|
Post by llama4president on Mar 13, 2017 21:01:57 GMT -5
Oh i want to add:
there is NO protection for noobs. The lvl 30 , 4lvl of weapons stuff is total bull「dookie」.
recruit league is full of people that are lvl 30 and have lvl 12 weapons.
0 filters, so what Pixonic said, was just a lie.
|
|
chad
Destrier
Posts: 22
Karma: 9
|
Post by chad on Mar 14, 2017 5:08:09 GMT -5
I reached bronze league some days ago just to be crushed by high lvl ppl with laser swords and las cannons. You still haven't seen the really fu*cking overpowered bots yet. Those bots and weapons are still manageable as soon as you learn a bit more about the game.
|
|
|
Post by hurtbot on Mar 14, 2017 7:50:00 GMT -5
Maxing out hanger isn't a problem for my account (since I bought it from friend) I can do it anytime I want. I actually found tanking is more fun since I can use all bots and weapons at a level I find fitting. Ah.... so f%&k the other 11 people who DON'T think it's fitting? At least most tankers have the distinction of having at least earned their maxed out hangers. Just curious... what are you planning on doing when/if Pixonic fixes this loophole and you have to play on the same terms as everyone else?
|
|
|
Post by blastronaut on Mar 14, 2017 7:55:55 GMT -5
Maxing out hanger isn't a problem for my account (since I bought it from friend) I can do it anytime I want. I actually found tanking is more fun since I can use all bots and weapons at a level I find fitting. Ah.... so f%&k the other 11 people who DON'T think it's fitting? At least most tankers have the distinction of having at least earned their maxed out hangers. Just curious... what are you planning on doing when/if Pixonic fixes this loophole and you have to play on the same terms as everyone else? The MM and League System is working as intended. If Pixonic wanted people to face players with similar equipment they would've stuck with the old MM.
|
|
|
Post by hurtbot on Mar 14, 2017 8:24:02 GMT -5
... and it's why I think damage alone is a poor metric of "skill". Agree 100% with your statement. To this day, War Robots missions are all about territorial dominance. It's about tactics and teamwork, so I think end game standing should be determined by other aspects (outside damage gaining) as well. Let's say some formula that scoring beacons captured+level difference of the killer and the killed+damage inflicted+etc And performance rating shouldn't be based on who's winning/losing. I mean, whoever contribute/active enough in a battle, he/she should rewarded, despite of which team they were in. Maybe it's something like this: Winning team: 1. +10 2. +6 3. +2 4. -2 5. -4 6. -6 Losing team: 1. +5 2. +3 3. +1 4. -2 5. -6 6. -10 It's just an example. There are many more clever man than me whi can think of a better numbers To me, it seems like this would be the way to go.... Losing team: Everybody starts at -10, +5 for having the most beacons, +5 for having the most damage(+4 for 2nd place, +3 for 3rd and so on) Winning team: Everybody starts at +10, -5 for having the fewest beacons, -5 for having the least damage(-4 for 2nd least, -3 for 3rd and so on) It seems unlikely Pixonic will significantly increase the value of beacon-capping since damage-dealing is where they currently get most of their money unless... Think about beacon-capping setups and you wind up with bots like the Gepard, the Stalker, and the Gareth. All of these bots are among the cheapest to acquire and arm. If you look at the new prototype bot, the "Dash," you see a medium bot with 3 medium hardpoints that can cap beacons with the best of them. So now you have a beacon capper you can put 3 high-dollar orkans on(undoubtedly this will be a gold bot in the neighborhood of 2500Au+). I'm guessing you won't see any changes to points for beacon capping until they release this new bot.
|
|
|
Post by hurtbot on Mar 14, 2017 8:31:15 GMT -5
Ah.... so f%&k the other 11 people who DON'T think it's fitting? At least most tankers have the distinction of having at least earned their maxed out hangers. Just curious... what are you planning on doing when/if Pixonic fixes this loophole and you have to play on the same terms as everyone else? The MM and League System is working as intended. If Pixonic wanted people to face players with similar equipment they would've stuck with the old MM. Well, that's a good point, which is why I used the "when/if" instead of just saying "when." Obviously they WANT a certain amount of disparity in the matchups in order to frustrate people to the point of spending money. I think in it's present state, however they are more than likely driving away sales by allowing people with maxed out hangers to drop all the way to the rookie leagues. A fix of some sort is likely, although I suspect there will always be some sort of loophole to allow for that previously mentioned disparity. The disparity has to be just enough to make people think they can even the odds if they spend some money... if you make it too large people will realize it would take thousands of dollars to reach that level in any reasonable amount of time and find another game to play.
