|
|
Post by frunobulax on Feb 24, 2017 5:19:36 GMT -5
Hi, I'll create a separate thread because I have the urge to reply in several other threads. Many players here defend the current matchmaking and think it only needs a minor tweak to get it right. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. As in totally down the wrong alley. I think that tanking is the biggest problem in the game right now, as I play 5vs6, 4vs6, 6vs5 or 6vs4 in about half of my games now. (Many of you will agree.) The tanking principle is: If you are out gold farming, it's best to lose badly half of your games (ideally, be the last one on the losing team) which enables you to get 10 gold in the other half of the games. Just like the old seal clubbing, but you'll have to piss off your teammates in half of the game as you eject. Say you average 6-8 gold per win this way and play 10 "real" games a day (not tanking/ejecting), you'll farm 60-80 gold a day. Many people hoped the league system would fix this. Now what is reward for moving up a league, 40 gold or something, once in a blue moon? The tankers will keep tanking and seal clubbing in the low leagues. Moving up even a few leagues is no relevant incentive. This needs fixing, badly. Unfortunately there is no easy way to do this with the league system alone. My initial idea was to reduce the amount of gold from the matches and assign gold rewards at the end of a league depending on placement within the league. This would give you an incentive to play well in the league. But this opens up a different problem, namely that you will get the most gold if you play well, but just avoid promotion to a higher league, as you would not finish strong in the higher league. So the clubbers would still club. We also want a decent reward for grinding, a player who plays 20 games a day should get more gold than a player that plays 5. So you can't make the rewards from the battles irrelevant. In my opinion, there is one way out, but changing league rewards is only one part of the puzzle: - Eliminate the loophole that allows players to match up against vastly inferior players.
Make the matchmaking a combination of hangar score and skill, and don't place too much value on the skill. Of course hangar score is way more complicated than level (I did propose a system to get a fair hangar score a while ago that will take care of the "can't compare Lancelot and Natasha" issue), but the basic idea should be that a player with a given hangar would be matched up with players with roughly the same hangar scores, a bit better if it's a player with high skill, and a bit worse for a player with low skill.
Say a player with a "normal" 8/8 hangar would face 6/6 hangars to 10/10 hangars (assuming a similar mix of gold and WSP robots/weapons).
This would have another very nice effect: Players who enjoy playing different hangars (take out those Golems and Vityaz for a spin) could just do so, and would be matched with the "right", easier competition. - Penalize tanking.
Put a penalty on players leaving games early (deduct AG for repair costs), and do not adjust matchmaking scores whenever a player has less than 3 beacons and less than 20% of the damage done by the top scorer. Thus, even if you try to get 2 quick beacons and eject, or just let the game run without doing anything, your matchmaking score would not be reduced in that loss. The only way to reduce your matchmaking score would be to actually play the game out, and do something relevant in a loss.
But do deduct league trophies for those losses.
Bottom line, if you try to lose you will lose silver and league placement, and run the risk of not getting your matchmaking score lowered if you are not doing enough damage or capturing enough beacons. That should make it very unattractive to tank. - Have strong incentives to play your best game over a long time.
Yes, I think we need good gold and silver rewards for finishing well in leagues, and gold and silver payout from single matches should be reduced. It will take some tweaking to come up with a fair distribution that keeps the gold flow roughly constant while still rewarding grinding, but it's doable. Rewards would be paid at the end of a league depending on placement, and of course if a player moves up a league.
Players might still find a loophole here, but I would expect some immediate results: * This completely eliminates the possibility seal clubbers cleaning up Destriers with their Galahads in what used to be low bronze. Newbies are much more protected. Experienced players could still try to club in bronze, but they would have to do this with Cossacks and the like - as soon as they would put in any high level weapons or good robots they won't see newbies anymore. (And yes, Gepards, Stalkers and Garys would have a much higher score than Destriers.) If they do play down in bronze, they won't get a lot of silver this way as they can't rack up high damage numbers. * The incentive for tanking is much lower, as explained, and it is made more difficult. * Due to the league rewards, there would be an incentive for continuing to fight even in lost causes. Thoughts? Best, F. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofsam on Feb 24, 2017 5:47:05 GMT -5
The simple solution is if you drop a game your score gets +1 if you do less than half your average damage you get +1 neither one effects your average damage. These +1 revert to a zero if you are in the top 25% of your league (keeps people from tanking their way to the top)
This makes it so if you tank/ditch you actually get tougher opponents
|
|
|
|
Post by osang on Feb 24, 2017 5:57:02 GMT -5
Well, I blame the new MM..it's a disaster. The old MM is OK if only Pixonic fix the only issue here: no magnums allowed on a low bronze tier to protect the rookies but the new MM is opposite because players are matched horribly. I'm playing all heavy bots (Lancelot, Fury, Rhino, etc..) and I saw a Destrier.
