Suggestion talk:20070629 Meta-Game Balance Auto-Adjustment
Post Removal Comments (because you shouldn't vote after removal)
I think the game is actually fairly well self balancing. When one side gets a arge uper hand, various factors seem to eventually turn the tide. The game stat history indicates a fairly regualr 3-4 month cycle between peaks for one side or the other, and neither side ever seems to get more than a 20% advantage. That could be due to player preference, or because new zombies / survivors get "xp starved" when their side is doing really well (after all, there's not much left to kill!), or because Kevan already has something like this (or just a crude cyclic boost to one side or the other) in place. Whatever it is, it seems to work pretty damn well. Nobody has yet broken the cycle. ... 17:22, 27 June 2007 (BST)
Various factors? Such as? XP starvation seems like a weak point to me. If humans are XP starved because there aren't any zombies to kill, then zombies are doubly XP starved! In fact, if it's hard to find a zombie as a human, it's just as hard to find one as another zombie. Harder, if you count that some zombies won't yet have shambling gait. If things have swung the other way, life becomes tough for the survivors. It's more difficult to keep barricades up, since you won't be able to count on another survivor building them for you. If it's only you building your barricades, then even two zombies can break through... And with fewer barricades around, setting one up just makes you suspicious. On top of that, it becomes tougher to get revives. Your 'cycle' sounds pretty vague to me, and I'm tempted to be skeptical. Is there a page I can see a graph of it? Either way, I think this would be a step in the right direction. You say that our current 18% gap is about as big as it ever gets, but... frankly, I think 18% is already too far.Grant 02:53, 28 June 2007 (BST)
- Stats going back almost 3 months, direct from Kevan: http://urbandead.com/stats.csv , and in graphic form: http://img162.imageshack.us/my.php?image=stats618gh6.jpg
- Much older graphic stats, that look strikingly similar, with the difference being survivors had a larger average advantage: http://www.armory.com/~crisper/UrbanDead/Standing.png from http://www.armory.com/~crisper/UrbanDead/
- Truth told, I think to much balance would be dull. I find the extreem situations fun, and almost always switch to playing the underdog when things get to one or the other extreme. Lots of other feel the same, though my evidence is anecdotal. Thats one of those "various other factors" I was talking about. ... 04:04, 28 June 2007 (BST)
- Thanks for the links, those are good materials.
- The point of this is not to keep the levels of zombies and humans equal. Not at all. I don't really think it would do that. What it would do is help mitigate the intrinsic disadvantage of being outnumbered. I hardly think an extra 5% or 10% to hit makes a huge population gap less 'extreme.' It's more of a consolation prize, really.
- A 10% hit bonus for zombies is effectively a 10% AP bonus for zombies which is effectively a 10% population boost for zombies. Say zombies got out numbered 66.66% to 33.33% (its got that bad, but only with the old headshot that took away XPs). With 30,000 standing (non corpse) characters, that would make 20k vs 10k. This suggestion would make it equivalent to 20K vs 11K. Not so bad, I guess... though it still doesn't grab me as something the game needs, or which would even really make things more fun. Part of the cool thing about the swings in the game stats is the perception that you actually worked to accomplish that change. User:Āyutha Ezhuthu . . 01:57, 29 June 2007 (BST)
- Right on with the math. If you think that the adjustment should be more or less, then that's one thing. It would not somehow make all the zombies now into super zombies. Clearly it would be much less important than teamwork, determination, and strategy. That's intentional. But people on the losing side innately have a lot of extra disadvantages to deal with. I think they could do with a bone or two.
