When I want balanced PvP, I play Team Fortress 2. Shooters w/o tons of perks or upgrades will always be more balanced at PvP, because there is very little progression in them. MMORPGs are based mostly around progression in my opinion. You can't really balance the PvP in a game that is based on progression because players will usually be at different levels of progression within the game at any given time. The algorithm sounds interesting, but seems like it would be more trouble than it's worth, and would likely not work correctly in every circumstance within the game, in my opinion.
The biggest mistake I see developers making is having the PvP be it's own form of progression. If PvP is done for it's own sake because it's fun, or meaningful for large groups of players (factions) then it doesn't matter if it's balaned. If you throw progression into the mix then the imbalances stand out and cause players to become upset, in my opinion.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Have you ever heard about such an algoritm in any other MMO? I'm searching for a truly balanced PVP mmo since years... Do not talk me about WOW, EVE, ULTIMA & co: those are for crying babies. I want action. Replies are more than welcome (:
To be perfectly honest, I think you are on the wrong website. You should probably go to a general MMO website and not one for MMO>RPGs<. I think by the sheer nature of the genre you aren't going to find what you are looking for.
Have you ever heard about such an algoritm in any other MMO? I'm searching for a truly balanced PVP mmo since years... Do not talk me about WOW, EVE, ULTIMA & co: those are for crying babies. I want action. Replies are more than welcome (:
To be perfectly honest, I think you are on the wrong website. You should probably go to a general MMO website and not one for MMO>RPGs<. I think by the sheer nature of the genre you aren't going to find what you are looking for.
As someone who loves both pvp and rpgs i really hate such a view, rpg means originally character developement, no word of power here, see you can develop storywise, pvp could be handled completly separate, i hate the fact that when a lvl 1 attacks a lvl 80 in wow its just 99% miss 1% 1damage, i would rather see a lvl10 beeing maybe 30% less powerfull than a lvl 80 in the best gear but not more, having played more should not give you a free card to win, bad play should lead to your loss regardless of invested time.
WOW, EVE, ULTIMA & co: those are for crying babies. I want action.
Pffffff... you wouldn't last a month in Eve... nothing in eve is EVER fair.
Balanced pvp is for crybabies... go play wow battlegrounds with all shamans...
Nothing wrong with having risk in Eve except most of it comes from the risk adverse. Remember less than 20% of eve players actually participate in 0.0 fights. Most of the pirate corps are just cowards at heart, if ever presented with a fair fight they run like chickens. A great example of this is the hulkageddon currently in progress. Every one of these contestants is basically a coward at heart including the contest owners, they that advantage of gaps in the rules to make their play risk free.
So don't come here trumpeting how great Eve is, nothing great about so much cowardly play.
I would guess from the lack of fair play in pvp action in MMO's that the vast majority don't want to experience such or some MMO would have implemented it.
Have you ever heard about such an algoritm in any other MMO? I'm searching for a truly balanced PVP mmo since years... Do not talk me about WOW, EVE, ULTIMA & co: those are for crying babies. I want action. Replies are more than welcome (:
To be perfectly honest, I think you are on the wrong website. You should probably go to a general MMO website and not one for MMO>RPGs<. I think by the sheer nature of the genre you aren't going to find what you are looking for.
As someone who loves both pvp and rpgs i really hate such a view, rpg means originally character developement, no word of power here, see you can develop storywise, pvp could be handled completly separate, i hate the fact that when a lvl 1 attacks a lvl 80 in wow its just 99% miss 1% 1damage, i would rather see a lvl10 beeing maybe 30% less powerfull than a lvl 80 in the best gear but not more, having played more should not give you a free card to win, bad play should lead to your loss regardless of invested time.
I agree that RPGs focus on character development and individual or collective narratives, but it doesn't make sense that someone who has battled their way through hordes of demons and undead and the like comes across some level 10s who have been killing rats and boars all day and gets his face bashed in.
My first post was more in reference to the game-mechanics of most MMORPGs. Higher-level characters tend to have better in-game skills, which play a part in the outcome of a fight. Finding some sort of balance between a player's skill and a character's skills in a form the computer can understand is extremely difficult, if not impossible. The original RPGs didn't have this problem since if your GM wasn't fair you found a new one.
WOW, EVE, ULTIMA & co: those are for crying babies. I want action.
Pffffff... you wouldn't last a month in Eve... nothing in eve is EVER fair.
Balanced pvp is for crybabies... go play wow battlegrounds with all shamans...
Nothing wrong with having risk in Eve except most of it comes from the risk adverse. Remember less than 20% of eve players actually participate in 0.0 fights. Most of the pirate corps are just cowards at heart, if ever presented with a fair fight they run like chickens. A great example of this is the hulkageddon currently in progress. Every one of these contestants is basically a coward at heart including the contest owners, they that advantage of gaps in the rules to make their play risk free.
So don't come here trumpeting how great Eve is, nothing great about so much cowardly play.
I would guess from the lack of fair play in pvp action in MMO's that the vast majority don't want to experience such or some MMO would have implemented it.
I think you are missing the point that EVE PvP isn't just combat-based.
Have you ever heard about such an algoritm in any other MMO? I'm searching for a truly balanced PVP mmo since years... Do not talk me about WOW, EVE, ULTIMA & co: those are for crying babies. I want action. Replies are more than welcome (:
To be perfectly honest, I think you are on the wrong website. You should probably go to a general MMO website and not one for MMO>RPGs<. I think by the sheer nature of the genre you aren't going to find what you are looking for.
As someone who loves both pvp and rpgs i really hate such a view, rpg means originally character developement, no word of power here, see you can develop storywise, pvp could be handled completly separate, i hate the fact that when a lvl 1 attacks a lvl 80 in wow its just 99% miss 1% 1damage, i would rather see a lvl10 beeing maybe 30% less powerfull than a lvl 80 in the best gear but not more, having played more should not give you a free card to win, bad play should lead to your loss regardless of invested time.
I agree that RPGs focus on character development and individual or collective narratives, but it doesn't make sense that someone who has battled their way through hordes of demons and undead and the like comes across some level 10s who have been killing rats and boars all day and gets his face bashed in.
My first post was more in reference to the game-mechanics of most MMORPGs. Higher-level characters tend to have better in-game skills, which play a part in the outcome of a fight. Finding some sort of balance between a player's skill and a character's skills in a form the computer can understand is extremely difficult, if not impossible. The original RPGs didn't have this problem since if your GM wasn't fair you found a new one.
I would only consider character stats for balancing,it is up to the players to fullfill their potential.
Didn't read other posts so maybe this was said before. You want fair pvp... go play russian roulette. You sickening insignificant piece of ******* **** on the bottom of our shoes. You insult the very core of what you're looking for and expect to get advice. Here's the greatest advice/tip you'll ever receive.... pull your **** out of your ***!
Keep up the intelligent comments coming dude, they don't cease to amuse me anywhere. When you'll be done, feel free to get lost too.
Originally posted by Ozmodan Originally posted by ryuga81
Originally posted by Marere WOW, EVE, ULTIMA & co: those are for crying babies. I want action.
Pffffff... you wouldn't last a month in Eve... nothing in eve is EVER fair. Balanced pvp is for crybabies... go play wow battlegrounds with all shamans... Nothing wrong with having risk in Eve except most of it comes from the risk adverse. Remember less than 20% of eve players actually participate in 0.0 fights. Most of the pirate corps are just cowards at heart, if ever presented with a fair fight they run like chickens. A great example of this is the hulkageddon currently in progress. Every one of these contestants is basically a coward at heart including the contest owners, they that advantage of gaps in the rules to make their play risk free. So don't come here trumpeting how great Eve is, nothing great about so much cowardly play. I would guess from the lack of fair play in pvp action in MMO's that the vast majority don't want to experience such or some MMO would have implemented it.
Remember less than 20% of eve players actually participate in 0.0 fights.
I'd venture to say that any MMO with good PvP and significant depth to gameplay would be 20/80 PvP to PvE players.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Didn't read other posts so maybe this was said before.
You want fair pvp... go play russian roulette.
You sickening insignificant piece of ******* **** on the bottom of our shoes. You insult the very core of what you're looking for and expect to get advice. Here's the greatest advice/tip you'll ever receive.... pull your **** out of your ***!
Keep up the intelligent comments coming dude, they don't cease to amuse me anywhere. When you'll be done, feel free to get lost too.