|
|
|
|
Post by sonofsam on Feb 24, 2017 6:03:37 GMT -5
Well, I blame the new MM..it's a disaster. The old MM is OK if only Pixonic fix the only issue here: no magnums allowed on a low bronze tier to protect the rookies but the new MM is opposite because players are matched horribly. I'm playing all heavy bots (Lancelot, Fury, Rhino, etc..) and I saw a Destrier. The drestler was probably someone trying to tank.The problem isn't really the MM I'd say 90% of the time the MM does a great job. The problem is with the people tanking/ditching. I see max bots occasionally but usually it is only one rogue bot in the game. My bet is that the rogue was a tanker who is not going back up. If you could cut the tanking I think the MM would give good matches 95% of the time. Now if they would quit putting ransoms in matches with ransoms... |
|
|
|
Post by [AurN]Zenotaph on Feb 24, 2017 6:13:55 GMT -5
I would simply add a time penalty for ditching and standing idle.
Ten minutes if you ditch three times in a row. Adding five minutes for every ditching following.
|
|
|
|
Post by AηɗυηєɗнєƖ [ǀƬA] on Feb 24, 2017 6:44:05 GMT -5
Already commented, here: "MM is fine, people is not. The whole thing would be fixed very easily: matches you don't finish with at least 25% damage of the best player or 50% beacons of best capper simply don't get counted. Also, you have to wait for the match you leave to be finished before joining another. Tank that. And shouldn't be that hard to implement. " |
|
|
|
Post by frunobulax on Feb 24, 2017 7:12:56 GMT -5
Already commented, here: "MM is fine, people is not. The whole thing would be fixed very easily: matches you don't finish with at least 25% damage of the best player or 50% beacons of best capper simply don't get counted. Also, you have to wait for the match you leave to be finished before joining another. Tank that. And shouldn't be that hard to implement. " A MM is not fine if it can be misused, and there will always be many players that misuse a system if it has an obvious weakness. This is not chess where the only issue is to find opponents of roughly equal strength. Your solution is not sufficient, players would grab 2 beacons and eject. It also gives no incentive to continue fighting if the game is headed towards a loss. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofsam on Feb 24, 2017 7:42:45 GMT -5
Already commented, here: "MM is fine, people is not. The whole thing would be fixed very easily: matches you don't finish with at least 25% damage of the best player or 50% beacons of best capper simply don't get counted. Also, you have to wait for the match you leave to be finished before joining another. Tank that. And shouldn't be that hard to implement. " A MM is not fine if it can be misused, and there will always be many players that misuse a system if it has an obvious weakness. This is not chess where the only issue is to find opponents of roughly equal strength. Your solution is not sufficient, players would grab 2 beacons and eject. It also gives no incentive to continue fighting if the game is headed towards a loss. Mine gives incentive not to. +1 if you leave early +1 if you don't do half your average damage neither one counts on your average damage. If you tank/ditch regularly you WILL face tougher opponents. Or you can stay and try to help your team (again this goes as a zero instead of a +1 if near the top of a league to prevent people tanking their way to the top) |
|
|
|
Post by throwawayyyyy on Feb 24, 2017 8:16:13 GMT -5
I am not in favor of any penalty. The one and only solution to this problem and matchmaking in general is to only consider the highest level of weapons in the hanger.
Anther solution is to assign vastly increasing scores to weapon and bot levels. Such as:
For Weapons:
Level 1 = 10
Level 2 = 50
Level 3 = 150
Level 4 = 250
Level 5 = 500
Level 6 = 900
Level 7 = 2500
For Bots:
Level 1 = 10
Level 2 = 20
Level 3 = 40
Level 4 = 100
Level 5 = 200
Level 6 = 320
Level 7 = 500, etc. Everyone will be forced to have a balanced hanger and will be fairly matched. Pixonic can even lower the score of gold weapons and bots to make more sales.
