Thoughts on 4p ladder play

from Offworld Forums

I love the convenience of 4p in the quick match queue. 4p is just enough players to be dynamically interesting, yet just few enough to allow black market attacks or hacker array plays to be fruitful. To be honest, I think the game is better with 4 than the typical fustercluck of 6-8p FFA's we get on the weekends with the expert regulars. The queue is a non-biased way of deciding who gets into a game without leaving people out intentionally.

Concerns:

  1. As mentioned in other threads, please don't kill 2p for the sake of promoting 4p with the forced "weekday availability period." Please keep both going.
  2. Traditional ELO Ratings don't make a lot of sense for 4 player games without some modification. If you need a new statistical algorithm that is reasonable for 4p, I'm happy to lend a hand. But at the very least, as Morgan posted in another thread, please make the win/loss ladder count reflect the number of players in the game for overall win/loss ratios.
  3. Some players don't yet know if they like the default setting having no masquerade. In the long run I think they may find that it adds strategic depth to the game. In the same way that tournament chess players 'prepare for their opponents', it can be a lot of fun to plan your game around your enemies' typical favorite tacics. You might take a poll of the experienced players to vote on the default game mode before release.
71,781 views 10 replies
Reply #1 from Offworld Forums Top

I'm definately for masquarade because I've played plenty of Free For Alls with some success in Warcraft 3 as well as other players. There used to be a time when player names weren't hidden and the top players were getting assasinated constantly just because they were top players. A Free For All is not a good environment in which to allow players to target top players. I've been hiding from 4p automatch FFA because of this because even when it doesn't happen I can never trust that it didn't happen.

+1 Loading…
Reply #2 from Offworld Forums Top

I'm also definitely for masquerade. I cannot see the benefits of not having it. For me, targeting known top players before they are even in the lead is not skill or strategy, but zombie-like behavior. Why make it easier?

If you value knowing your opponents and their playstyles, maybe a nice compromise could be to show all the players taking part on the loading screen so you know who's in, but masquerade everyone at the game start. That way you could still get some advantage from being are able to distinquish your opponents from each other and acting accordingly. That I could stand behind.

 

Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from Offworld Forums Top

Add my vote for Masquerade.

Its much worse when there are 2 good players and 2 randoms.  Its a 1v1 BM battle with 2 AIs.

 

 

Reply #4 from Offworld Forums Top

Quoting Veivi, reply 2

If you value knowing your opponents and their playstyles, maybe a nice compromise could be to show all the players taking part on the loading screen so you know who's in, but masquerade everyone at the game start. That way you could still get some advantage from being are able to distinquish your opponents from each other and acting accordingly. That I could stand behind.

Like this a lot.

Reply #5 from Offworld Forums Top

Quoting kingmorgan, reply 3

Add my vote for Masquerade.

Its much worse when there are 2 good players and 2 randoms.  Its a 1v1 BM battle with 2 AIs.

 

 

 

^This

Reply #6 from Offworld Forums Top

In case you didn't see my comment n the 'drop it like it's hot' thread about the apparent problem with the ELO formula for FFA, I posted a link to this open source FFA algorithm: https://github.com/FigBug/Multiplayer-ELO. It has a nice working demonstration here http://elo-norsak.rhcloud.com/index.php and clear justification for his model.

Reply #7 from Offworld Forums Top

I'd like to propose a different idea. I'd like it if it was 100% masq but you don't know your opponents until they are bought out. I think this would be a really fun way to play it and would avoid people targeting down certain people. You wouldn't know if you have 3 good opponents or 3 bad ones or a mixture. You can't play based on known tendencies of different players because you have no knowledge who you are playing. 

Could we do it this way instead? I fear that veivi's way would lead to similar circumstances where you know who is in the match (even if it's masq) and can start recognizing play styles and pick people out. 


As an aside i've really liked the 4 player FFA being on during the weekends but fear that i won't be able to find a game if i want a quick matchup and it's at an off peak hour.  Could we maybe have 1v1 QM available from like midnight to 6 am eastern time on the weekends or something when the player traffic is low?

 

*Edit- I typed the wrong times! I was hoping to get QM unlocked really really late at night not during the day. Say from like 11pm to 6am the following day. I sat in the queue for awhile last night and only 1 or 2 people would show up but never enough to get a game going. I eventually gave up.

Reply #8 from Offworld Forums Top

Intuitively I like Veivi's suggestion of names before masq better, but I'd be curious to see how blackmagic's suggestion works. I know I've played plenty of games with him where the 1v1 + 2 others situation developed even with masq, so that added wrinkle might help avoid that. 

Aside from that, I'm not sure I'd actually go for 1v1 QM as an alternative, but it's a reasonable suggestion to have that on for off-peak hours. Over the past two days, I've sat in the FFA queue for a few hours and only have 1 match to show for it, after all.

Reply #9 from Offworld Forums Top

I vote for Veivi's idea. Guessing which player is which colony makes for fun mindgames.

Reply #10 from Offworld Forums Top

Quoting theSpinCycle, reply 9

I vote for Veivi's idea. Guessing which player is which colony makes for fun mindgames.

 

I've had a lot of games in the 4 player FFA right now where I focus all my BM on the strongest threat and ignore the others because I know they're not on the same skill level. If I see Deathtacticus on the list before the game starts then i'll just look for a player with his tendencies and focus down on him ignoring the other HQ's. When you don't know any of the other players however it prevents you from focusing on just 1 player for black market. You can't be sure that there isn't another strong player slow playing it to ambush you.

 

If I knew my opponents were Veivi, Cubit, and Blues I can't focus down any one of them or its a losing proposition. If i know I'm playing against veivi and 2 brand new players it's essentially a 1v1. If i know how good none of my opponents are it plays out like the first scenario where I can't treat anyone differently. I'd rather have the balance of not knowing my opponents for a more even game.