[Concept] Balance through Balance Intervals

I think what's feasible depends on how the game is formatted. The current system involves a simple queue (for ranked) with no pre-game setup. Also since it's a single game the sideboard system doesn't make much sense. Within the "ranked queue" format the only thing that comes to mind as a way to implement this kind of idea is to allow each user to see what factions the opponent is playing and then have a little time to swap runes out that work better against the faction they're playing against.

 

I wasn't the one putting words in your mouth sok.

 

Kind of my point. If it's possible to incorporate a pre-game interface with a five minute window to adapt your deck, with the knowledge of what faction(s) your opponent is playing, a sideboard of sorts would be interesting. But I don't know what's implementable, implementable but not likely, and whatnot to even try and figure out what a good suggestion would be.

The important thing is identifying the issue, which I think has happened to a degree, and getting the attention of DoG on the matter, and seeing if they agree that there is some kind of issue. Spitballing ideas though isn't exactly a waste, as something that is implementable might pop out.

 

I am a little disappointed that this thread has derailed into a EC / "Perfect Imbalance" discussion. My proposal deviates in some ways and is not exactly what falls under the term "Perfect Imbalance".
Maybe I should rename this thread to "Balance through Balance Intervals".

The current version (see OP, updated lines in orange) includes a random weekly buff for every theme.
I try to make a little more precise what I mean by "Balance Intervals":

Currently, two Themes T1 and T2 are equally strong if T1 ≤ T2 and T2 ≤ T1, where "≤" means something like "has at least a chance of 50% to beat".
Instead of a theoretical Rune or Theme strength, we have an interval [weakest buff, strongest buff] for each Rune or Theme.
That gives us two different orderings for the Themes T1 = [a1, b1] and T2 = [a2, b2].

Weak Theme ordering: [a1, b1] ≤* [a2, b2] iff a1 ≤ a2 and b1 ≤ b2
Strong Theme ordering: [a1, b1] ≺ [a2, b2] iff b1 ≤ a2 or [a1, b1] = [a2, b2]

Now we could try to balance the game according to those orderings. A Theme T1 would be imbalanced with T2 if T1 ≺ T2 or T2 ≺ T1 (under- and overpowered respectively), or if it would be T ≤* T1 for most other T.

 

actually it wasn't ME that made it sok vs EC. I just pointed out that if its gonna be sok vs EC, id probably pick EC, no offense.


@iPox doesn't your idea require that the relative strengths of each theme be quantifiable in some way? and isn't that more of a function of who is playing them at any given time? I just fail to see the practical implementation of it.... for pox.

 

im sorry if you find the classification of poxnora as a failing game offensive, but dude its true. not saying it was your fault though. I probably could have made my point just as well without it.

 

Failing? Um, I'm p sure most games only dream of having 356 players. Psshh

 

@Sokolov: I am sorry, you are of course entitled to defend yourself is you are attacked personally. Especially since I quoted you as the authority not to take EC too seriously. Btw., I would be happy to hear your thoughts on the topic.
Not necessarily on my actual proposal, but on the general idea: Assuming balance is problematic, wouldn't it be wise to change what balancing means?

@Ragic: I posted the function because I thought it would help to clarify my point. I doubt anyone would actually order the themes according to these relations. The argument was a little contrafactual: We currently treat the game as if a relation "≤" existed. What now if we changed the system, so that we could treat the game as if a different relation governed our understanding of balance? It would only be relevant in the sense in which the current function is relevant right now.

 

ipox I think you're operating on a higher plane than me, but let me try to translate this down to my level. You want to introduce runes that create a rock paper scissors effect at the theme level across the factions that rotates in some fashion?

I can see how this would inspire diversity of play while at the same time not punishing players for being locked into a single faction. How then do you encourage players to play the uphill match ups rather than just auto surrendering? something tells me Im missing something. if im not then I would suggest since youre formally introducing asymmetric match ups that you reward the outcome asymmetrically as well (assuming a match between players of equal rank).

 

At the beginning, I was going into the asymmetric direction you are talking about. But I took the comments seriously, and changed the system (see posts #9 and #45).
Now, I do not want to create a rock paper scissors effect at all. Instead, all Themes gain a different minor buff per week. Thereby, the clear lines that define the power of a Theme become blurred (or interval based, as described above in #45), which should make it easier to balance them.

 

so something like hunter: OP, where OP is the theme that performed the best the previous week (perhaps league based as well)? wouldn't it be interesting if a rune could change based on your rank, and the meta. would save the devs some time/energy.

 

Not quite. I don't understand how you could conclude something like Hunter: OP, and I doubt you can find out which Theme performed best. Yes, I think your idea could be fun. But it would be quite complicated to implement.