I assigned more score to weapon levels because a high leveled bot cannot stand against a level or two lower weapon. The previous problem was clubbers using level 12 weapons on level 4 bots. Well then the solution was to increase the score of weapons to have the clubbers fall into top tier with equal level weapons. Dependence on any metrics which could be artificially increased or decreased while keeping the hanger score same is prone to abuse and that is exactly waht is happeneing.
|
|
|
|
Post by frunobulax on Feb 24, 2017 8:32:30 GMT -5
So a 7/7 Spiral Destrier is equivalent to a 7/7 Taran Ancilot? Yeah, right.
Clubbers would love that system, all they would need is say a 5/5 Thunder Carnage and a 5/5 Plasma Ancilot or Galahad. As AG heavy robots start with level 6, they would never face any of them, only medium and small robots and other clubbers, occasionally. Congratulations, you just invented the perfect environment for clubbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by agentfilthy on Feb 24, 2017 8:35:38 GMT -5
I am not in favor of any penalty. The one and only solution to this problem and matchmaking in general is to only consider the highest level of weapons in the hanger. Anther solution is to assign vastly increasing scores to weapon and bot levels. Such as: For Weapons: Level 1 = 10 Level 2 = 50 Level 3 = 150 Level 4 = 250 Level 5 = 500 Level 6 = 900 Level 7 = 2500 For Bots: Level 1 = 10 Level 2 = 20 Level 3 = 40 Level 4 = 100 Level 5 = 200 Level 6 = 320 Level 7 = 500, etc. Everyone will be forced to have a balanced hanger and will be fairly matched. Pixonic can even lower the score of gold weapons and bots to make more sales. I assigned more score to weapon levels because a high leveled bot cannot stand against a level or two lower weapon. The previous problem was clubbers using level 12 weapons on level 4 bots. Well then the solution was to increase the score of weapons to have the clubbers fall into top tier with equal level weapons. Dependence on any metrics which could be artificially increased or decreased while keeping the hanger score same is prone to abuse and that is exactly waht is happeneing. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by [AurN]Zenotaph on Feb 24, 2017 8:37:00 GMT -5
So a 7/7 Spiral Destrier is equivalent to a 7/7 Taran Ancilot? Yeah, right. Clubbers would love that system, all they would need is say a 5/5 Thunder Carnage and a 5/5 Plasma Ancilot or Galahad. As AG heavy robots start with level 6, they would never face any of them, only medium and small robots and other clubbers, occasionally. Congratulations, you just invented the perfect environment for clubbers. But it would end the tanking. ? |
|
|
|
Post by agentfilthy on Feb 24, 2017 8:37:44 GMT -5
So a 7/7 Spiral Destrier is equivalent to a 7/7 Taran Ancilot? Yeah, right. Clubbers would love that system, all they would need is say a 5/5 Thunder Carnage and a 5/5 Plasma Ancilot or Galahad. As AG heavy robots start with level 6, they would never face any of them, only medium and small robots and other clubbers, occasionally. Congratulations, you just invented the perfect environment for clubbers. Take the amount of damage the bot can do in total/per second. Use that metric. Problem solved. |
|
|
|
Post by throwawayyyyy on Feb 24, 2017 8:47:33 GMT -5
So a 7/7 Spiral Destrier is equivalent to a 7/7 Taran Ancilot? Yeah, right. Clubbers would love that system, all they would need is say a 5/5 Thunder Carnage and a 5/5 Plasma Ancilot or Galahad. As AG heavy robots start with level 6, they would never face any of them, only medium and small robots and other clubbers, occasionally. Congratulations, you just invented the perfect environment for clubbers. Yes you are right they are not equal. I gave a vague idea about how to implement the system. It is clear that not every weapon is same; so you obviously need different scores for different weapon type ranging from light, medium and heavy and also on projectile, plasma and missile. this extra score will also apply to bots. Its like adding riders to an insurance policy; more riders will increase the premium to be paid. Do you want me to write you the complete algorithm of this system and then you will understand what I was trying to imply? |
|
|
|
Post by frunobulax on Feb 24, 2017 8:53:13 GMT -5
Take the amount of damage the bot can do in total/per second. Use that metric. Problem solved. So a Trident Fury is vastly inferior to a Thunder Schütze, and a Thunder Natasha is about the best robot in the universe, after the Thunder Fury of course that is currently the nightmare of all TT pilots. I see. Not every complex problem has a simple solution.  |
