1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

2v2 vs 4v4 / Our plans to grow the game

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Jules, May 30, 2018.

  1. Egekaer

    Egekaer Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    3
    I think that is very true. I think some of the changes, especially towards match making, has been Jules trying to meet some of the requests from the inhouse channel. I actually think its the same with the change from 4v4 to 2v2.
     
  2. Crazy

    Crazy Member

    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I am not saying Jules should listen to the inhouse member exclusively, but it is a fact that he could need some help in balance regards. And since listening to community is time intensive it might be worth a try. In the end noone can force Jules to do a certain patch (or dont) but additional opinons might help (especially from high elo players if you cannt play that much at the given patch/time) + I do not really see a downside to that
     
  3. Nacccho

    Nacccho Member

    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Grarl needs a nerf, it is simply too good of a package.
    It's a tier 1 start, Fills the tank spot, while having synergy with ITSELFF, it empowers a lot units like aqua.
    Gives you a lot of versatility early game, allowing haven/millenium 2, also to switch build 3 if ur feeling weak there, and just gives you too much flexibility to go workers.
     
  4. Bluejin

    Bluejin Member

    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    18
    You mean Bunk/Millenium on 3 while still having a 4-worker start I guess.
     
  5. Crazy

    Crazy Member

    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I think King Claw is too strong, for me Grarl is fine the way it is
     
    GvR Mr Mister likes this.
  6. Mick

    Mick Member

    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    18
    After playing for a few weeks with considerations of the points made here, the main problem I see with 2v2 (beside social aspects) is that rolls are too important and games become too predetermined. I think 2v2 is a nice 'niche' to sometimes play, but LTD is really designed for 4v4, because of the variety of rolls, elements of surprise, weakness on multiple rounds. E.g. 1 person rolls millennium in 4v4, you can still win on 14. 1 person rolls millennium in 2v2, you can forget about 14. Too straight-forward and simple.. (Also you get less gold for enemy leaks, so leaking sometimes does not snowball the game as heavily as on 2v2, which is quite boring imo)
     
  7. Akitos

    Akitos Member

    Messages:
    531
    Likes Received:
    371
    Trophy Points:
    63
    100% agree.. Sad that Mick sees this after a few weeks while Jules still ignores the issue.
     
  8. Seraphon

    Seraphon Member

    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Finally, I agree that is not a good solution to keep on with 2v2...Some weeks ago, I played like 2h per day maybe more. Now, I don't play at all to be honest. You can foresee the result of your game most of time and anyways, I'm not so much interesting by just playing "alone" to a game... That's not what I'm searching in a video game. I'm sorry to say that :(
     
  9. jqob

    jqob Member

    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    28
    What about making an in-game poll for a week or two. For every single active player to vote what game mode they want with 3 options: 2v2, 4v4 or neutral. So you can just look at the numbers that you love, and don't need to estimate what people truly want. Let us decide for ourselves :)

    Also implementing such poll system could be useful in the future as well with other decisions when you want the communities opinion.
     
    Frozen likes this.
  10. EpvpDani

    EpvpDani Moderator

    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Well the issue isnt about what players want or not, it was mostly decided because it is improving the matchmaking quality (less waiting time, more accurate rating matches). They already said multiple times that they didnt change the mode to 2v2 just for fun or because they like it more, it was mostly because there werent enough players to support a quality 4v4 matchmaking anymore.
     
  11. jqob

    jqob Member

    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Im sure most people don't mind longer wait times if it means it's a more pleasurable experience
     
  12. EpvpDani

    EpvpDani Moderator

    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Maybe if it is just a matter of +/-1 minute but we are talking about queue times that went up to one hour in elo peaks (highest and lowest) and even beyond that. I doubt you would have a pleasureable experience if you wait one hour for a ten minute game.

    I mean even with 2v2 there were some cases where the devs had to manually reset the elo of people who were so low below the average that they didnt find games in a 30min+ queue: https://legiontd2.com/community/threads/stat-issue-cannot-play.14891/

    And also an example of someone complaining about queue times back when 4v4 was still enabled with 30+ minutes:
    https://legiontd2.com/community/threads/elo-reset.14285/
     
  13. Prowess

    Prowess Member

    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Switching to 2v2 is a logical bandaid fix, but causes issues with the integrity of what made this game fun. I got hooked playing 4v4 with friends. 2v2 is too mundane with the focus on mastermind.

    Balancing the game at its current state does not set up a reasonable transition back to 4v4. Since we don't know when it will happen, the game overtime will revolve around 2v2 as the patching seems to be reactive. Also, consider the newer players being introduced will normalize duos for the game, despite it being a temporary solution.

    4v4 has its own problems which is why it's better to retain it to improve gameplay that will be long term. Otherwise, I question the longevity of the game as the decision making is shortsighted. There was not an exponential growth in the player base from steam sale with the 2v2 change.
     
  14. Nacccho

    Nacccho Member

    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I dont think 4v4 is any viable with this playerbase.

    But 2v2 its a pretty gruesome experience. If you play 3 games in a row with a guy clearly below your skill level, it's day ruining.

    Add the pretty clear imbalances, legions being a shit ton better than average MM(even though not many people are playing legions thank god), and having to constantly relearn the game... Makes it so it really takes a LOT of will to stick with Legion TD2. A WHOLE fucking lot.
     
