Jump to content

What would you like to see addressed in Midwars?


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, PantyBandit` said:

That is not at all what I'm saying.

It's the inevitable consequence of keeping the current system.

To put it an overly polite way, what % chance of winning is worth forcing four others to play out a miserable game?

For me, it's like 20%.
 

Quote

I would consider trying to salvage a game from a losing position as a team effort a significantly more noble pursuit than giving in.

And you're more than entitled to your opinion.  The question is whether you get to force it on 4 other people and then force them to play.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'd like to see more of the funny old quirks that would last a patch or so. The neutral creeps running through middle was a personal favourite and the snowball boss was pretty fun too.

Handle FoC? There is strange legitimacy of the claim that FoC players and FoC is some kind superior over midwar. From my perspective midwar should be main mode and it is future of moba. I play mw beca

100% true. In FoC u need to wait and fight the boredom and must figure out how not to fall into sleep. In Midwars you need to know the heroes and the skillset and react quickly and with brai

@NubbyMcNub

This same discussion about conceding has been going on for like 10+ years at this point. I'd rather play the game out regardless of how lost it seems. Some of my the most enjoyable games have been played from a losing position. Some people are like me and some are not. The current system is fine for that. After all, you can leave whenever you want. No one is keeping you hostage.

There are ofcourse extreme cases on both sides. People who give up in their mind for any arbitrary reason as soon as the game starts, and people who intentionally decline votes to be dicks. I'm sure we both agree these are only edge cases, and therefore don't contribute much to the overall experience.

 

Hero sepcific starting gold:

@ElementUser has repeatedly stated that hero specific balance is unreasonable for MW. Due to the nature of the mode, certain heroes will be inherently more viable than the rest.

Changing starting gold based on hero performance seems like an awful way to balance the mode. Early game is all about item timings, namely astrolabe (and to lesser extent manaring), and more starting gold would contribute to the snowballing gained from an earlier astro.

 

OT:

One more thing I'd like to see addressed is wards. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't midwars have the same amount of ward storage with same cooldown as FoC? Yet the map is significantly smaller. Warding as it is feels kind of wonky in midwars due to the massive amount of blue wards available compared to the map area. A winning team can safely spam revs to deward every spot at all times with minimal opportunity cost. There is little the opposing team can do. After all, the team has less space to move around and less space to plant safe wards.

I feel the ward count and/or cooldown should be reduced to make warding and dewarding less "spammy". The 6 deward stock also gives winning team too big of an advantage, further contributing to making games one sided.

Edited by PantyBandit`
formatting
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, VaYha said:

Hello

I have 6500 midwars played. I love midwars and I play only this mod. First of all THIS TOPIC IS DANGEROUS, and taking actions based on random suggestions and random decisions of one man would destroy this mode as it has been done many times in the past: e.g. stupid change map on bridgewars because of suggestion of some "champion of the world" in midwars, unrepresentative pole about map change or few months of applied trebuchets which were killing ppl randomly because of some thai holidays (every holidays in Europe stays for few days max). Damage taken by midwars was obvious, but after all, we have returned to more or less best version of midwar! ... that's why I want to say once againthank you Frost Burn (especially ElementUser) for listening people. From my perspective Frost Burn listens ppl on forum - and this is why I ask you (visitors) to consider seriously what you suggest about midwar because me and a lot of ppl will suffer if decisions will be bad. We must be aware that 90% of community of midwars players do not join forum to read and post suggestions and changes in this mod - why? because if mod works, none complain and none is looking for changes. There will be always few ppl who do not play midwar regulary, join forum and answer hot topics, especially if they have occasion to complain. That's why I suggest do not change the mod and do not make mistakes from past.

but...  if there will be real will to improve midwar - here is what I think.

Overall

Midwar is more attractive and less toxic than caldavar, and I will stick to suggestion that this is future of moba. We don't need creeps, jungling etc. We can get instant teamfight which is more satisfying. This is tremendous change and I think midwar should be improved and balanced in the future. Midwar needs to be loved and tweaked carefully. I think midwar is underrated gem. 

Gameplay

Unhiding mmr - very god decision. We can adjust hero pick due to other players skills/mmr. Game is more serious (less quits) and spicy. Perhaps mmr spread inside brackets is too wide - there are teams mixed with 1900-1400 for example but I understand that this mod is consider as fun and we have not huge player base...  in future I would suggest lower mmr spread. 

Personally I would like to return to leveling heroes from lvl 1 and bring back this dragon boss which was giving gold. It was very funny to go on lvl 1 and fight for this boss treasure from beginning of the game. Anyway trying to kill each other on lvl 1 is funny even on river. 