|
|
|
Post by frunobulax on Feb 24, 2017 9:01:27 GMT -5
Yes you are right they are not equal. I gave a vague idea about how to implement the system. It is clear that not every weapon is same; so you obviously need different scores for different weapon type ranging from light, medium and heavy and also on projectile, plasma and missile. this extra score will also apply to bots. Its like adding riders to an insurance policy; more riders will increase the premium to be paid. Do you want me to write you the complete algorithm of this system and then you will understand what I was trying to imply? Actually you didn't give a vague idea, in fact described an algorithm in detail: The one and only solution to this problem and matchmaking in general is to only consider the highest level of weapons in the hanger. I just pointed out that I that I see a few flaws in that algorithm. |
|
|
|
Post by throwawayyyyy on Feb 24, 2017 9:08:46 GMT -5
Yes you are right they are not equal. I gave a vague idea about how to implement the system. It is clear that not every weapon is same; so you obviously need different scores for different weapon type ranging from light, medium and heavy and also on projectile, plasma and missile. this extra score will also apply to bots. Its like adding riders to an insurance policy; more riders will increase the premium to be paid. Do you want me to write you the complete algorithm of this system and then you will understand what I was trying to imply? Actually you didn't give a vague idea, in fact described an algorithm in detail: The one and only solution to this problem and matchmaking in general is to only consider the highest level of weapons in the hanger. I just pointed out that I that I see a few flaws in that algorithm. Lol do you even know what an algorithm is? Anyways they were two different statements; first one was about giving priority to weapon level and after that additional info about how to do it. I am not writing a professional article that I will proof read every single word and sentence and the meaning they make for the bigger picture. I am writing things as they are coming to my mind. There was no flaw there was incomplete information. There is a difference between normal code and production ready code with all the validations. But why am I even arguing with you when you are just quoting to get back with whatever arguments you have. |
|
|
|
Post by agentfilthy on Feb 24, 2017 9:16:35 GMT -5
Take the amount of damage the bot can do in total/per second. Use that metric. Problem solved. So a Trident Fury is vastly inferior to a Thunder Schütze, and a Thunder Natasha is about the best robot in the universe, after the Thunder Fury of course that is currently the nightmare of all TT pilots. I see. Not every complex problem has a simple solution. How much damage does the bot do when firing all of it's weapons would work fine. Example, how much damage can a thunder do compared to a CRV Pin, to include the time it takes for the reload. Each weapon has a known matrix. Apply that to the hit points of the bot. Apply that to the hangar. Now match evenly. Seems pretty simple to me. |
|
|
|
Post by AηɗυηєɗнєƖ [ǀƬA] on Feb 24, 2017 9:46:02 GMT -5
A MM is not fine if it can be misused, and there will always be many players that misuse a system if it has an obvious weakness. This is not chess where the only issue is to find opponents of roughly equal strength. Your solution is not sufficient, players would grab 2 beacons and eject. It also gives no incentive to continue fighting if the game is headed towards a loss. Every single MM you can think of can be misused, just like any law can be sidestepped. It's the human nature. The point is not making tanking impossible or ineffective, the point is making it a real chore. Of course my solution is not sufficient, but if one tanker has to wait 10 minutes between tanking events and might actually have that made pointless if he doesn't get to a given threshold, the boring factor would probably suffice to dissuade 90% of tankers. Or at least force them to take 6 times a hour rather than 6 times a minute. |
|
|
|
Post by frunobulax on Feb 24, 2017 10:46:52 GMT -5
How much damage does the bot do when firing all of it's weapons would work fine. Example, how much damage can a thunder do compared to a CRV Pin, to include the time it takes for the reload. Each weapon has a known matrix. Apply that to the hit points of the bot. Apply that to the hangar. Now match evenly. Seems pretty simple to me. Yes. The DPM or DPS (damage per minute or damage per second, including reload time) values are readily available in the Wiki. That algorithm would rank a Thunder Fury as best robot in the world, and over five times better than a Trident Fury. A (l12) Thunder Schütze would have 8152 DPS and be better than four RDB Griffins at 1932 DPS each. Even if you adjust for hitpoints, the Schütze has 93k, the Griffin 158k, a Schütze would come in as worth 2.5 times as much as the Griffin. You do see the problem here, right? |
