Mobile Royale Today: 0    Total Posts: 147

Total:#3

Create Thread

[Suggestion] Rebalancing of formation counters

[Copy link] 2/575

#1
Posted on 2019-05-30 09:55:36 | Show thread starter's posts only

With the recent update, the formula for determining the battle results in regards to which formation the attacker and defender is using has changed. While I think that the previous formula was in need for rebalancing, the way in which it was done is not good.

Previously, the rock/paper/scissors game with choosing if you would have infantry/cavalry/ranged formation was something that almost the only thing that mattered when players with T4 troops unlocked (and the warfare research that came with it) fought each other or participated in rallies against forts during fort war. With 2.7m t3 troops with countering formation against 2.7m t4s, the t3s would win. This had the result of each outcome being basically determined by luck, rather than anything related to the progress you made as a player. However, for those who had a knack for predicting which formation the other player (rally leader or defender) would choose, it was a welcome mechanic as to level the playing field a bit. It was possible for lower might players to win against higher ones on grounds that were based on some sort of skill rather than only how much money or time you spent on the game. This aspect is something that all good games should have incorporated in their game design philosophy.

However, with the current update the tables turned. Here is a link with screenshots of battle results before vs after balancing changes. https://imgur.com/a/gM3lUAD (I do not have the troop type numbers for the first battle, but the defender had slightly more T4 than the attacker, but not as big difference as in the post update battle).

As you can see, in the later battle despite having the correct formation and a ton more T4's, Kastanj (me) lost against Lao S G. Lao had slightly better gear, and had max enemy debuff research compared to my 9's. That's all the relevant differences in circumstance. Should the formation counters really be nerfed to this degree? I don't think so. So, what do I suggest instead?

I still want to allow for some skill based strategies, but there are several ways to do this. Some are easier to implement than others. Here are two options:

Option 1: Just make the formation counters just effective enough such that in a battle such as that post update one, the one with the counter formation and more T4's would win the battle. This would bring back the game of rock/paper/scissors, without it being overpowered.

Option 2: Make more formations neutral to each other. Since there are 4 formations for each type (4 infantry first, 4 cavalry first, 4 ranged first), we could use these such that only the formations of the same tier (for example tier 4: Eager Berserker/Vicious Cavalry/Ready Sharpsooters) can counter each other and the rest is neutral or have mitigated counter effect. This option would give 12 options to choose from when deciding on formation, and would also make the recent changes of the buffs specific to formation relevant to have high level on.

So for example Spellswords (tier 2: infantry first) vs Ready Sharpshooters (tier 4: ranged first), would be less effective as a counter than Eager Berserkers (tier 4: infantry fist) vs Ready Sharpshooters, and Vicious Cavalry (tier 4: cavalry first) vs Spellswords would be less effective as a counter than Vicious Cavalry vs Eager Berserkers (tier 4: infantry first).

If there would be mitigation of effectiveness rather than just being neutral, then I suggest that the tier distance is what determines effectiveness, so that tier 4 counter against tier 1 would be completely neutral (as if it was same formation against each other), and tier 4 counter against tier 2 would be slightly effective, and so on until 0 tier distance (same tier) with maximum effect (could be the same level of effectiveness as pre update). 

Some benefits of this option is that it can be fun to have the opportunity to make a "critical hit" with the risk of being critically hit yourself if you choose tier 1 or tier 4 formations. The metagame would be that most players use tier 1 or 4 formations, to keep the tier distance higher, so that anyone who wants to take a bigger risk does so voluntarily and might be dependent on it for being able to fight someone who is significantly stronger. 

I would prefer option 2, but open to thoughts about how to improve on it and to other ways in which one could tackle the issues of the current formation counter effectiveness. If some developer of this game thinks that the current formula for determining battle results is good as it is, then I'd like to have a discussion about it.

~Kast

Edit: If there are mechanics in place which I have missed and deals with this problem already, I'd like to know more about them.

Signature
#2
Posted on 2019-05-30 10:38:58 | Show thread starter's posts only

Wish u best of LUCK. Hope LUCK gets its LUCK back

Signature
#3
Posted on 2019-05-30 10:47:32 | Show thread starter's posts only

I think the formations should be effective. If calvary beat infantry. Then calvary should beat infantry. Even a weaker ranked calvary should be able to put up damage against whats a higher ranked infantry. Knowing formation is as simple as scouting then predicting based on how many different birgades there are. And when you factor in the gear. All the Sudden knowing what formation they are in isnt as hard. If t4 always wins because it's t4. That's not fair at all if it was put up against an army and formation that was supposedly suppose to have "advantage". If some one has full t4 calvary formation. Then it should lose to a full t3 range formation. Because range beats calvary. There should be a way That t3 can win. And proper formation sounds like a good way to me. Because proper formation, means proper stratigic play.

Signature