Heroes

Heroes do not require skill balance except those that benefit from +kills and +assists. Perhaps little nerf would be good for Tarot, Flint, Arti or Snail or improving for example War Beast - but what I've noticed "heroes" do not win games on high mmr brackets but players do. "OP" heroes can be outcarried by wise game, wise supporting, combos and crowd control abilities. Higher brackets play less popular heroes than typical range caries.

There was for a short time not skill balance but attribute balance for midwars - and I think it was very good idea. Less popular heroes had better stats+, more cancerous heroes like flint had stats-. It was working I think. Considering midwar as different mod I don't buy argument that there should be no differences between heroes for different mods - because it brings mess. It doesn't.   

Items         

Changing some items for midwar are in most cases best for game experience. Thank you lord for goddess icon balance or barbed armor... but firstly I would balance symbol of rage - preventing this item to be use by ranged. Why? One range with shrunken can kill entire enemy team with symbol. This item is cancerous more than heroes that benefit -tarot or moa.   

Good things

I wouldn't change map - river and towers are in good distance. Dimensions of map are accurate. If FB considers change map - please ask them to do it as different  mod.   

 

 

 

 

While you do seem to have a decent grasp of how midwars works, as should be expected after 6500 games played you have made a couple of downright silly/incorrect statements.

Lets start with the symbol of rage, it is very easily countered with one item which is 1500 gold cheaper, spiked bola.

As for the nerf or buff to heroes, i agree that heroes which gain benefit frrom +kills/assist are inherently a lot stronger in midwars, it is still quite simple to play around them.

The discussion around range carries however is a joke, while flint, tarot, moa and artillery are strong they are quite simple to play around as well. Especially tarot where you can purge both the e and w with a nullfire or sandsceptre.

 

A lot of people are throwing around names of heroes which they consider to be under-performing however i would counter that they are most likely playing the heroes in a sub-optimal fashion, especially salomon, if played correctly you can get to 700+ gpm by 6 minutes and have an easy early core item.

 

In my experience, midwars is about utility 90% of the time the team with the most/appropriate utility will win. Yes that means early astro, but more than that it's activatables such as sheep/nullfire/sandsceptre/hellflower/bola and team fight items like dreamcatcher/barrier/frostfield/deamonic making the real difference in close games. In my experience many players just like seeing the big numbers and try to build every hero hard carry and then get confused why they're not winning team fights.

Now the improvements that I mentioned in an earlier post (which have been implemented) were map balance specific and this is what we should be looking at when it comes to midwars balance, does the map favour one team over the other, is it easier for one team to gain resources, is it easier for one team to move around the map, at the moment while being fairly balanced there are some imbalances in the map favouring one team or the other. I think if any improvements were to be made they should be focused around this.

I think the tl;dr from this is hero balance in midwars is fine, the map layout however can be improved.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Midwars map should really have at least 1 ancient creep camp, as they are heroes in the game that have staff effects specifically for them (Ophelia/Parasite). I know these heroes aren't popular, but they should at least be able to use their staff effects.

If you want a suggestion for the location of the ancients, I would say the area north of the boss pit is pretty bare, and this would place the camp opposite from the hard camp for some sense of balance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2020 at 10:15 PM, NubbyMcNub said:

Balancing Midwars by starting gold is a suggestion I've been putting forwards for years.  Frostburn briefly went down the path of balancing by stats and stat growth.  This made quite a big difference but I think it was reverted when the new map was reverted, @ElementUser?

There's a big difference with adjusting stat growth to adjusting starting gold, EU has already reverted the stat growth changes (which I feel is understandable) as it confused players that play both modes too much. I don't think adjusting the starting gold would really "confuse" anyone.

So I've been playing midwars since 2011 (calculated upwards of 7.5k games) when they were being hosted on the FoC map, and when the actual midwar map first came out (with the dogkaiser/pandaroohoo showmatch), I always thought it was a bit strange how the teleport inside each base only teleported you a short distance, down the ledge. This could be something fun to change, for an event or what not.

Off topic ; really miss killing enemy couriers with illusions by that teleport ? or with warbeast wolves.

Edited by TehNubZar
misspelt illusions
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mele rax are more valuable and they are far easier to kill on legion side due to them being far away from fountain. Could put the mele rax closer to fount so it is harder to bd. 

I've noticed alot of ppl complain about bd, I just treat it as part of the game. But maybe add glyph of fortification to mw so you have a few more seconds to react. (btw carry tp)

Why is there cooldown on the "teleport" to get out of fountain, I don't see a reason for it so just remove it or lower it alot?