|
ANARCHY
Destrier
Posts: 18
Karma: 9
|
Post by ANARCHY on Feb 24, 2017 10:50:48 GMT -5
Hi, I'll create a separate thread because I have the urge to reply in several other threads. Many players here defend the current matchmaking and think it only needs a minor tweak to get it right. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. As in totally down the wrong alley. I think that tanking is the biggest problem in the game right now, as I play 5vs6, 4vs6, 6vs5 or 6vs4 in about half of my games now. (Many of you will agree.) The tanking principle is: If you are out gold farming, it's best to lose badly half of your games (ideally, be the last one on the losing team) which enables you to get 10 gold in the other half of the games. Just like the old seal clubbing, but you'll have to piss off your teammates in half of the game as you eject. Say you average 6-8 gold per win this way and play 10 "real" games a day (not tanking/ejecting), you'll farm 60-80 gold a day. Many people hoped the league system would fix this. Now what is reward for moving up a league, 40 gold or something, once in a blue moon? The tankers will keep tanking and seal clubbing in the low leagues. Moving up even a few leagues is no relevant incentive. This needs fixing, badly. Unfortunately there is no easy way to do this with the league system alone. My initial idea was to reduce the amount of gold from the matches and assign gold rewards at the end of a league depending on placement within the league. This would give you an incentive to play well in the league. But this opens up a different problem, namely that you will get the most gold if you play well, but just avoid promotion to a higher league, as you would not finish strong in the higher league. So the clubbers would still club. We also want a decent reward for grinding, a player who plays 20 games a day should get more gold than a player that plays 5. So you can't make the rewards from the battles irrelevant. In my opinion, there is one way out, but changing league rewards is only one part of the puzzle: - Eliminate the loophole that allows players to match up against vastly inferior players.
Make the matchmaking a combination of hangar score and skill, and don't place too much value on the skill. Of course hangar score is way more complicated than level (I did propose a system to get a fair hangar score a while ago that will take care of the "can't compare Lancelot and Natasha" issue), but the basic idea should be that a player with a given hangar would be matched up with players with roughly the same hangar scores, a bit better if it's a player with high skill, and a bit worse for a player with low skill.
Say a player with a "normal" 8/8 hangar would face 6/6 hangars to 10/10 hangars (assuming a similar mix of gold and WSP robots/weapons).
This would have another very nice effect: Players who enjoy playing different hangars (take out those Golems and Vityaz for a spin) could just do so, and would be matched with the "right", easier competition. - Penalize tanking.
Put a penalty on players leaving games early (deduct AG for repair costs), and do not adjust matchmaking scores whenever a player has less than 3 beacons and less than 20% of the damage done by the top scorer. Thus, even if you try to get 2 quick beacons and eject, or just let the game run without doing anything, your matchmaking score would not be reduced in that loss. The only way to reduce your matchmaking score would be to actually play the game out, and do something relevant in a loss.
But do deduct league trophies for those losses.
Bottom line, if you try to lose you will lose silver and league placement, and run the risk of not getting your matchmaking score lowered if you are not doing enough damage or capturing enough beacons. That should make it very unattractive to tank. - Have strong incentives to play your best game over a long time.
Yes, I think we need good gold and silver rewards for finishing well in leagues, and gold and silver payout from single matches should be reduced. It will take some tweaking to come up with a fair distribution that keeps the gold flow roughly constant while still rewarding grinding, but it's doable. Rewards would be paid at the end of a league depending on placement, and of course if a player moves up a league.