If you want intelligent conversation, typically it's best to spend your time replying to the people who are genuinely discussing your topic rather than wasting time feeding a troll.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Its a penalty modifier system to regulate PvP penalties. Basically any game that distinguishes PvP and PvE gameplay and modifies the results of an interaction based on the mode of play. So most games have it to some degree and I wouldn't expect to find the answer in gamer circles because it is a developer term. The specific implementation is very unique to each game generally and varies widely.
Essentially it allows developers to protect players from penalties that would negatively impact the gameplay experience due to unforseeable and/or uncontrollable elements of play usually - not always, can be used to 'gate'/control player[or even NPC's like critical mission ones etc.] interaction as wel ie. turn penalties on/off or anything in between- .(whether the killer gets any special treatment is another matter entirely -like adjusting loot/benefits/flagging etc.-)
Better off trying to find answers in Game Development circles/forums. or Dev notes/interviews for the game you mentioned.
Originally posted by SysOpPsyche ...Game Development circles/forums
I've done it right yesterday, and with my great surprise today (Sunday! ), checking my account, I've found several interesting private messages. I'll try to contact the one who posted in Tibia boards about this issue to get more infos. In the next post I'll quote his last statement there to let you have an overview.
"WKW combines parallel algorithms mostly based on direct classes with pairwise interactions based on, again, direct cross validation classes. I'm using parallel Quicksort, Insertion Sort and Heapsort to achieve a fast average performance, good worst case performance (not fairly good but good), and no large extra storage requirement. I'm using a mix of ID3 and C4.5 (J48) in WEKA to test it while I'm developing the whole architecture: I've in mind to use its iProlog -ctd to deal with eventual very large data sets by performing induction on subsets to avoid "exponential growth" due to very active pvp chars and large teams, despite Heapsort should take care of best part of such issues alone."
I've seen quite a few articles written over the years regarding dynamic balancing systems. The dynamic games themselves and the articles both seem to point at dynamic balancing being a poor idea, because they undermine the buildup of player knowledge and strategy -- "aww man, a fireball did 30 damage last night, now it's only doing 25!"
Most of the articles focus on the delight at discovery that expert players get when they figure a system out -- when they stumble upon the ideal sequence of decisions that lets them be successful. Some of the articles mentioned that for that very same reason it's undesirable to have 100% balance in a game. I didn't quite agree with the latter statement, but the former statement certainly reflects my observation of players (which even occurs with normal balancing techniques.)
I think the difference between the two techniques (auto-data-balancing, and manual patching) is there are typically always new "peak strategies" to explore after the landscape changes due to a manual patch -- whereas with auto-data-balancing, any peak you discover will immediately begin sinking back towards balance. Granted, I think that if auto-data-balancing happens less frequently (ie changes occur at the same rate as manual patching) then you will reach approximately the same player reaction.
But of course the biggest hole in auto-data-balancing is that data simply doesn't tell the full story. In virtually every game I've ever played I've stumbled upon strategies which were completely viable, but simply unpopular due to their rarity. In an auto-balanced system, these strategies would not simply remain "viable". Instead, the system would likely buff the under-used system such that it's overpowered.
(Most of my time in the games industry (~8 years) has been in positions where game balance was part of my job, so I've actually kept a close eye on this sort of thing over the years. If I'd witnessed a game successfully balanced wholly by numbers, I'd have snatched up such techniques for myself, but thus far all the heavily-auto-balanced games I've witnessed haven't done too well balance-wise. Inevitably, numbers-crunching (which I still do plenty of) must be tempered with design-sense, and an idea of how players play games.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The algorithm postulates that it's not the PVP action which has to be fair, but the PVP death aftermath. That's a totally different approach which hasn't anything to share with any PVP environment balancement I've seen in last years anywhere.
Ok, OK guys, you wanted it. So let's talk for a while about EVE.
This was my last post there:
I'm ranting simply because CCP design didn't follow my own expectations and desires. And obviously CCP isn't my property and what I personally think doesn't matter.
So: I'm ranting because an hardcore game is made for its audience, and not for me. Sure. I anticipated this and explained my reasons on the first post I wrote recently. Where I wrote that my opinion is that Eve-Online has reached its critical mass and if they now want new players they need to start open up their systems. Bridging the early (and dull) game to the more deep stuff. Factional Warfare isn't doing that, and I ranted. This also raised again the idea of a PvP design philosophy. A concept that I would like to see in at least ONE game. But that right now is completely absent from the market. Which would be then meaningful only if there would be a big market for it. I believe there is. And that it is commercially BIGGER than what we have currently (for PvP).