  15. Akitos

    Akitos Member

    Messages:
    531
    Likes Received:
    371
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yeah... it's really no fun. Every single game I play with people significantly below my skill level, and if I decide to duo to not have this, I play pretty much exclusively -29 elo games. Both scenarios ain't fun.

    That was because of the old 2k+ cannot get matched with people below 1,6k rule that we had from 4v4.
     
  16. Nacccho

    Nacccho Member

    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Something needs to be done.

    I'm not that high elo, giving that i play on multiple accounts to avoid these problems peak elo players experience.

    But giving that we are steadily losing players again, at 1850 i'm already having to wait 10+ mins in queue(160ppl online) for a game that is NOT worth it. I mean, i'd be down to wait even more to get good games, but those are getting increasingly rarer to find.

    You guys did an amazing job with the new tutorials, and after the last adjustments, the game should be in a pretty balanced state. Where the only thing i think is lacking is improving mastermind, preferably with some sort of re-roll. And if we're sticking with 2v2, do something about the bot situation.

    But where are we at regarding getting more players? You guys doing some sort of promotion soon? Is 4v4 still out of the question? Is free to play too?
    It feels like we're fighting the long defeat here.
     
  17. Jules

    Jules Developer Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,386
    Likes Received:
    1,559
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're rated 1850, which is rank 37 out of 15,000 monthly active players. That is high Elo.

    I understand the concern about games being too roll-dependent, but I personally don't think adding a reroll/reducing roll variance is the best thing for the game right now. I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion among high-rated players, but here it goes:
    1. Since the dawn of time, people consistently underestimate responsibility for their own mistakes. It's way easier and causes less mental discomfort (see cognitive dissonance) to blame an external factor, such as RNG in a video game. RNG does exist, but it's rarely the deciding factor. I'd say an individual game's outcome is about 70% player skill, 10% roll RNG, 10% battle RNG, and 10% risk-taking/baiting/bluffing RNG. Over the course of 100 games, your rating is 99% based on your skill. Some people will disagree with me here, but remember that it's easy and self-satisfying to think and claim, "I played that game well and only lost because I was given bad rolls."
      • On occasion, there are OP things such as Grarl+Millennium, which increase the roll RNG %, but those things are usually balanced quickly.
      • Even if you and your ally don't have any decent fighter for a certain wave (which is rare), there are ways of playing around this. For example, if you're weak on 16, you can save for 15 to force your opponents to not save for 16.
    2. Some amount of RNG is good for the game. It allows you to (1) experience new situations, and (2) express skill - "How good are you at playing with this weak roll?" "How good are you at playing with this strong roll?" etc.
    3. I'm personally more tolerant of RNG than the average person. I really enjoy playing Legion TD 2, Texas Hold'em, games with drafting, and other games with high RNG because I like being put in different situations and also know that, if you play enough, your rating will converge to where you belong, even if sometimes you're unlucky and get bad rolls (see the law of large numbers). I understand that some players will prefer more RNG and some will prefer less RNG. It's a personal preference. No one is wrong. I also enjoy chess and used to play competitively, and chess is the classic example of a no-RNG game (although white/black is actually a pretty big factor for high-rated chess players).
    In Legion TD 2, for the vast majority of players, it's possible to win with a bot. Bots play at around a 1200-1300 rating, which makes them better than half of players. Yes, if you're 1600+, a bot almost always means a loss, but keep in mind that if you have a leaver, there's a good chance that player is quitting because he is doing poorly or your team is losing, and not even a perfect player could salvage the game. Also, in most cooperative PvP games, if you have a leaver, it's effectively a loss. For example, in League of Legends, there is no bot (it's just a 4v5), and your probability of winning is around 5%.

    With that said, bots can certainly be improved. Can you explain exactly what needs to be improved? Is the main issue when they bug out and don't take over for the player?
    Promotion/sale coming soon. Free-to-play is not possible right now for a number of reasons. Plan is to translate the game and improve server scalability, then do a free-to-play weekend/week and see how things go from there.
     
  18. JetWylie

    JetWylie Member

    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    3
    This is such a patronising thing to say....
     
  19. Jules

    Jules Developer Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,386
    Likes Received:
    1,559
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It wasn’t my intention to come across that way, so I apologize if it did. I was just explaining why it’s human nature to blame external factors. We all do it, including me. I’ve definitely cried “X is OP” or “lucker dog” when the reality is that the other player was better than me or I misplayed.

    These are just fields I care a lot about (game balance, statistics, psychology), and I appreciate serious discussion about them. It helps me learn. If the discussion of academic subjects comes across as patronizing, I’ll avoid them if that’s what people prefer. If you have a recommendation about how I could have worded something better, I’m very open to feedback!
     
  20. JetWylie

    JetWylie Member

    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    3
    I think it much better to state your disagreement and your matter of opinion, rather than pasting your reply about cognitive dissonance. I too have a great interest in psychology, but it has no place on the forum.

    I read that as “you prefer to blame external factors, rather than take responsibility for your own lack of skill”. Perhaps thats what you meant. That is why it came across patronising.

    Regardless, i felt it was a poor response to a legitimate group of concerns that I had also hoped to receive an equally eloquent response.

    The discussion of academic subjects is irrelevant to the matter, whether or not other people are educated enough. I think you would benefit abstaining from applying psychology to players concerns and or questions.
     
    Nacccho likes this.