|
|
|
Post by blastronaut on Mar 14, 2017 14:04:52 GMT -5
The MM and League System is working as intended. If Pixonic wanted people to face players with similar equipment they would've stuck with the old MM. Well, that's a good point, which is why I used the "when/if" instead of just saying "when." Obviously they WANT a certain amount of disparity in the matchups in order to frustrate people to the point of spending money. I think in it's present state, however they are more than likely driving away sales by allowing people with maxed out hangers to drop all the way to the rookie leagues. A fix of some sort is likely, although I suspect there will always be some sort of loophole to allow for that previously mentioned disparity. The disparity has to be just enough to make people think they can even the odds if they spend some money... if you make it too large people will realize it would take thousands of dollars to reach that level in any reasonable amount of time and find another game to play. I wouldn't jump to any conclusions without the hard numbers from Pixonic to see if game play and Au purchases are up. They ARE getting dinged in the Apple and Android Play store reviews. Most people hate change but also adapt quickly, so those review scores may rebound pretty soon. All the proof you really need is in Pixonic's halfarsed "fix" to the loophole. A "Leaver League" is easily bypassed if someone wants to hunt recruit league players. But a "Leaver League" is also a great place to farm Gold, Silver, and Clan Ranking trophies.
|
|
|
Post by llama4president on Mar 14, 2017 14:07:39 GMT -5
The MM and League System is working as intended. If Pixonic wanted people to face players with similar equipment they would've stuck with the old MM. Well, that's a good point, which is why I used the "when/if" instead of just saying "when." Obviously they WANT a certain amount of disparity in the matchups in order to frustrate people to the point of spending money. I think in it's present state, however they are more than likely driving away sales by allowing people with maxed out hangers to drop all the way to the rookie leagues. A fix of some sort is likely, although I suspect there will always be some sort of loophole to allow for that previously mentioned disparity. The disparity has to be just enough to make people think they can even the odds if they spend some money... if you make it too large people will realize it would take thousands of dollars to reach that level in any reasonable amount of time and find another game to play. A "certain" disparity is ok and entertaining. but lvl 12 weaps and mechs vs lvl 4 is not promoting the game. even if i pay 200 $ i won't be able to compete. so the $ gain is a fallaciuous argument. I read from this forum how hard is to reach lvl 12 on everything on a mech, so you obviously know that a noob won't be able to ever overcome that difference by showering dollars toward Pixonic. What i do see in this matchmaker is a gamebreaking fallacy in the ideation itself. ELO can work in games like Lol because there every player starts every battle on fair terms and then skill/luck dictates how it evolves. I think Pixonic needs to address this issue as fast as they can, as i see really LOTS of weaps/mechs 9-12 players at range 400-700 league. you see ppl that have just started (lvl 10 players) meeting full maxed(or almost) DB mechs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 14:16:02 GMT -5
Maxing out hanger isn't a problem for my account (since I bought it from friend) I can do it anytime I want. I actually found tanking is more fun since I can use all bots and weapons at a level I find fitting. Ah.... so f%&k the other 11 people who DON'T think it's fitting? At least most tankers have the distinction of having at least earned their maxed out hangers. Just curious... what are you planning on doing when/if Pixonic fixes this loophole and you have to play on the same terms as everyone else? That sounds like the previous MM, I welcome that than the current MM. All my bots/weapons currently at 6-9 lvls and have faced many maxed meta players. I refuse to max out because of the restrictive Meta setup, gameplay, limiting skills, no knife fighting in favor of camping around in mid ranges, encourages Pix for pay to win method, etc, is boring no thanks. Tactics is not enough in the face of brute force, tanking to similar levels of bot/weapon I play in my hanger like the old MM for fun.
