Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can we talk about that balancing system?

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Can we talk about that balancing system?

    I have had a massive issue with the balancing system in this game in that it encourages you, or at least gives you the option to stomp over hopelessly underleveled/less experienced players, most of the time without much choice even, and no matter how far you level up you will inevitably be stomped on by higher and higher level players who are always ten steps ahead of you. I remember when you could see a player's level rather than base power I was getting attacks from people in the 30's or even 40's when I was level 17. And that goes both ways when it comes to attacking, all I want is players close to my level/base power to find a good balance of challenge and risk/reward, like about 20% lower or higher than me, but instead the choices always seem to be ridiculously wild in range anywhere from stealing candy from a baby to just absolute guaranteed suicide, and it always seems to varyingly lean to said extremes, which just makes me not want to play it until I get something reasonable once or twice a day.

    And leveling is not absolutely everything, sure, currently I'm about 2,200 base power and I recently just beat an attack from a 4,000+ base power level player, but that was a very special case because he pathetically underestimated me bringing in nothing but a weak 500 munitions card, generally used his specials not very well, got absolutely wrecked in barbed wire, and lost any meaningful momentum to his attack almost immeadiately. Then a player of the same level who actually had the slightest idea what's he doing with Riot sheilds and tactical boots stormed in and there was practically nothing I could have done to stop him, let alone even dream of sucsessfully retaliating.

    I get the idea that if I have been repeatedly destroying people of my own level that people of higher level should be coming in, but at some point there needs to be a cap on this or some way to lower the bar back down again (other than just being inactive for a long time it seems) if you keep losing else it will just keep escalating to the point where it becomes hopeless. If there are caps in how much I can build, how many cards or soldiers I can bring in to battle then why shouldn't there be one on how overleveled my opponents can be and how weak of an opponent i can attack?

    Case in point, my last attack was from a 9,500 base power player. Do I even need to say anything about how utterly broken that is? My base is about 22% as powerful as his, that means that is the equivalent of him being attacked by a 16,910 base power player or me (2,200) stomping on a player of about 400 base power, such a player would have been playing the game for minutes and have a handful of level 1 structures when I have probably 12-20 hours into the game and have level 8-9 structures.


    TL;DR The range of players you can encounter should be narrowed out and more proportional. I don't think there should be any circumstance (I don't care what their CPU defend time is, I don't care what their W/L ratio is) in which you are allowed to attack someone below 50% of your base power, never even mind something like 22%, if that means it's harder for me on the attacking side, so be it.



  • #2
    Matchmaking is not solely based on Base Power of a base, as Base Power is not an accurate indicator of a base's difficulty. While BP gives you an idea of the amount and Lvl of the structures contained within a base, it does not give any kind of indication how well those structures are being utilized to create a strong Defensive strategy. As such, BP is not the only factor used to determine matchmaking. Also, to restrict the matchmaking pool to players within a "22%" up/down difference between you and your opponents' BP would limit the amount of opponents you would see at any given time. As such, you would end up being matched with the same players over and over again. That's why we give you different Lvls of difficulty opponents to attack. If you want an easy, quick win go with a 1 White skull, if you want something more difficult go for a 3 Red Skull. The choice is yours!

    Comment


    • #3
      I mean even as the absolute easiest option, there should be SOME kind of floor to how easy it should be for the sake of being fair towards the defender, especially since defense is automated. You can utilize what you have to the best of your abilities, but all the strategy/planning/grinding in the world is not going to help me as a level 1 player against a level 100.

      and I may be alone here but I would much rather have a limited amount of fair, level playing field challenges rather than just a variety of bases that are way too easy or hard, there could be an option to prefer double skull missions or higher at least.

      Comment


      • MonkeyMoon22
        MonkeyMoon22 commented
        Editing a comment
        Actually, when you think about it, if there was a level 1 player vs a level 100 player, it’s possible for the level 1 player to win. Can you guess how?

      • mendoza0206
        mendoza0206 commented
        Editing a comment
        5 missiles? Or against one of them cheesy bases that have only walls to defend...but are not level 100 since only a few have reached it. But at level 50 things even out and a level 50 can beat a level 70 and higher.

    • #4
      I want to take a moment to reply here. You speak of narrowing the range of enemy power you can encounter with matchmaking. The balancing changes we made and posted about yesterday were meant to do exactly that.

      We have identified that this disproportion between levels has occurred and we are actively trying to reign it in.