So: design philosophy and personal opinions. Personal opinions that matter not because *I* write them, but because when I write them I also *motivate* them. This PvP design philosophy is about the progression system. Every decent system needs a progression. And every decent progression needs to be accessible. So that everyone can move through. More slowly or faster, but still move through. Translating this to PvP simply means: PvP will NEVER be accessible and widespread if it works at a loss. So this is how it should work: if you want a system where PvP is more frequent and fun, then you need a system where people can participate without losing more they can gain. In a system where the experienced players are MUCH, MUCH powerful than new people who enter for the first time, you need some mechanic to leverage them. Especially in the longer term, when people who are already inside become more and more powerful and the wall to climb for the new players higher and higher.
In Eve it doesn't matter if there's a corp who decides to take over, new players won't have a chance if they enter a system where EVERYONE is more powerful than they are. For PvP to work and be popular and widespread entry costs need to stay low. As low as possible. In Eve-Online and other "hardcore" PvP games the costs are instead higher to the lower end than the higher end, where you can develop a fair margin of wealth to stay safe. Noobs pay higher costs than veterans. And this creates a gap between players that is harder and harder to fill, in a similar fashion to what happens with PvE raiding endgame. The game becomes increasingly specialized and less and less appealing and accessible for new players. That for a MMO equals to a progressive, unavoidable decline.
So: a PvP system with very low entry costs and at a gain. Where you gain through participation. Progressively. In EVERY game and PvP systems you die a lot when you enter for the first time. In Eve-Online not only you would die a lot, but you'll also PAY a lot. So a lot of players shy away because the game isn't for them, while a smaller subset cling to the mechanic and find an exponential success, because once you climb the wall you can look down at things from far above. And it is rewarding. But it's also an overall mechanic that is divisive and that works only toward a minority. A minority that will be eroded over time. This means it is a choice, and that there's nothing wrong to make a game that aims at a niche. But you also have to recognize and admit what you're doing. I'm not fighting against the idea that hardcore players shouldn't have their game. But that PvP can be both deep and accessible. And I want to play that game. And I believe it would be extremely successful.
I don't like the idea that I have to grind boring PvE missions for a week so that I'm able to participate in PvP for an hour. PvE should never be a requirement so that you can enjoy some PvP. I want a PvP system where participation costs are LOWER than the rewards. So that I can stick to it and continue to play and have fun. Without punishing mechanics to push me to the lowest risks.
These are the points I've offered for Eve:
* Open/factional PvP should be limited to SPECIFIC battleground systems tagged for Factional Warfare. While secure space should stay secure even if you are signed in.
* Within these tagged systems NPC factions should provide you the "gear" to use. Gain ranks to get access to better gear/PvP sets. If you blow up, you get replacements. As long you fight for them. (free participation costs).
*Forbid players to bring NPC-rented equipment outside battleground systems. So that the gear you gain can only be used inside this system. (not disrupting the current game).
* Forbid you to swap sets. So that you are only able to fly in NPC-rent sets, and not bring a goddamned Titan to a noob battleground.
The last point would allow these battles to be accessible to everyone, both noobs and hardcore, and yet provide equal opportunities as no one gets access to more powerful stuff. That's how you "train" people to PvP. By making it fun, accessible and frequent. To these proposals some players replied that the PvP would lose all "meaningfulness" if you don't risk to lose anything anymore. To that I replied that for me "meaningful PvP" is about communal objectives. Conquering and holding public space, expanding the empire.
Because you're lazy, and I'm bored, there ya go.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
I think it might work if its designed one-sided. Meaning it gives more to victor in more challenging fights OR takes less from defeated in impossible situations. The reasoning is while making the game newbie friendly you shouldnt punish your long time pvp players. For example the situation in Aion, people with very high pvp ranks are shied away because of the risk&reward balance.
This of course wont make the game any more fair, balanced. It will just make it a little more bearable. For some griefing/ganking is reward in itself.
For fair and balanced you should try instanced battle arenas. GW style.
People searching for balanced PVP would be the crying babies IMO.
But no, haven't heard of any game successfully achieving this sort of balance, maybe because PVP, like life, isn't fair right?