To summarize: I am not perfectly sure if you are trolling me right now.

 

I think I don't understand the revision of your suggestion. It it is not there to cause that rock/paper/scissor balance then what does it do? It seems a lot like what we have now, except with morefrequent balance changes.

Abd how do you plan to identify themes? What do you do with people who don't care about themes and just run the most buffed runes possible in a split? And how is it not a balance issue if theme As middle tier buffs beat other themes best buffs?

... posting from phones blows.

 

Thank you for your questions Hiyashi.

1. Themes. Themes should be easy to identify: Jakei, Ferren, Yeti, etc. for ST; Dwarves, Constructs, Barbarians, etc. for IS; and so on.
2. People may still run whatever they like. If they like to run the most buffed runes possible in a split, they may do so.
3. If Theme A middle tier buff is better than other Themes with their best buffs, we have the 2nd case I mentioned in #45, where T ≤* A for most other Themes T. True, this may be a problem, since it is much harder to see than with the case where one Theme is better than another Theme in all instances, but I think it's still an improvement over the current situation.
4. For your first question: "What does this do?", let's make an example:
   
   • Let's take two ST Themes, Yeti and Ferren. Let's assume for the sake of the argument, that right now, the Yeti Theme is just plain better than the Ferren Theme.
   • With the current method, every Rune would have to be revisited, buffed or nerfed -- which is a time consuming process.
   • Now let's make a small example Buff List := {(+1 SPD, +5 HP), (+2 DMG, +5 HP), (Pace, Reinforcement)}
   • Each Theme gets one of those 3 buffs each week.
   • Now, the Yeti Theme is strictly better than the Ferren Theme, if, no matter the Ferren Buff, the Yeti Theme is still better.
   • The Yeti Theme is somewhat better, if the Yeti Theme is better with its worst buff than the Ferren Theme with its worst buff, and better with its best buff than the Ferren Theme with its best buff.
   • If the Yeti Theme is worse with some of those buffs than the Ferren Theme with some of its buffs, I would say, in terms of balance, this accounts to an improvement over the assumed current condition, where the Yeti Theme is just better than the Ferren Theme.

 

I thought the buffs were aimed at speciffic chamoions, not an entire "theme". What do you do with champions that don't fit into any theme?

 

It would require the devs create a way for the game to recognize what kind of deck you're playing beyond just the factions involved. I don't know that it would be all that hard to do. When you read threads about a particular deck or theme you usually see at least 10-15 overlapping runes in the various builds. Theme decks based on race or class should be easy to identify. And popular gimmick decks tend to run a specific set of runes. Once the devs have added a deck type to the list, it probably wouldn't need much upkeep after that. To be clear, adding a deck to the list requires the manual effort of the devs and is not an automated process. Players would not be privy to the deck list or how a deck type is defined.

So the game would then be able to keep track of the performance of certain deck types across all the leagues. At the end of each week, if a deck type was dominant (and that would need to be defined maybe a 75% or better win ratio, because you want to identify OP'ness not just popularity), then it would get the OP flag for that league. So say in the rare league, if skeletons were dominant last week, then they would get the OP: rare tag. This week anyone in the rare league who had a hunter: OP rune in their deck would get an advantage when facing a skeleton deck of another rare leaguer. Note hunter: OP does not give a boost vs a specific champ type, but rather just awards the boost when facing the OP deck. Once a player sees that his deck has been flagged OP, he can choose to continue playing it (with perhaps an added reward for wins) or switch to another deck. This is less burdensome than flaging a whole faction as OP, since most players wont have the option to switch factions, but should be able to switch to another theme within their faction without too much trouble (at least they will have the avatar, banner and non champ runes most likely).

By parsing it out by league, you also factor in player skill into the OP or not question. A deck might be considered balanced in the limited league, and yet dominate in the lower leagues. Or a deck might be dominating the limited league, while players in the lower leagues who use it aren't seeing the same kind of win percentage.

This system wont solve all balance issues. Devs will still need to monitor the forums for those weird decks that pop up now and then. And some runes are problematic regardless of what kind of deck they are in. But instead of heading straight for the nerf bat, they can add the deck (if warranted) to the list and see how hunter: OP handles it. If a deck continues to dominate week to week, then targeted nerfs can be considered.

there is some small precedence for runes like this. there was the bear cub with hunter: exotic and the fallen hero with hunter: hero. so no, not trolling you..... this time

 

Wait... bear cub had Hunter: Exotic? Weird.

 

garu cub originally got some kind of boost vs 'elites'. and I don't think legendaries were around yet. cant remember if it targeted rarity or high nora cost champs.