      Also, at the end of the day, its possible that you are a skilled player who is better than the general community. In these cases the matchmaker is going to serve you harder opponents based on your rank. I know this gives the impression that the matchmaker is unfair, but in this case it is working as intended. It would be unfair to serve you easy opponents who you stomp. Instead, we try to give you a match that we think will be even.

      The same goes for defense. The reason you are getting served hard opponents is because your rank is matching you up with them. Your base is probably really good. If these players are beating you, then your rank will drop and you will begin being served to easier players. This is exactly how the matchmaker is intended to work. As you move up and down the ranks, your match ups will change.

      Comment


      • #5
        my Attack W/L ratting is nearly 2:1 at 168/88 and my defend ratio W/L is 80/107 but wins used to be much lower on the defend side, again going back to being constantly slain by level 30-40 players when I was in the high teens and low twenties ranks about two years ago (I just came back to the game after said two year gap). It seemed like back then the attackers would just constantly escalate without coming back down, so after a certain point it was permanently hopeless and it was incredibly frustrating with all the work I put into my base. but since posting this I did win against a 3,000 base power player, so it seems what you are talking about is true and that 9,500 player was just an extreme outlier. still I think that serves an example that there should be a limit to how hard it should go up to, even if it will go back down again.
        Last edited by Gamerguy495; 01-11-2018, 07:17 PM.

        Comment


        • MonkeyMoon22
          MonkeyMoon22 commented
          Editing a comment
          I felt the same way too.

          That frustration you mentioned of “the attackers would just constantly escalate...”, I accepted that as part of the game since you would end up having to do similar, especially if you were competitive, but the difference in my experience compared to yours was that I was already aware of the best strategies of the game including base builds.

          I had a similar feeling when you mentioned “permanently hopeless”, for my case, it was about doing what I thought was the best defensive strategy during the earlier levels of progression(I want to expand on this more at a later time, since “Defend” portion of game was sort of underrated and not focused on a lot compared to “Attack” portion, which is a main focus of the game, so it gets most of the attention), which the devs eventually addressed in an issue where Defend Scores(Attack and Defend ‘Scores’ were later renamed as ‘Dog Tags’) weren’t accurately reflecting the effectiveness of players defensive capabilities, basically meaning building the best base you can to defend against attackers, which they were able to retroactively readjust the Defend Score stats on the Leaderboard. To me, it was a nice way of giving credit to those who particularly made an effort to do well defensively, and it showed with my Defensive Rank going all the way to the top(I don’t remember the exact numbers right now, but I do remember being put in the top spot).

          So, although playing this game can be very frustrating, maybe try to keep in mind now that by just playing, you help create the game what it is, now or later(posting on the forums is helpful too and remember there’s a Bug Reports section too, even in game too).

      • #6
        Easy opponents are needed to make veterans, and also very important to farm munitions and attack cards. To a player of your same level you might appear as a nightmare but against a level 60 you will be just a 1 white skull. This is why we have different levels of opponents, white skulls for easier wins and red skulls for more of a challenge. As you level up things start to be easier, you start to get better perks, more munitions and stronger structures, you start unlocking heroes. At level 40ish most your opponents should be easy wins even at nightmare levels then after lvl 60 things start to get a little more challenging as you start to get matched against tougher opponents some top 100 ranked PvP.

        Comment


        • #7
          You have bases with 1,500-2,000 power and 5:30 attack time that have most OP Bombardier type base which would win against 95% of the attackers, those 5% who do manage to win are those who brought 4-5 Focus Fires (needs huge luck in alliance battle to bring this when you don't know what base you will face), and those who get extremely lucky in battle and get every single right special they need to brake trough Bombardiers behind walls in that small amount of attack time

          They use 1/10th of build points and get more powerful base design then someone who uses more or all build points and has 9,000 power for examaple, which makes build points completely pointless to get, what is the point of getting and unlocking more build points when you never gonna use even half of that

          Base power in this game is same as power levels in DragonBall Super (if you ever heard of it), in other words its complete bs.
          Last edited by CrazyPenguin*PC; 01-12-2018, 06:33 AM.

          Comment


          • mendoza0206
            mendoza0206 commented
            Editing a comment
            Some dude by the name of gargajo ranked top 20 I believe beats this 5:30 bases without bringing 4-5 Focus fires. Look him up on YouTube. It all has to do with timing.

        • #8
          I play 2 & 3 skulls until I get wrecked a few times and have used up all my munitions on attack cards, run out of munitions and have very little attack cards, then yes I destroy 1 skull bases.
          Last edited by MonsterLoad*PC; 01-12-2018, 11:08 AM.