|
|
|
Post by hurtbot on Mar 14, 2017 15:20:56 GMT -5
Ah.... so f%&k the other 11 people who DON'T think it's fitting? At least most tankers have the distinction of having at least earned their maxed out hangers. Just curious... what are you planning on doing when/if Pixonic fixes this loophole and you have to play on the same terms as everyone else? That sounds like the previous MM, I welcome that than the current MM. All my bots/weapons currently at 6-9 lvls and have faced many maxed meta players. I refuse to max out because of the restrictive Meta setup, gameplay, limiting skills, no knife fighting in favor of camping around in mid ranges, encourages Pix for pay to win method, etc, is boring no thanks. Tactics is not enough in the face of brute force, tanking to similar levels of bot/weapon I play in my hanger like the old MM for fun. Ah... what you're talking about isn't really tanking. My apologies for the misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by hurtbot on Mar 14, 2017 15:44:01 GMT -5
Well, that's a good point, which is why I used the "when/if" instead of just saying "when." Obviously they WANT a certain amount of disparity in the matchups in order to frustrate people to the point of spending money. I think in it's present state, however they are more than likely driving away sales by allowing people with maxed out hangers to drop all the way to the rookie leagues. A fix of some sort is likely, although I suspect there will always be some sort of loophole to allow for that previously mentioned disparity. The disparity has to be just enough to make people think they can even the odds if they spend some money... if you make it too large people will realize it would take thousands of dollars to reach that level in any reasonable amount of time and find another game to play. I wouldn't jump to any conclusions without the hard numbers from Pixonic to see if game play and Au purchases are up. They ARE getting dinged in the Apple and Android Play store reviews. Most people hate change but also adapt quickly, so those review scores may rebound pretty soon. All the proof you really need is in Pixonic's halfarsed "fix" to the loophole. A "Leaver League" is easily bypassed if someone wants to hunt recruit league players. But a "Leaver League" is also a great place to farm Gold, Silver, and Clan Ranking trophies. I don't know that I'm drawing conclusions here so much as I'm speculating. Pixonic doesn't release any data that can be used to conclude much of anything.
|
|
|
Post by hurtbot on Mar 14, 2017 15:49:14 GMT -5
Well, that's a good point, which is why I used the "when/if" instead of just saying "when." Obviously they WANT a certain amount of disparity in the matchups in order to frustrate people to the point of spending money. I think in it's present state, however they are more than likely driving away sales by allowing people with maxed out hangers to drop all the way to the rookie leagues. A fix of some sort is likely, although I suspect there will always be some sort of loophole to allow for that previously mentioned disparity. The disparity has to be just enough to make people think they can even the odds if they spend some money... if you make it too large people will realize it would take thousands of dollars to reach that level in any reasonable amount of time and find another game to play. A "certain" disparity is ok and entertaining. but lvl 12 weaps and mechs vs lvl 4 is not promoting the game. even if i pay 200 $ i won't be able to compete. so the $ gain is a fallaciuous argument. I read from this forum how hard is to reach lvl 12 on everything on a mech, so you obviously know that a noob won't be able to ever overcome that difference by showering dollars toward Pixonic. What i do see in this matchmaker is a gamebreaking fallacy in the ideation itself. ELO can work in games like Lol because there every player starts every battle on fair terms and then skill/luck dictates how it evolves. I think Pixonic needs to address this issue as fast as they can, as i see really LOTS of weaps/mechs 9-12 players at range 400-700 league. you see ppl that have just started (lvl 10 players) meeting full maxed(or almost) DB mechs. You're absolutely right with the exception that just because you won't spend that kind of money does not mean there aren't people out there that will. If they can cater to 10 of those people, they can effectively write off 1000 people like you and I. While it doesn't seem like the most effective business model, it is apparently one that works since you can see it in practice in any number of companies.
|
|
|
Post by llama4president on Mar 14, 2017 18:01:41 GMT -5
You're absolutely right with the exception that just because you won't spend that kind of money does not mean there aren't people out there that will. If they can cater to 10 of those people, they can effectively write off 1000 people like you and I. While it doesn't seem like the most effective business model, it is apparently one that works since you can see it in practice in any number of companies. About that i got my doubts on the marketing choices, i have played in games where they successfully enticed players to do microtransaction en masse, and the advantage of 1000 ppl putting 3 $ in the game every month or such for light premiums or such, is more powerful than 10 ppl out of 1000 putting 300$ each. Because those 1000 ppl made the playerbase, they actually stayed in the game and player retention was higher. and that was a low paying player base. i'm ok for funding games in microtransactions, but hey, you must sell it to me, there is an entire art of enticing players to pay where you show that what you are giving them is shiny. Beating me to death till i pay or leave the game is not a good way, because you need players to make a working game.
|
|
|
Post by hurtbot on Mar 14, 2017 18:25:39 GMT -5
You're absolutely right with the exception that just because you won't spend that kind of money does not mean there aren't people out there that will. If they can cater to 10 of those people, they can effectively write off 1000 people like you and I. While it doesn't seem like the most effective business model, it is apparently one that works since you can see it in practice in any number of companies. About that i got my doubts on the marketing choices, i have played in games where they successfully enticed players to do microtransaction en masse, and the advantage of 1000 ppl putting 3 $ in the game every month or such for light premiums or such, is more powerful than 10 ppl out of 1000 putting 300$ each. Because those 1000 ppl made the playerbase, they actually stayed in the game and player retention was higher. and that was a low paying player base. i'm ok for funding games in microtransactions, but hey, you must sell it to me, there is an entire art of enticing players to pay where you show that what you are giving them is shiny. Beating me to death till i pay or leave the game is not a good way, because you need players to make a working game. Again, you're absolutely right. I'm not saying that the model you describe isn't viable, I'm just saying that the available evidence points to Pixonic choosing the method I described. Pixonic has put together a pretty great game here, and the programming to make it so is no small task. For them to have made such a monumental faux-pas in what is the simplest programming seems highly unlikely. That being the case, if it isn't a goof-up then it must have been by design. So, if it is by design, what possible purpose would that serve? It's quite obvious it's not going to enhance the player experience so the only other purpose that makes sense is... ding, ding, ding... financial. Now, if you can make the same amount of money maintaining a smaller user base, wouldn't you do that? Less people complaining, less people to try to make happy, less demand on servers. Add to that the fact that if that small user base was willing to put up with this they'll put up with just about anything, so less worry in the future about losing customers over other changes. I'm just saying this appears to be the direction they're going. I'm hoping they'll prove me wrong, but their crummy customer service, slow reaction time, and odd prioritization makes me wonder.
|
|
|
Post by Jame-thon on Mar 15, 2017 15:22:25 GMT -5
I've read through the thread and just wanted to clarify. The current meta doesn't match you up like weapons/bots but more with what league you are in plus or minus players up or down a league? That's how I've understood the game and just wanted to make sure cause that may change how I upgrade now.
|
|
|
Post by GreenFace on Mar 16, 2017 6:24:42 GMT -5
I've read through the thread and just wanted to clarify. The current meta doesn't match you up like weapons/bots but more with what league you are in plus or minus players up or down a league? That's how I've understood the game and just wanted to make sure cause that may change how I upgrade now. Just upgrade all you want. Don't bother about matchmaking etc. It will match you with every sort of bots and weapons, and players from several league tiers above you, regardless of your so-called upgrade strategy.
|
|
|
Post by Jame-thon on Mar 16, 2017 8:46:59 GMT -5
I've read through the thread and just wanted to clarify. The current meta doesn't match you up like weapons/bots but more with what league you are in plus or minus players up or down a league? That's how I've understood the game and just wanted to make sure cause that may change how I upgrade now. Just upgrade all you want. Don't bother about matchmaking etc. It will match you with every sort of bots and weapons, and players from several league tiers above you, regardless of your so-called upgrade strategy. Okay thanks. It was more that I just wanted to upgrade in a manner where I'm facing opponents of similar levels as me to be fair but if that's out the window...I may just upgrade on what I prioritize as important. Thanks for the reply.
|
|
|
Post by GreenFace on Mar 16, 2017 9:57:32 GMT -5
Okay thanks. It was more that I just wanted to upgrade in a manner where I'm facing opponents of similar levels as me to be fair but if that's out the window...I may just upgrade on what I prioritize as important. Thanks for the reply. It will save you from disappointments of seeing random opponents, and thinking uselessly about what's wrong with your upgrade strategy when it happened. At least until a much better matchmaking comes from Pix
|
|