I agree on that searching for balanced pvp lol plus fact he say uo and eve are for crybabys i know he is a bad TROLL:p
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009..... In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
WoW you can start with a level 80 of the class of your choice and have your pick of gear. . You can only play in the arenas though. I think the account costs $25 a season or so. . I'm sure devs look at all the data in their databases before balancing classes. It's amazing what computers can do these days. . Why would you want a system that balances you on the fly? Maybe a hundred years from now, software will be smart enough to balance classes, but not now.
Comments
When I want balanced PvP, I play Team Fortress 2. Shooters w/o tons of perks or upgrades will always be more balanced at PvP, because there is very little progression in them. MMORPGs are based mostly around progression in my opinion. You can't really balance the PvP in a game that is based on progression because players will usually be at different levels of progression within the game at any given time. The algorithm sounds interesting, but seems like it would be more trouble than it's worth, and would likely not work correctly in every circumstance within the game, in my opinion.
The biggest mistake I see developers making is having the PvP be it's own form of progression. If PvP is done for it's own sake because it's fun, or meaningful for large groups of players (factions) then it doesn't matter if it's balaned. If you throw progression into the mix then the imbalances stand out and cause players to become upset, in my opinion.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
To be perfectly honest, I think you are on the wrong website. You should probably go to a general MMO website and not one for MMO>RPGs<. I think by the sheer nature of the genre you aren't going to find what you are looking for.
As someone who loves both pvp and rpgs i really hate such a view, rpg means originally character developement, no word of power here, see you can develop storywise, pvp could be handled completly separate, i hate the fact that when a lvl 1 attacks a lvl 80 in wow its just 99% miss 1% 1damage, i would rather see a lvl10 beeing maybe 30% less powerfull than a lvl 80 in the best gear but not more, having played more should not give you a free card to win, bad play should lead to your loss regardless of invested time.
Pi*1337/100 = 42
Nothing wrong with having risk in Eve except most of it comes from the risk adverse. Remember less than 20% of eve players actually participate in 0.0 fights. Most of the pirate corps are just cowards at heart, if ever presented with a fair fight they run like chickens. A great example of this is the hulkageddon currently in progress. Every one of these contestants is basically a coward at heart including the contest owners, they that advantage of gaps in the rules to make their play risk free.
So don't come here trumpeting how great Eve is, nothing great about so much cowardly play.
I would guess from the lack of fair play in pvp action in MMO's that the vast majority don't want to experience such or some MMO would have implemented it.
I agree that RPGs focus on character development and individual or collective narratives, but it doesn't make sense that someone who has battled their way through hordes of demons and undead and the like comes across some level 10s who have been killing rats and boars all day and gets his face bashed in.
My first post was more in reference to the game-mechanics of most MMORPGs. Higher-level characters tend to have better in-game skills, which play a part in the outcome of a fight. Finding some sort of balance between a player's skill and a character's skills in a form the computer can understand is extremely difficult, if not impossible. The original RPGs didn't have this problem since if your GM wasn't fair you found a new one.
I think you are missing the point that EVE PvP isn't just combat-based.
I would only consider character stats for balancing,it is up to the players to fullfill their potential.
Pi*1337/100 = 42
Keep up the intelligent comments coming dude, they don't cease to amuse me anywhere. When you'll be done, feel free to get lost too.Pffffff... you wouldn't last a month in Eve... nothing in eve is EVER fair.
Balanced pvp is for crybabies... go play wow battlegrounds with all shamans...
Nothing wrong with having risk in Eve except most of it comes from the risk adverse. Remember less than 20% of eve players actually participate in 0.0 fights. Most of the pirate corps are just cowards at heart, if ever presented with a fair fight they run like chickens. A great example of this is the hulkageddon currently in progress. Every one of these contestants is basically a coward at heart including the contest owners, they that advantage of gaps in the rules to make their play risk free.
So don't come here trumpeting how great Eve is, nothing great about so much cowardly play.
I would guess from the lack of fair play in pvp action in MMO's that the vast majority don't want to experience such or some MMO would have implemented it.
AFK Miner spotted.
I'd venture to say that any MMO with good PvP and significant depth to gameplay would be 20/80 PvP to PvE players.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
If you want intelligent conversation, typically it's best to spend your time replying to the people who are genuinely discussing your topic rather than wasting time feeding a troll.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Its a penalty modifier system to regulate PvP penalties. Basically any game that distinguishes PvP and PvE gameplay and modifies the results of an interaction based on the mode of play. So most games have it to some degree and I wouldn't expect to find the answer in gamer circles because it is a developer term. The specific implementation is very unique to each game generally and varies widely.
