Suggestion:20070629 Meta-Game Balance Auto-Adjustment

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Rejected.

20070627 Meta-Game Balance Auto-Adjustment

Grant 12:01, 27 June 2007 (BST)

Suggestion type
Balance Change

Suggestion scope
Accuracy of all players on the 'losing' side.

Suggestion description
The balance of humans and zombies is precious. Whichever side you play on, you need that other side around to give you opponents.

Balance between humans and zombies due to their abilities is hard to manage. But there's also an advantage that comes simply with belonging to the side that is 'winning.' There is strength in numbers. A too-large human population means that it's easier to hunt zombies, then return to safety. Meanwhile, zombies have a hard time breaking though barricades due to AP-imbalance. A too-large zombie population makes it impossible to put up a worthwhile resistance.

So I propose that the less-popular side receive a slight boost. Boosts to AP or damage seem like they'd be ridiculous, so I propose a boost to accuracy. These numbers might not be the best (especially with the whopping 18% gap currently existing between human and zed populations). (I feel that players on the 'winning' side would be upset by penalties to the winning side, although it's not really so different, ultimately)

I'll suggest a bonus of +(X/3)% to hit with all attacks for the losing side. X = the gap in percent between the 'winning' and 'losing' side.

I don't know if this bonus should be visible to players via the main interface or not. If you think x/3 is too big or small, please suggest an alternative value for the accuracy boost.

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped. # justification ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user.

The only valid votes are Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Keep Votes

1. Keep/Change +X% would be too much, i think +X/2% or +X/4% would be better. Just because i think every person should shift the balance to his side a little bit, and with +X% newbie humans would do more harm to survivors than help.--KiT 12:21, 27 June 2007 (BST)

   My original suggestion was already X/3, if you read it carefully. I'm going to edit it for clarity so other users don't misunderstand as well.Grant 12:22, 27 June 2007 (BST)

2. keep/change maybe you should just give the bonus to the barricades. --Auronk 7:52 PM June 28, 2007

Kill Votes

1. Kill - No, to problematic, and it really doesn't do anything. --karek 12:19, 27 June 2007 (BST)

   Discussion moved to talk page -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 03:40, 29 June 2007 (BST)

2. Kill - I believe that Kevan does play with the percentages to fine tune game balance and try to even out population numbers. Especially search rates and chances to successfully barricade/debarricade -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 03:36, 29 June 2007 (BST)
3. Strong Kill - Just because one population is bigger than the other, does not mean you should give them bonuses. It could be that despite the lack of population in zombies, perhaps there are more levels in zombies. Sure, there might be 1,000 more survivors, but they could be between levels 1-4, with many of them spending all their time running around doing nothing - and using AP to attack @ 35% rather than 60%+. This suggestion simply doesn't sit well with me as it doesn't take into account game mechanics that change the ebb and flow of game balance. --Ryiis 06:24, 29 June 2007 (BST)

   Says you! I'm aware of levels, and I think it's a minor concern. You could calculate the bonus based on levels instead of players, or average the two, if you cared. But the whole point of the idea was to address changes in the "ebb and flow of game balance." Grant 06:58, 29 June 2007 (BST)

4. Kill - Honestly, I like the pattern of balance. Eventually it'll even out and then shift towards zombies. But if it was my choice, I'd have the balance shifted 3:1 in favor of zombies, without giving the survivors a boost. I simply like a challenge.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 07:07, 29 June 2007 (BST)
5. Kill - not bad, but you're targeting the wrong action. The barricade build & hit chances and the search % are both more subtle and more effective. And as far as we know already used by Kevan for exactly what you are proposing.-- Vista  +1  10:23, 29 June 2007 (BST)
6. Kill - EXACTLY what Suicidal Angel said. Word for word. Vault 15:50, 29 June 2007 (BST)
7. Kill - Nah, sorry, but the humans will ALWAYS win, and having a permanent disadvantage doesn't sound good for me.... --Bruce Torbaron 16:47, 29 June 2007 (BST)
8. Kill - You can't endlessly boost zombies if no-one wants to play them. You'll just make it too hard for survivors to do anything anymore and they'll just leave. Its up to the players what they do with the game. Mall Tour '07 brought loads of zombies into playing over the balance. --Marie^{The Grove on Tour} 18:00, 29 June 2007 (BST)
9. KILL WITH FIRE -- Like the RNG, the zombie/survivor ratio should be left alone. --Firemanrik 18:41, 29 June 2007 (BST)
10. Kill - "I don't know if...", "..please suggest an alternative value for ..." - - if you think your suggestion might not be fully ready yet and need some tweaking, take it to the Developing Suggestions page first.
    There are so many things wrong with trying to change the balance with a crude tool like this that I don't even want to start. I will never vote keep on a suggestion like this. armareum 22:21, 29 June 2007 (BST)
11. Kill - Nah, I really don't see any need of this. The imbalance problems always sort themselves out. Big zombie hordes get bored and dismantle eventually. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 04:47, 4 July 2007 (BST)
12. No. I play both sides and no boost is needed for the losing side. In fact...most of the year, the losing side would be the zeds...And I bet you're doing this for the survivors... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:49, 8 July 2007 (BST)

    I'm doing this for both sides, or else I'd suggest it only apply to one. I'm aware of the populations.Grant 14:43, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes