Misrepresentation and Misunderstanding of the end-zone Invader problem
Posted: Sun May 03, 2020 11:23 am
TL:DR Asymmetric rewarding is good but it has to be balanced with better numbers
I saw this post yesterday which got me thinking about how little many players had been thinking about this problem, and how easy a solution would be to implement. Modified quote from viewtopic.php?f=8&t=37961&start=80
First of all, the game has always had a MODERATE asymmetric reward system, which slightly incentives attackers. For example, fort winners get 6 medals and chance to roll for bags while losers get 4 invaders. For example, city winners get 3 royals per stage instead of 1 royal per stage. Asymmetric reward systems are fine if they are MODERATE.
The current reward system in end-zone forts is an example of an EXTREME asymmetric reward system. For example, lets say destro pushed praag into reikland and look the rewards for both sides. If order wins reikland, they get 4 invaders whilst destro get 0 invaders. If destro wins reikland, both sides don't get invaders, but they do have the opportunity to get to the fort (and win ~4 invaders). However, only limited numbers of players get into a fort, and fort takes more time and effort than invader ping-pong in endzones (current gameplay shows that invader ping-pong is favored over throwing endzones to get forts anyhow).
Combine extreme asymmetric rewards with ability to easily switch realms at any point makes it a no brainer for anyone who has chars on both realms to switch to the side that is heavily rewarded.
What are the solutions?
1) Alot have suggested that imposing a harsher x-realm lockout timer would be good, but that doesn't solve the core issue of the extreme reward imbalance. It probably be an effective bandaid fix, but defending an endzone would still be way too heavily incentivised. Lockout timers have large effects on the other aspects of the game too.
2) Using reikland example, both factions should be equally incentivised at a lower amount for winning the endzone. For example, order wins reikland, gets 1-2 invaders while destro gets 0 invaders. Destro win reikland, gets 1-2 invaders and fort while order gets 0 invaders and fort. Key here is moderate incentives
3) Revert change back to how it was pre-update, where order winning reikland would get 1 invader and destro winning would get 0 invaders and a fort.
I saw this post yesterday which got me thinking about how little many players had been thinking about this problem, and how easy a solution would be to implement. Modified quote from viewtopic.php?f=8&t=37961&start=80
The author used these points to argue that case A asymmetric reward system was the reason for this problem, but this is not true at all.Let me expose clearly the equation :
case A : (asymetric rewarding) > Give a better reward to the winning side (actually what happens in last zone). This should be logical to reward winners and not losers. What do we see ? : A majority of players are moving to the winning side.
case B : (asymetric rewarding) > Give a better reward to losers. It is stupid and non productive. I imagine 800 player waiting a poor guy lock the area alone.
case C : (symetric rewarding) > Give same reward for both faction, cause time is valuable and no one want to lose, defending or attacking (as for fort city siege, or mid zones). No reason to make a real realm effort."
First of all, the game has always had a MODERATE asymmetric reward system, which slightly incentives attackers. For example, fort winners get 6 medals and chance to roll for bags while losers get 4 invaders. For example, city winners get 3 royals per stage instead of 1 royal per stage. Asymmetric reward systems are fine if they are MODERATE.
The current reward system in end-zone forts is an example of an EXTREME asymmetric reward system. For example, lets say destro pushed praag into reikland and look the rewards for both sides. If order wins reikland, they get 4 invaders whilst destro get 0 invaders. If destro wins reikland, both sides don't get invaders, but they do have the opportunity to get to the fort (and win ~4 invaders). However, only limited numbers of players get into a fort, and fort takes more time and effort than invader ping-pong in endzones (current gameplay shows that invader ping-pong is favored over throwing endzones to get forts anyhow).
Combine extreme asymmetric rewards with ability to easily switch realms at any point makes it a no brainer for anyone who has chars on both realms to switch to the side that is heavily rewarded.
What are the solutions?
1) Alot have suggested that imposing a harsher x-realm lockout timer would be good, but that doesn't solve the core issue of the extreme reward imbalance. It probably be an effective bandaid fix, but defending an endzone would still be way too heavily incentivised. Lockout timers have large effects on the other aspects of the game too.
2) Using reikland example, both factions should be equally incentivised at a lower amount for winning the endzone. For example, order wins reikland, gets 1-2 invaders while destro gets 0 invaders. Destro win reikland, gets 1-2 invaders and fort while order gets 0 invaders and fort. Key here is moderate incentives
3) Revert change back to how it was pre-update, where order winning reikland would get 1 invader and destro winning would get 0 invaders and a fort.