Reply
Views: 102107 | Replies: 406
[ News ] Events - 25th May

 [

Copy Link

]

  • Registered: 2017-07-24
  • Topics: 4
  • Posts: 338
On 2017-05-25 04:30:35Show All Posts
158#
  • PraiseLuka On 2017-05-25 02:49:28
  • First, I'd like to say that everyone claim Xserver Sage would be bad based on masuri experience to be of below average intelligence.
    This is a fact, because they fail to understand WHY masuri matchmaking is horrible--the fact that there are very few player being matched at any given time (because the period is so * long and the servers are bracketed and not all togehter)

    Now, to be clear, I voted no for the Xserver sage. Why? because the reduction in reward per person. Take my likely server cluster for example, LA2-12, that's I believe 6 servers. Currently, there are I believe 7 sages or so (with S2 having 2). But with Xserver, I would expect the number to drop to around 4. My server, in the very least, would only contribute to about 1/2-1/3 of a max sage (which I believe is 75 people or so?) so there is certainly going to be reductions. And reduction of # of sage means reduction of the # of 1st ranked player, as that is 3 times the number of sage happening. Same applies to 2nd and 3rd place. Ergo, we are getting less stuff per person.

    Second, my condolences to whoever are in sage 1 (except those who are 80k+), because you are f***ed. This is the "section" that would have the biggest disparity, from the 100k+ to probably somewhere around 60-70k. Sadly, I might fall into that, as I'm in the top 90s in my server bracket and depend on % participation on sage... well... I'm not entirely sure how large the sages will be but I can't compete at all if that was the case. That said, for the rest of the player in other bracket, chances are the disparity would be smaller and give a fair chance

    Except.... for the fact with the level>power approach. The lv 80s ptws are gonna have a field day, how nice. To be clear, I don't think a pure level approach would be good, because some stuff are level locked, so a player of similar power would have an advantage if he have extra talents to choose from. However, by and large, power is what matters the most. Personally, I think a formula of something like power+lv*100 would be the best indicator.

    I'm not at all surprised that the vote thing didn't count. In fact, I suspected as much in the poll BEFORE the sage poll. Specifically, I believe they intended to follow a model of: 1. plan to release something, 2. release a poll about it, 3. Release after getting "yes" result, 4. Profit from the appearance of listening to player. That obviously didn't work out and here we are. However, as they aren't REALLY in control of content, it's gonna happen anyway.

    Now, I'm going to be nice, I'm not going to only point out problems, I'm going to suggest solutions.

    Solution to the first problem, that is the reduction in overall reward, is easy: give out more reward. I don't even care who gets them, but more rewards per person somehow, maybe make it top 5 instead of top 3, whatever.

    Solution to the second problem is to make the "sections" more dynamic instead of hard sized. The first section should be the smallest and the ONLY section that does not strictly follow the power bracketing rules. Specifically, let's say place the top 15* power player AND say RANDOMLY select 30 of the next 60 highest player. What this accomplishes is that the 60 will effectively alternate between being the sacrificial lamb in section 1 against players who are probably 30-50k over them and have no chance to win with being more or less top of their own section and very good chance to win. I'd consider it fair. If this isn't done and say the top 60 is always taken to be section one, then other than player who are maybe ranked 61-80 will alternate in such a fashion(due to participation), players ranked 20-60 will effectively suffer an endless hell, especially the bottom section of that. That is certainly not fair.

    *Instead of top 15, it could be: look at the 9th powered player, take all player within 80% of that player's power, up to 30. And this where the dynamic size can come in, the size of the bracket should be based on how many players are sufficiently close to 9th ranked player of that section to have a decent chance of getting top 3 spot instead.

    Solution to the third... well... I already said, instead of Lv>bracket, come up with a formula to "merge" the two factors for sorting.
thank you for giving me hope again in this community i only saw people not understanding what xserver swb means or just beeing *
  • Registered: 2017-07-24
  • Topics: 4
  • Posts: 338
On 2017-05-25 04:50:45Show All Posts
161#
  • ArcVan On 2017-05-25 04:48:12
  • CROSS-SERVER System for Sage World Battlefields!
    Single choice Polls, Total of 1860 participated in this poll
    Poll has finished

    1. Yes.
    44.41% (826)
    2. No.
    55.59% (1034)
    You have already voted, thanks for your participation

    glad to see that the polls had a meaning
cause everyone in yes is either a lvl camper to farm his swb bracket or doesnt understand how xserver swb works

im glad it finally is here
Reply
Quicky Post
Reply

Log in in order to Post. | Register