- A 10% hit bonus for zombies is effectively a 10% AP bonus for zombies which is effectively a 10% population boost for zombies. Say zombies got out numbered 66.66% to 33.33% (its got that bad, but only with the old headshot that took away XPs). With 30,000 standing (non corpse) characters, that would make 20k vs 10k. This suggestion would make it equivalent to 20K vs 11K. Not so bad, I guess... though it still doesn't grab me as something the game needs, or which would even really make things more fun. Part of the cool thing about the swings in the game stats is the perception that you actually worked to accomplish that change. User:Āyutha Ezhuthu . . 01:57, 29 June 2007 (BST)
- Kill - No, to problematic, and it really doesn't do anything. --karek 12:19, 27 June 2007 (BST)
- How can you say it's too problematic AND it doesn't do anything? Surely it's one or the other. Grant 12:22, 27 June 2007 (BST)
- Too problematic because you have to explain the bonus, otherwise people would get confused, and in the end people will complain anyway. Doesn't do anything in that it will only increase 6-7% in all likeliness, but will usually give less than 1%. When maxed 6-7% is a noticeable change for zombies against barricades but that's just about it for anyone anywhere.--karek 12:57, 27 June 2007 (BST)
- You don't really even have to explain it - it would be completely transparent for people who never read the documentation. They'd just think they were getting a little lucky. I don't know what you mean by 'usually,' though. Today, every single zombie would receive a 6% (or more or less, depending on the value chosen) boost to accuracy on every attack. And if/when the game population evens out, then there shouldn't be any effect. That's kind of the point. Grant 14:16, 27 June 2007 (BST)
- Too problematic because you have to explain the bonus, otherwise people would get confused, and in the end people will complain anyway. Doesn't do anything in that it will only increase 6-7% in all likeliness, but will usually give less than 1%. When maxed 6-7% is a noticeable change for zombies against barricades but that's just about it for anyone anywhere.--karek 12:57, 27 June 2007 (BST)
- How can you say it's too problematic AND it doesn't do anything? Surely it's one or the other. Grant 12:22, 27 June 2007 (BST)
Grant, you are looking at the at the overall figures of zombies and survivors, however the situations in each suburb are completely different to each other because the local populations of zombies and survivors are not equal to the overall average. If zombies are outnumbering survivors in one suburb, why should they get an accuracy boost just because overall zombies are out numbered? That wouldn't be fair to the survivors trying to take the suburb back. armareum 22:27, 29 June 2007 (BST)
- Yep, I am. That's completely intentional. I am not aiming at 'completely fair.' Otherwise, the adjustment would be much more drastic - instead of adding x/3 or so, we would multiply by 1 + (x/b), where 'b' is the amount of zombies/humans left. But that would be kinda silly, if you ask me. Grant 05:45, 2 July 2007 (BST)
- I personally don't like crude 'balancing mechanisms' like your suggestion. A great example of when this is used is in driving games - in 2 player mode the player that is behind gets a speed boost. If a player messes up and makes a mistake they still have a chance to catch up and the race will still be interesting/fun. (The downside is that a player can take advantage and wait till near the end to utilise the speed boost and end up winning.) Now, although that can increase the fun of a time limited game that has a defined end, I don't think the same applies for a game that never ends.
Personally, I don't want any boosts to my side (I'm sided with the zombies) - I want to 'win' by applying good strategy and tactics (Ie. metagaming). If I'm/we're winning because we are doing well I don't want the opposition to get an arbitrary boost!
There may or may not be an imbalance between zombies and survivors, however I quite like the balance as it is at the moment. Zombies may find it hard to get into buildings sometimes, but survivors are very vulnerable without their NTs. I think it's impossible to properly judge how balanced UD is anyway, until all possible tactics and strategies have been tried. 'armT:S 07:38, 2 July 2007 (BST)- They have already all been thought of and tried. This isn't rocket science. It's a very simple game. Not specifically you, but it seems like a lot of people can't even get their own opinions straight. And for those who say that I should have put it on a discussion page first, well, the quality of suggestions offered here doesn't make that seem like a very encouraging prospect. Grant 15:54, 4 July 2007 (BST)
- Better than getting it spammed. It just helps with some initial feedback. It's not the quality of the ideas that you go to the page for, it's the benefit of the discussion. And to pin down all details. A suggestion should be able to be inserted 'as is'. Although I note in your suggestion you just asked for feedback on a specific area: the numbers. Which is fair, I guess. My comment was in that case a little harshly put.
But no "they [strategies and tactics] haven't all already been thought of and tried" - what a completely arrogant thing to say! But I'm not going to engage on that point here and now, as I'm too tired to do so. 'arm. 20:23, 4 July 2007 (BST)- Is it more arrogant than to say that whatever balance issues exist are actually the result of the player just not having tried all of his/her options? It seems obvious to me that the cooperation between humans & zombies make it advantageous to be on the more popular side. Grant 03:43, 5 July 2007 (BST)
- Better than getting it spammed. It just helps with some initial feedback. It's not the quality of the ideas that you go to the page for, it's the benefit of the discussion. And to pin down all details. A suggestion should be able to be inserted 'as is'. Although I note in your suggestion you just asked for feedback on a specific area: the numbers. Which is fair, I guess. My comment was in that case a little harshly put.
- They have already all been thought of and tried. This isn't rocket science. It's a very simple game. Not specifically you, but it seems like a lot of people can't even get their own opinions straight. And for those who say that I should have put it on a discussion page first, well, the quality of suggestions offered here doesn't make that seem like a very encouraging prospect. Grant 15:54, 4 July 2007 (BST)
- I personally don't like crude 'balancing mechanisms' like your suggestion. A great example of when this is used is in driving games - in 2 player mode the player that is behind gets a speed boost. If a player messes up and makes a mistake they still have a chance to catch up and the race will still be interesting/fun. (The downside is that a player can take advantage and wait till near the end to utilise the speed boost and end up winning.) Now, although that can increase the fun of a time limited game that has a defined end, I don't think the same applies for a game that never ends.
I started to explain what I meant, however I realise you do understand me. And I'm not going to condescend to you. But your method of equalising the balance is a crude method and doesn't take into account local population levels (which would probably be too hard anyway). Each side clearly has an advantage when they outnumber the other. But even though survivors outnumber zombies (at the moment) there are plenty of suburbs where the opposite applies. And who's to say that 50:50 is the optimal ratio? 'arm. 00:04, 6 July 2007 (BST)
- Thanks for the lack of condescending! I know it doesn't do local populations: I think that would be kind of silly, because there's no clear place to draw the line between 'local' and 'malton' populations. You can be outnumbered in your square, and I think that's clearly just a sign that it's time to move.
- Each side does have an advantage when it outnumbers the other, I'm glad we can agree on that. I think it would be nice if there were a smaller, counterbalancing advantage to be on the less populous side - and I think that a bonus to hit is probably the only easily-implemented one possible.
- As far as "who's to say that 50:50 is the optimal ratio," well, who's to say that it isn't? I think that 50/50 makes sense for a couple reasons. Mainly, zombie AP and human AP are supposed to be balanced. Zombies are not supposed to be twice as strong as humans, nor are humans supposed to be twice as strong as zombies. If you want the 'balance of power' to be even, and if you think that the strength of an individual zombie is approximately equal to an individual human, then you would want the populations to be roughly equal. You could easily choose to base the adjustment on the distance from a ratio of 60:40 or 70:30, if you wanted to... But are there really people out there who are saying that the ratio shouldn't be 50:50? And if not, what do they think it should be? Grant 01:09, 6 July 2007 (BST)
- Good points. Very good points, all of them. However I meant optimal ratio in terms of most fun (as I see this method as a way to try to keep the overall ratio "the most fun", as per my racing example above. It might be more fun for there to be more survivors around for zombies to munch. The reverse might be true.
However good or effective this method, I just don't want it. If my group is winning (or losing!), I want it to be because of player actions only, with assistance playing no part it in. Although, as someone pointed out, this may already be part of the game. The ~3 month cycle from zed to survivors would seem to support that theory.
Thanks for debating, you're clearly and intelligent and thoughtful person - always a healthy and welcome addition to this wiki! And apologies for the spat on your talk page. 'arm. 05:21, 6 July 2007 (BST)
- Good points. Very good points, all of them. However I meant optimal ratio in terms of most fun (as I see this method as a way to try to keep the overall ratio "the most fun", as per my racing example above. It might be more fun for there to be more survivors around for zombies to munch. The reverse might be true.
A point I forgot to mention in my above discussion with the author is that when things get REALLY skewed, to the point where they are not fun, people seek meta game solutions. A very good case in point would be the original zombie strike. And I think such tings are GOOD for the game. . . . swiers 00:27, 2 July 2007 (BST)