Could change the creep camp to ancients. Would make ophelia and parasite more viable picks like someone said. Hardly anyone kills the camp for gold or xp so ancients would make it more valuable. 

instead of raising starting gold just give everyone a power supply. Its basically a must have item and it would especially help newer players who haven't "gotten the hang" of mw yet. But make the sell price 0.

Edited by SupaPowaXXL
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@ElementUser

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this but switching the placement of the melee barracks on the legion side would make it more balanced. Considering a melee barrack has more value in terms of sustaining lanes than a range barrack, to leave it in an exposed position gives hellbourne an unexpected advantage when they're pushing.

Just like how hellbourne has the melee racks closer to their fountain, it should be the same for legion as well. I'm not sure why this was never fixed.

I also want to second the comment about lowering the amount of wards. That's actually a simple and effective way to help balance the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, j0eyk said:

@ElementUser

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this but switching the placement of the melee barracks on the legion side would make it more balanced. Considering a melee barrack has more value in terms of sustaining lanes than a range barrack, to leave it in an exposed position gives hellbourne an unexpected advantage when they're pushing.

Just like how hellbourne has the melee racks closer to their fountain, it should be the same for legion as well. I'm not sure why this was never fixed.

I also want to second the comment about lowering the amount of wards. That's actually a simple and effective way to help balance the game.

The barracks switching was literally done in the hotfix patch yesterday.

Edited by ElementUser
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ElementUser said:

The barracks switching was literally done in the hotfix patch yesterday.

oh i havent been playing for awhile. thats great to hear! thanks for the response.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, ElementUser said:

The barracks switching was literally done in the hotfix patch yesterday.

Finally!

Hip hip hooray!

I need to know something, Newerth. The way we used to be together... I... I don't mean lately, but before... It was real, wasn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

-I would love to see some form of region locking, or ping gating the matches. Nonstop there are LATIN players with 300+ throwing the matches

-diminishing return on CC effects like being perma shept

-MOA reduced damage against structure

-bring back votekick

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like ping/region lock, more bans per player, have moa do reduced damage to buildings, have 4v5's auto remake or have someone brought in from the que to fill the player who left.  The 4 player team has such a big advantage its unreal. Remove Sheep and Shrunken. Have dr repulsor's ult CD based on distance traveled. Remove all healing abilities and turn them into damage abilities. Have parallax's passive capped way lower in midwars. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, PantyBandit` said:

One more thing I'd like to see addressed is wards. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't midwars have the same amount of ward storage with same cooldown as FoC? Yet the map is significantly smaller. Warding as it is feels kind of wonky in midwars due to the massive amount of blue wards available compared to the map area. A winning team can safely spam revs to deward every spot at all times with minimal opportunity cost. There is little the opposing team can do. After all, the team has less space to move around and less space to plant safe wards.

I feel the ward count and/or cooldown should be reduced to make warding and dewarding less "spammy". The 6 deward stock also gives winning team too big of an advantage, further contributing to making games one sided.

 

6 hours ago, SupaPowaXXL said:

I've noticed alot of ppl complain about bd, I just treat it as part of the game. But maybe add glyph of fortification to mw so you have a few more seconds to react. (btw carry tp)

19 hours ago, PantyBandit` said:

 

this

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, PantyBandit` said:

@NubbyMcNub

This same discussion about conceding has been going on for like 10+ years at this point.

Not for Midwars. 

Quote

Some people are like me and some are not. The current system is fine for that.

Conclusion doesn't actually follow.

Quote

After all, you can leave whenever you want. No one is keeping you hostage.

Wrong, I'm penalised in terms of automatic bans,, having to take the MMR hit and being denied the silver.  At 5% of Leaves, I can no longer play.

You've given zero justification for the most delusionally-optimistic / sociopathic player being able to force his 4 teammates to suffer through a miserable game in a fun mode.

I'm open to counterarguments but I'm the only one who's made any so far...

Quote

@ElementUser has repeatedly stated that hero specific balance is unreasonable for MW.

Not even once.  I've already paraphrased his/FB's criteria made about 5 months ago.

Quote

Changing starting gold based on hero performance seems like an awful way to balance the mode. Early game is all about item timings, namely astrolabe (and to lesser extent manaring), and more starting gold would contribute to the snowballing gained from an earlier astro.

I actually thought balancing through stats was better.  I kinda doubt claims that it's seriously confusing but if FB don't want to repeat that, balancing through gold is the only option.  But unless someone or some reliable group volunteers to do it, it won't happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CLANMAIN said:

have 4v5's auto remake

This would allow teams to force a remake.

Quote

or have someone brought in from the que to fill the player who left.  

I've advocated for this a long time but it's a heck pf a lot of programming.

Quote

The 4 player team has such a big advantage its unreal. 

20% fewer disables, 20% less damage, 20% less health.  If you ignore the creeps and divided rewards(?), it's up to 70% advantage to the 5-strong team.
 

Also, if it was true, we'd see teams that have someone go to neutrals win all the time.

Edited by NubbyMcNub
Link to post
Share on other sites

@NubbyMcNub The thing is I feel we have a fundamental difference in how we view this problem, and I believe no argument from either side will bring us closer. I feel the same way about people giving up early as you feel about people not giving up. I also don't see leaving a game you don't enjoy as a non option. Neither do I see losing mmr as a penalty.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, NubbyMcNub said:

This would allow teams to force a remake.

I've advocated for this a long time but it's a heck pf a lot of programming.

20% fewer disables, 20% less damage, 20% less health.  If you ignore the creeps and divided rewards(?), it's up to 70% advantage to the 5-strong team.
 

Also, if it was true, we'd see teams that have someone go to neutrals win all the time.

This does not take into account gold and xp advantage gained. Yes, the net XP is the same but divided across 4 players instead of 5 that is ~5% more xp and gold for each of the remaining players allowing them to get their big ticket items 5% faster and get their big levels earlier. Yes the later in the game this happens the less advantage a team will gain but if they have a player leave immediately and they able to stall for ~15 minutes then they will have on average a 2 level and ~1000 gold (per player) advantage. In this game, the number of units is only a small part of a much larger equation.

Even if a team is behind and turtle they can recoup their deficit and win on pure xp gain difference.

By no means does this happen every game but if players have a decent understanding of the game mechanics then they will be able to turn a 4 v 5 into an advantage for themselves.

Edited by xort`
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, xort` said:

This does not take into account gold and xp advantage gained. Yes, the net XP is the same but divided across 4 players instead of 5 that is ~5% more xp and gold for each of the remaining players allowing them to get their big ticket items 5% faster and get their big levels earlier.

25%.

So yes, if with their ~70% disadvantage, the team of 4 manage to get a kill, they probably get 25% more of some rewards.  And I don't know what the shared rewards currently are.  I suspect assist rewards are shared but vicinity rewards aren't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2020 at 6:45 AM, PantyBandit` said:

@NubbyMcNub I feel the same way about people giving up early as you feel about people not giving up.

I doubt it.  If I seem to be the only player on my team who wants to keep playing, I'll actually check.  And if everyone else wants to concede, I'll change my vote because compelling four people to suffer just so I can keep playing is undoubtedly sociopathic.

I thought some more about my 'free leave' suggestion and I definitely think there would need to be an explicit silver penalty in the pop-up eg the popup says you will be deprived of X silver, where X is 6 less one for every 5 minutes played.  A couple of alternative ideas:

  • - Allow both sides to vote.  If any of the winning team votes to allow the other team to CC, that counts as one.  It's hard to predict the psychology of this but it's probably the easiest fix to program in.
  • - A 4 v 1 vote starts a four minute timer.  If another concede vote after those four minutes is 4 v 1, then the game is conceded.  This gives you 4 minutes to show the game is worth playing.  The AFK algorithm should kick in after 2 mins so that this isn't a way to influence the second vote.  The MMR penalty for Leavers could then be reduced to 5 mins (but anyone given 'permission' to Leave is unaffected).


 

Edited by NubbyMcNub
Link to post
Share on other sites

@NubbyMcNub Read what you quote next time please.

I don't think we should be fixated on this sociopath edge case, surely these don't make up the bulk of your games. Perception is flawed. Perceiving game as lost is a self fulfilling prophecy. Losing mentality and giving up is what really robs people of their enjoyment, not playing the game. Playing to lose is the bigger problem here. You sir, are unfortunately on the wrong side of history.

Im sorry if you don't enjoy playing the match to it's conclusion. And if you describe playing the game as suffering, maybe you should re-evaluate how you spend your time and perhaps focus on more enjoyable things.

I truly feel this discussion has come to it's conclusion, my part in it at the very least has. I wish you luck in your future endeavours, and I hope you find joy in your life.

Edited by PantyBandit`
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, PantyBandit` said:

@NubbyMcNub Read what you quote next time please.

I don't think we should be fixated on this sociopath edge case, surely these don't make up the bulk of your games.

More disingenuous arguments.  And still zero justification for forcing suffering on four players.  I hope somebody can come up with better arguments in your absence.

Edited by NubbyMcNub
Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...