Essentially it allows developers to protect players from penalties that would negatively impact the gameplay experience due to unforseeable and/or uncontrollable elements of play usually - not always, can be used to 'gate'/control player[or even NPC's like critical mission ones etc.] interaction as wel ie. turn penalties on/off or anything in between- .(whether the killer gets any special treatment is another matter entirely -like adjusting loot/benefits/flagging etc.-)
Better off trying to find answers in Game Development circles/forums. or Dev notes/interviews for the game you mentioned.
I've done it right yesterday, and with my great surprise today (Sunday!
), checking my account, I've found several interesting private messages. I'll try to contact the one who posted in Tibia boards about this issue to get more infos. In the next post I'll quote his last statement there to let you have an overview.
"WKW combines parallel algorithms mostly based on direct classes with pairwise interactions based on, again, direct cross validation classes. I'm using parallel Quicksort, Insertion Sort and Heapsort to achieve a fast average performance, good worst case performance (not fairly good but good), and no large extra storage requirement. I'm using a mix of ID3 and C4.5 (J48) in WEKA to test it while I'm developing the whole architecture: I've in mind to use its iProlog -ctd to deal with eventual very large data sets by performing induction on subsets to avoid "exponential growth" due to very active pvp chars and large teams, despite Heapsort should take care of best part of such issues alone."
I've seen quite a few articles written over the years regarding dynamic balancing systems. The dynamic games themselves and the articles both seem to point at dynamic balancing being a poor idea, because they undermine the buildup of player knowledge and strategy -- "aww man, a fireball did 30 damage last night, now it's only doing 25!"
Most of the articles focus on the delight at discovery that expert players get when they figure a system out -- when they stumble upon the ideal sequence of decisions that lets them be successful. Some of the articles mentioned that for that very same reason it's undesirable to have 100% balance in a game. I didn't quite agree with the latter statement, but the former statement certainly reflects my observation of players (which even occurs with normal balancing techniques.)
I think the difference between the two techniques (auto-data-balancing, and manual patching) is there are typically always new "peak strategies" to explore after the landscape changes due to a manual patch -- whereas with auto-data-balancing, any peak you discover will immediately begin sinking back towards balance. Granted, I think that if auto-data-balancing happens less frequently (ie changes occur at the same rate as manual patching) then you will reach approximately the same player reaction.
But of course the biggest hole in auto-data-balancing is that data simply doesn't tell the full story. In virtually every game I've ever played I've stumbled upon strategies which were completely viable, but simply unpopular due to their rarity. In an auto-balanced system, these strategies would not simply remain "viable". Instead, the system would likely buff the under-used system such that it's overpowered.
(Most of my time in the games industry (~8 years) has been in positions where game balance was part of my job, so I've actually kept a close eye on this sort of thing over the years. If I'd witnessed a game successfully balanced wholly by numbers, I'd have snatched up such techniques for myself, but thus far all the heavily-auto-balanced games I've witnessed haven't done too well balance-wise. Inevitably, numbers-crunching (which I still do plenty of) must be tempered with design-sense, and an idea of how players play games.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The algorithm postulates that it's not the PVP action which has to be fair, but the PVP death aftermath. That's a totally different approach which hasn't anything to share with any PVP environment balancement I've seen in last years anywhere.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
I think it might work if its designed one-sided. Meaning it gives more to victor in more challenging fights OR takes less from defeated in impossible situations. The reasoning is while making the game newbie friendly you shouldnt punish your long time pvp players. For example the situation in Aion, people with very high pvp ranks are shied away because of the risk&reward balance.
This of course wont make the game any more fair, balanced. It will just make it a little more bearable. For some griefing/ganking is reward in itself.
For fair and balanced you should try instanced battle arenas. GW style.
I need more vespene gas.
I agree on that searching for balanced pvp lol plus fact he say uo and eve are for crybabys i know he is a bad TROLL:p
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009.....
In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
WoW you can start with a level 80 of the class of your choice and have your pick of gear.
.
You can only play in the arenas though. I think the account costs $25 a season or so.
.
I'm sure devs look at all the data in their databases before balancing classes. It's amazing what computers can do these days.
.
Why would you want a system that balances you on the fly? Maybe a hundred years from now, software will be smart enough to balance classes, but not now.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren