Feedback:User/Raine Valen/Improve Alliance Battles: Matchmaking and Handicaps
Improve Alliance Battles: Matchmaking and Handicaps
| |
|---|---|
| User | Raine Valen |
| Categories | Player vs. Player → Other Player interaction → Other |
tl;dr[edit]
- Make a ladder system for AB; pair opposing teams of similar rating.
- Use the maps as a handicap for pairings with rating differences.
Preface[edit]
There have been a few concerns raised about the current state of Alliance Battles, and, on many counts, I'm forced to agree. However, the one that's lately become the worst of the lot is the permanent Grenz Frontier/Ancestral Lands lock that we seem to be in.
As a regular AB player, let me assert that being stuck on those two maps isn't fun. For either side. We like Saltspray Beach, we like Etnaran Keys, we like the faction bonuses for playing tougher matches (and the Kurzicks never see those) and we like the bit of relaxation offered on the maps that favor us (and the Luxons never see this).
There's been a bit of speculation as to what causes this, but it's largely irrelevant: the point is, it needs to change. And, to that end, I'll make this proposal.
Step 1: A Ladder[edit]
A ladder system is something that all competitive games have used with varying degrees of success, be it through a rating system (like Guild Wars GvG uses) or through a simple measure of Kill/Death ratio (common in competitive shooters) or some other statistic. Why are ladders good? They pair teams against teams of similar ability, and that makes matches more fun for everyone! No one wants to wipe the floor with their opposition every time, and it's certainly not fun being on the other end of that.
To that end, I strongly recommend a form of ladder for Alliance Battles. Obviously, it couldn't work the same as the guild ladders, but I've drafted a couple of possible systems:
- Individual Rating: Each player is assigned their own rating, and the ratings of each team would be the sum of its parts. Upon winning, each player would gain a certain amount of rating (determined by the rating of the opposition and the map). Upon losing, each player would lose the same amount of rating.
- Team Rating: Players register a team of four players and use that team's collective rating for the purposes of matchmaking only when with that group. This, however, would create more player confusion and database strain because players that commonly PUG would have to re-register every time they played with a unique team. On the other hand, this would generate more accurate matchups (because a team is much more than the sum of its parts).
- Guild Rating: Similar to the above, teams with of three or more players from the same guild could (optionally?) use their guild's Alliance Battles rating (this is NOT a guild's Guild Battles rating) for the purposes of matchmaking.
None of these are mutually exclusive, and this list is not inclusive; there are probably many more viable options. Any of these, though, would go far toward getting AB out of its current slump.
Step 2: Handicaps[edit]
In addition to the rating, another thing should be taken into consideration when deciding matches: the map they will be played on. For example, two opposing teams of more-or-less equal rating should play on Saltspray Beach. A pairing where the Luxons have a small advantage in rating should be carried out on Grenz Frontier. A pairing where the Kurzicks have a drastic advantage in rating should be played on Kaanai Canyon. And so on.
The map system is already in place as a handicap measure: this implementation allows it to serve the same purpose much more accurately.
In Conclusion[edit]
The end.
Also of Note[edit]
- Someone mentioned the possibility of adding different objectives to each map (similar to the Hall of Heroes objectives).
- An AB-only title has been brought up.
- Adjusting the NPC compositions seems to be a popular suggestion.
- In addition to rated matches, unrated (casual) matches could also be available.
