join the game. I'd like to see the game booming, not have less than 700 active players in a few weeks because this game is a whole hell of a lot better than that.

HOWEVER, if there were 10,000 daily players and 6,000 of them were on the Light side and 4,000 were on the Dark side or vice versa you still have the same problem as the one we are discussing, just with more people.

I think your ad campaign is a great idea, I just think it is more appropriate for another thread.

---

^{1: To be clear, the decision to be Light or Dark IS a factor for some. However, the scales are balanced or close to it for many of the population For them the weight of Light/Dark is a grain of salt...it is enough, but in real terms not very much. If you add just a bit of novelty, I think that it would be enough for players to choose door number 3.}

Quote :

I highly doubt that. It would cause many other problems like players switching mid-war to get Aether rewards, collusion for a given group of players to win, and might make the imbalance even worse if Light sticks it out for the win and Darks switch to join in on the merry. Giving players free reign creates chaos, a bit of which is fine (even desirable), too much is game-breaking.

There has been a lot of thinking about what happens when the game ends back in the days we were 9 month into the world without a winner .. The popular wish was to have a reset of race while keeping progress. Suggesting a racial switch i was assuming we´d talk about this common idea - reset after either capital falls.

So you are talking about a 3rd faction that will still leave the world bipolar instead of triangular? I got you wrong there. We know devs plan a 3rd faction we have no idea about how it is going to look like. I favor a 3way (and possibly an end to CP ballance).

Quote :

"Better good" in this context basically implies that both can't happen, you're wrong...plain and simple.

I did not say both are not possible, that is a very liberal interpretation on your part ;D
What i mean is if anything, right now it is better to keep/get more players in the game rather then create a faction ballance at cost of alienating some by forcing a choice on them they woudnt like in many cases (anyways that assuming you wanted a random flip).

Personally i dont see any way to have a 50:50 population without making ppl want to play dark or allow a reset while keeping progress.

Tibr wrote:

Quote :

"Better good" in this context basically implies that both can't happen, you're wrong...plain and simple.

I did not say both are not possible, that is a very liberal interpretation on your part ;D
What i mean is if anything, right now it is better to keep/get more players in the game rather then create a faction ballance at cost of alienating some by forcing a choice on them they woudnt like in many cases (anyways that assuming you wanted a random flip).

Personally i dont see any way to have a 50:50 population without making ppl want to play dark or allow a reset while keeping progress.

Here is your quote: "The better good is to have more players in the game instead of to have equal playerbase light and dark."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/instead+of

I'm being literal in your use of the word, I'm not being liberal at all. Maybe you meant "that is a very literal interpretation"?

Anyway, most people I have talked to seem to like the idea I proposed and since you're saying that my interpretation was incorrect I'll take that as support for the idea as well.

Now in the event it proves this is a major cause for concern, it's a very delicate situation to handle.

CP Caps

Cutting the CP cap does sound like a great idea at first...but you'll have to remember that the devs also receive heavy pressure to keep the game from being P2W...I imagine that's the main reason a CP cap is even in place.

Perhaps a raise to the cap could work as a short-term alleviation move, though when an overpopulated side puts on a push, that would just make the situation that many CPs worse for the underpopulated side.

Also...have the darks had a CP buff since hades openned? If so, that would explain the 555cps more per darkie avg...and i'm simply curious


I'm just gonna throw some ideas out there as well, TBH I'm racking my brain for solutions here :\

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Race Resets With Map

Perhaps one possible way is to allow race changes within a faction every map reset. This would naturally have to not impact a players progress... given the scale of the time involved it takes to accumulate growth in this game. In addition to this, on a roll of:

Example A: 50% chance for faction change (all players) enabled every map reset

Example B: Pre-roll from 1-3 and guaranteed faction change (all players) occurs on the result of that roll, resets

How would 3+ factions effect this? How would this move impact a players experience? Guilds? The mobility would certainly prove interesting, though an restriction of a maximal faction population difference by X% would need to be a factor to prevent any faction from getting stacked.

On a related note, I have since read Ysosad's proposal of a new set of races whom are sent to whichever faction needs a population boost. I think this idea could work quite well as a tool to help mediate population issues between 2 factions. Upon thinking of it more, I find myself wondering how this may mesh/conflict with what the devs have planned for any new races/factions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Features


Another way would be to continue the push for new features. The more ways we have to impact the map, the more a player can feel/see the difference they are making.

Features such as walls and guild/faction sponsored armies are fine examples.

An expansion on this would give players more ways to make a difference and further reward activity through things like:

- more quests (guild oriented?)
- Tiers for PVE similar to PVP hall, with loot/CP bonus
- An expansion of economic map impactors (walls/armies/regional bonus)

> guild or hero espionage missions (i.e. open gates to lessen wall effect for X hours - plant explosives to damage wall - assasinate guard captain/general to decrease enemies troops in PVE while not effecting CP)

- Diplomatic/Tactical oriented map options such as:

> combined attacks/raids with allied guilds (really need to be able to pvp allies though...ahem...sorry) that could yield an increase in CP generation for the members of those guilds hitting targetted regions in coops

> coordinated defense with allied guilds

> vendetta with enemy guild (i.e. your guild gets x% CP bonus against territories owned by 1/2 enemy guilds (any faction) of your choice with a cooldown of 1/2/3 days on changing selected guilds


I'll cut if off there even though it's half-baked and full of holes...but you get the idea   

This will also bring other styles of play into the light, with democrats, traders, and warriors all having a valid impact on the map. While not directly settling any population imbalance, it will give both sides more options to win and counter the enemy...giving the most active players/guilds an edge.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aether

I've seen mention of aether rewards being a source for imbalance...now that is entirely possible, though I imagine it will only effect starting players when one faction is at an extreme disadvantage and the player is within a week of having started...as more progress than that hurts to lose.

While a source for concern, I don't believe it's the cause. As Ysosad has mentioned, many players have a set race/faction that they prefer in a fantasy game. For instance I usually prefer to start games as the 'good guys', and later try the other side. Humans are the race I never choose, unless they have a fantastic buff/reason for me to choose them.

If anything, I feel the aether rewards system is fine, but prices are steep when considering that players don't want the map to flip 'too' often. While not aiming for a stalemate, everyone wants to enjoy their regions for as much time as possible...and noone wants to lose.

I would suggest decreasing prices or adding in some more destructable gear in the aether store - stuff that will be affordable to any player on the losing faction. That will ensure everyone feels rewarded at the end of the cycle.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Define The Active Player

Perhaps if we could define the acceptable characteristics of an active player through the community, it would be possible to figure out the solution to our problem that works best for the community.

In my opinion, a minimum for an active player should roughly be:

- log on at least 4 times in one month, though not necessarily once a week

- generate a minimum of 4% of their fame value in CP in one month
OR
- participate in a minimum of 4 PvP matchups per month
OR
- complete 4/8/12/16 transactions on the market per month (scales up with research)

There are still other ways to be active, but this is a rough start.

Also, keep in mind I'm still not convinced there currently is a problem   

[refering to ysosad post before dobs]

Thanks for teaching me then
I explained what i meant, no need to theorycraft. It went along with a lot of text that was (i usually hope) hard to misinterpret, but ppl keep trying.

I do not like your idea. Regardless of whether the priority (greater good) is to have more players or a ballanced population that do not exclude each other on the long run(, but only one can be a priority - so prio more players instead prio ballanced factions, dont ask me now why i thought it was obvious).

Since your suggestion is basing on a loose idea to have the additional faction work different than original ones i dont lean towards considering it seriously until i know what devs planned with the 3rd faction at all. There havent been any intel afaik. It may be possible but overall i expect a 3 sided game to be a lot more versatile and diversified. Which is why i am biased to a triangle scenario instead of the eternal struggle of light and dark   

[side note: for future discussion on semantics please mail me, derailing topics and stuff]

Well assuming Drows army only attacks hexes near the volcano (not sure if that's true) then that sorta changes the faction imbalance discussion, no? It's basically another cp bonus to the losing faction is it not?

Oingoboingo wrote:

Well assuming Drows army only attacks hexes near the volcano (not sure if that's true) then that sorta changes the faction imbalance discussion, no?  It's basically another cp bonus to the losing faction is it not?

Yeah. Problem sorted.

Just wondering: Why is the Drow army attacking us? They gave the Light side 1 day to pay up (or so the Grey Goblin said).

Gimli wrote:

Yeah. Problem sorted.

Just wondering: Why is the Drow army attacking us? They gave the Light side 1 day to pay up (or so the Grey Goblin said).

One day or not (I only heard about it an hour ago or so) no one would realistically would pay 10mm gold to not be attacked.

Dobraine wrote:

Also, keep in mind I'm still not convinced there currently is a problem   

That is fair. I don't know either, I believe there is and I believe there could be in the future as well... so I'm glad that people like yourself are considering that it could be a problem.

Oingoboingo wrote:

Well assuming Drows army only attacks hexes near the volcano (not sure if that's true) then that sorta changes the faction imbalance discussion, no?  It's basically another cp bonus to the losing faction is it not?

The dynamic of the conflict will change in some fashion or other, for sure. However, I don't know that this really addresses a Faction imbalance...it might perhaps, I just don't know yet.

I sincerely hope that it does not simply act as another CP bonus...I hate that already.

Tibr wrote:

I do not like your idea. Regardless of whether the priority (greater good) is to have more players or a ballanced population that do not exclude each other on the long run(, but only one can be a priority - so prio more players instead prio ballanced factions, dont ask me now why i thought it was obvious).

This thread was not about priorities, you made it such...I have no idea why you decided to do so. I like your idea, it is just seemingly unrelated...then you go and put that idea above this entire thread. If you don't want to contribute an idea to further balance fine, but this thread was not about what item to pursue next...be it faction balance, population, race balance, PvP-AI, etc etc...it is a factional balance thread.

Tibr wrote:

Since your suggestion is basing on a loose idea to have the additional faction work different than original ones i dont lean towards considering it seriously until i know what devs planned with the 3rd faction at all. There havent been any intel afaik. It may be possible but overall i expect a 3 sided game to be a lot more versatile and diversified. Which is why i am biased to a triangle scenario instead of the eternal struggle of light and dark   

I'm not saying we should throw away their plans...no one has any idea what they are. Having a third set (which I'll call a 'swing group') of races now, as I proposed, does not preclude having a 3rd Faction in a three-way war at a later date (e.g. Light, Dark, 'swing group', and 3rd Faction).

Assuming a Light and Dark war OR a Light, Dark and 3rd Faction war...the concept I proposed can still apply.