#6 Client/host balancing (On the current state of the rumble meta)
T
Tamrell
This post is part of a set of 6 posts where I talk about the current meta:
=====================================================
#1: The second jump/airdash: https://rumble.canny.io/suggestions/p/1-the-second-jump-airdash-on-the-current-state-of-the-rumble-meta
#2: Knockback: https://rumble.canny.io/suggestions/p/2-knockback-on-the-current-state-of-the-rumble-meta
#3: Volatile stone: https://rumble.canny.io/suggestions/p/3-volatile-stone-on-the-current-state-of-the-rumble-meta
#4: Stubborn stone: https://rumble.canny.io/suggestions/p/4-stubborn-stone-on-the-current-state-of-the-rumble-meta
#5: Guard Stone: https://rumble.canny.io/suggestions/p/5-guard-stone-on-the-current-state-of-the-rumble-meta
#6: Client/host balancing: https://rumble.canny.io/suggestions/p/6-client-host-balancing-on-the-current-state-of-the-rumble-meta
=====================================================
6 client/host balancing
The biggest glaring problem everyone acknowledges is the host-client advantage, in a discussion with MuMe this idea came up:
- client should have more hp than host (this can be based on ping e.g 1 extra hp per 10 ping capped at +10hp or any other way), which would balance out how much more control the host has by requiring less precise control from the client side
Please also discuss further ideas on how this problem could be solved without "just needing better networking"! maybe as a community we can find the answer !!
Log In
X
XF5TOPZF3U8W
i don't like the hp idea, but i'm gonna make a post talking about a remedy to this problem in a sec, but to summarize, it would consist of five round matches (best three out of five wins) and the host switches between rounds. i got the idea after fighting the same guy on client multiple times in a row, but every time the match was over he would leave and i wouldn't be able to play on host. definitely something that i think will become more common after the quest release.
Edit: here is the link to the post i made if anyone wants to check it out.
L
L3mmi05/Val
I dislike the idea of HP changes for two main reasons:
- Depending on playstyle, the value of HP can vastly differ. Like Pompyy mentioned, gaining 10 extra hp with stubborn adamant is extremely strong.
- This also widens the difference between pit and ring even more than it already is: On pit, it becomes even easier for client to camp out and chip, and on ring, the 10 extra hp are worthless as you get bullied of the map.
If there should be a change to the game to address this, I think changing priorities like they did with dash/jump is the best way to go about it. For example, the way modifiers are currently handled makes it impossible to airsling on higher ping, since the structure is always out of range on your client, even though it isn't on host.
L
Luck_x_Luck
It seems to me that making hp bonus ping-based invites shenanigans via artificially lowering ping during matchmaking while having no issues ingame. Don't think that's a healthy approach for the game.
I don't think people will find agreement on what is fair compensation. so long as host/client remains an issue I think it's also more satisfactory to opt for the rematch so players can go for a rematch if they feel like it would've made a difference? Whatever you'd do to balance it I feel like this is what would end up happening regardless since even if hypothetically something would actually make it balanced people are just not all going to agree with that.
L
Lux
Client disadvantage is a problem, but it can also be just part of the game. Why try to get each match fair when we could work on sets and bigger scope for fairness.
As a community we already have tournament rules that kinda mitigate the problem and a strong etiquette that allows for always double matches so that everyone gets to be client and host.
I think it's a limitation outside of the scope of game design and so it should get a solution outside of the scope of game design. Be it rules amongst ourselves, community guidelines or general consensus that it's a think to live with.
For example, adding a timer based match would make a fairer match with the client being able to win if their hp is higher after a set time of the round. The win or die state of the game is what limits our possibilities.
Y
YourNeighborNat
Overall, I think I like this idea. If the host/client system is to persist, integrating some kind of balancing for it could be nice. Perhaps the extra health could be displayed differently in some way to show that its health added on top of normal health? But yeah, solid, I think.
8
8DIV4JDG5FFT
How About This:
Let Client have all the shiftstones and have Host be the underdog for once.
Now hear me out!
The way it is right now, one person has to be disadvantaged, and if Client is having a crazy amount of lag, a match can sometimes just turn into a slog. Try to keep pressure on, make sure they have no opening to disk you, take every opening that YOU get to disk THEM, hit yourself in the back of the head with a struppercutted wall somehow, repeat.
What if Client had the obvious advantage? Sure you still would have to deal with the frickin' lag, but hey, at least you're OP.
Y
YourNeighborNat
8DIV4JDG5FFT Taking away the host's ability to use the parts of their playstyle that rely on Shift Stones doesn't seem like the route I'd want to go with, at least.
8
8DIV4JDG5FFT
YourNeighborNat
I'm not saying that Host can't have their two shiftstones, i'm just saying that Client could have ALL the shiftstone effects.
Y
YourNeighborNat
8DIV4JDG5FFT I think that would be... significantly unbalanced.
8
8DIV4JDG5FFT
YourNeighborNat
Exactly!
P
Pompyy
Sorry but I kinda hate this idea. as in a high pace client + stubborn/adamant can make a target nearly unkillable with 30HP and in high pace games you almost always have adamant active, you each hp is effectively turned into 3 which is already stupid high. so with this idea if they got the 10+ ontop of their 20 and each being worth 3
Effectively
means they have 90HP which is ludicrous.I like the idea of giving client a small advantage but this aint it Im sorry, maybe give them surge by default if the ping is over 100? Just an idea
Y
YourNeighborNat
Pompyy What if it was a sort of "overhealth/overshield" that didn't get affected by damage reduction and couldn't be healed by vigor? Could maybe even be immune to surge damage bonus as a kind of flip side...?
p
pentali
YourNeighborNat this risks being wildly unintuitive for new players imo
S
Sauerkraut
Pompyy I really like the idea of surge specifically because it would reward combos and controll over just camping, but Im not sure how it would actually work in practise. A hard cut-off ping would mean that having 90ms ping is worse than having 105ms ping and if your internet is spiky you could even have surge on 40ms ping asuming you just get lucky enough. If anything it should probably be a spectrum of advantage rather than a toggle, but even so Im not sure if I like the idea of ping based advantage.
k
klibe
Having ping influence health feels way too, unvanilla, in my opinion. It breaks immersion, and i know that gameplay comes first but for newer players you need that immersion. The tourney system players have come up with is enough imo to deal with this
Y
YourNeighborNat
klibe I mean, a health bar above your opponent's head presumably isn't a in-world/in-lore thing to begin with. It's presumably there as a game mechanic. So, if it's primarily/entirely there for the gameplay anyway, I don't think giving the client more health of some kind based on ping is necessarily going that far beyond having a health bar in the first place.