          Comment


          • #9
            to restrict the matchmaking pool to players within a "22%" up/down difference between you and your opponents' BP would limit the amount of opponents you would see at any given time. As such, you would end up being matched with the same players over and over again. That's why we give you different Lvls of difficulty opponents to attack. If you want an easy, quick win go with a 1 White skull, if you want something more difficult go for a 3 Red Skull. The choice is yours!
            I'd have to agree with Peer, here. It would get incredibly stale to only fight opponents ranked the same as you. Difficulty in any game can be a tricky thing. Some people want to play a game that is easy and allows them to win all the time. Other players prefer a challenge and want each win to feel like a tough puzzle. I think its important for any game to have both. Hence the new 1, 2, and 3 star rating. If you're trying to level up vets or looking for an easy encounter you play the 1 star missions. If you want a challenge you play the 3 star. Something in-between you play 2 stars. In this way everyone can tailor the Gun's Up experience to their liking. Take that choice away and people would start to get fed up with the game rather quickly, especially if they're sinking money into it.

            Now that's probably going to mean that you'll get the snot knocked out of you at times, but that's ok. Every win or lose is re-evaluating your skill level so that the game better matches you to the opponents that are more of your caliber. Win or lose, you get rewarded with munitions and/or cards, and you also get to see tactics and strategy of veteran players attacking your base.

            I'd personally rather have 3 people attacking me every time I logged, even if those were all losses, than have no one attack me. Generally what happens is even if you have a string of losses it balances out later on with a string of victories. So it usually evens out and every loss is an opportunity to re-examine your base and possibly improve upon it.

            Today for example I had 3 people attack me, one of them being Odystak, which I thought was pretty cool. I lost 2 of the 3 defends. I lost 22 dog tags but gained 30 for an overall increase of 8 dog tags. I made a profit of 16,215 munitions, 5 gold, and a level 1 health perk. A pretty sweet haul for doing nothing and essentially losing more than I was winning.

            Comment


            • #10
              The balancing of this game will not be good until there are clear definitions of what is meant by “easy, hard, and even” base difficulties.

              In theory, the matchmaking system GU! uses with “dynamic difficulty” should work; if you play too good, then the game gets harder, and if you play not so good, then the game gets easier. You ask for a cap or limit to how easy or hard the game gets and I believe that is what is happening now with matchmaking adjustments (Why is this particular adjustment only happening now though?).

              But I don’t think this “dynamic difficulty” will work well when the gameplay mechanics of GU! have been compromised or exploited. Based on this games design, what was intended to be a “hard” base?

              Exploits interfere with intended game mechanics. Exploits can be removed or fixed by making adjustments wherever it needs to be, but they also can influence and can become part of the game mechanics. Sometimes if something can’t be fixed, why not just adapt them to the game? If exploits influence changes for the game and “exploit” bases become “hard” bases, then that means the player will define the difficulty of the base, which, in this case, as a community-trend, “dynamic difficulty” will work as intended.

              Comment


              • #11
                Originally posted by MonkeyMoon22 View Post
                In theory, the matchmaking system GU! uses with “dynamic difficulty” should work; if you play too good, then the game gets harder, and if you play not so good, then the game gets easier. You ask for a cap or limit to how easy or hard the game gets and I believe that is what is happening now with matchmaking adjustments (Why is this particular adjustment only happening now though?).

                But I don’t think this “dynamic difficulty” will work well when the gameplay mechanics of GU! have been compromised or exploited. Based on this games design, what was intended to be a “hard” base?
                The developers are trying to balanace the game for the legit player. A some alliances were loosing battles to “free bases” on purpose to get easy alliance battles to cheat their way to a platinum badge.
                A hard base in my opinion is just that...a base that is hard to beat don’t matter what cheats,xploits or whatever means they use to defend themselves. If it’s available to all then it’s valid. People seem to want to be able to beat nightmares as if they were 1 white skulls and when it doesn’t happen they come to the forums asking for nerfs and adjustments to make it happen. By definition a nightmare shouldn’t be easily defeated by just anyone but that’s just my point of view.

                Comment


                • #12
                  We are reading all the comments here and paying attention to your feedback. I want to add that you all seem to be some of the best this community has to offer in terms of skill. Just like in other games, we can only server you harder opponents for so long. Eventually you will become so good that in order to have a fun and engaging challenge, you will be facing the best defenders around.

                  At the end of the day, if you are the best in the world, we can't serve you "harder" opponents.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X