Players might still find a loophole here, but I would expect some immediate results: * This completely eliminates the possibility seal clubbers cleaning up Destriers with their Galahads in what used to be low bronze. Newbies are much more protected. Experienced players could still try to club in bronze, but they would have to do this with Cossacks and the like - as soon as they would put in any high level weapons or good robots they won't see newbies anymore. (And yes, Gepards, Stalkers and Garys would have a much higher score than Destriers.) If they do play down in bronze, they won't get a lot of silver this way as they can't rack up high damage numbers. * The incentive for tanking is much lower, as explained, and it is made more difficult. * Due to the league rewards, there would be an incentive for continuing to fight even in lost causes. Thoughts? Best, F. MM is not balanced !!! Clubbing used to be done by "gepards" now has changed form to Lancelots / Fury / Heavy gold plated squads. Beating the system to gain one's advantage is hard to prevent but can be minimize. Pixionics needs to give more incentives for being on top & create penalty for leaving match (eg. 10 min inability to queue for battle) The MM system is broken as everyone can see the overall play time of many pilots have dropped off significantly. The top 100 clan ranking CUPS have dropped very significantly. It was much easier to deal with Gepards back in the days than to face full max gold tiers. People are losing interest fast. Even famous VOX clan have dropped off in their activities. Clubbing / tanking will always be there in ALL games. But there are way to minimize them. However, Pixionics are too greedy to offer us more incentives and gold. They want only WALLET WARRIORS ... which is fine if the game is fun... It's not as fun anymore to have only heavy bots get to go "clubbing". |
|
|
|
Post by frunobulax on Feb 24, 2017 10:53:06 GMT -5
There was no flaw there was incomplete information. There is a difference between normal code and production ready code with all the validations. But why am I even arguing with you when you are just quoting to get back with whatever arguments you have. I should have added a "scnr" |
|
|
|
Post by Domino on Feb 24, 2017 12:12:30 GMT -5
I am not in favor of any penalty. The one and only solution to this problem and matchmaking in general is to only consider the highest level of weapons in the hanger. Anther solution is to assign vastly increasing scores to weapon and bot levels. Such as: For Weapons: Level 1 = 10 Level 2 = 50 Level 3 = 150 Level 4 = 250 Level 5 = 500 Level 6 = 900 Level 7 = 2500 For Bots: Level 1 = 10 Level 2 = 20 Level 3 = 40 Level 4 = 100 Level 5 = 200 Level 6 = 320 Level 7 = 500, etc. Everyone will be forced to have a balanced hanger and will be fairly matched. Pixonic can even lower the score of gold weapons and bots to make more sales. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IS NEEDED and have thought of this since I first started. I see lvl 1-2 gepards with lvl 8+ aphids killing EVERYONE in one to 2 hits. This will force end users to level weapons and bots in a even manner which will keep them with other people in similar dmg class. Right now I'm being out classed and it starts creating bot/weapon favoritism. Taking away diversity of the game. |
|
|
|
Post by miatahead on Feb 24, 2017 13:17:41 GMT -5
Well, I blame the new MM..it's a disaster. The old MM is OK if only Pixonic fix the only issue here: no magnums allowed on a low bronze tier to protect the rookies but the new MM is opposite because players are matched horribly. I'm playing all heavy bots (Lancelot, Fury, Rhino, etc..) and I saw a Destrier. The simplest, easiest fix was to just nerf Gepard. Pix had *multiple* times to do this and refused to. Their 'fixes' even made Geps more powerful and Gep finally didn't get a nerf until the changed the MM in the same update.
Clearly, Pix is clueless. Why?
- How long has there been double damage on Ancile? And they needed a video submission to figure it out? I had seen the double damage on Carnage long ago but figured it was designed this way. Apparently not...
- Test server. Why should we spend money to test things when we can just let the fools test it for us. We'll save costs and hey, we can spin it as a great perk. And if it doesn't work as intended, we'll just nerf/buff it.
You can bet your a** that *anything* they do is *not* for the good of the game, their customers or game balance, but only their next quarterly P&L.
|
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Feb 24, 2017 14:10:01 GMT -5
I think certain people are just going to hate anything Pixonic does. A test server isn't a "free way" for them to test new items. They have to pay to run the server. And it's impossible to test new features or items of a large online multiplayer game without a test server full of players. To think it is would be ignorance.
The easiest fix to the Gep would have been to exclude it from the lowest tier. As well as magnums.
And how are the developers supposed to know about a glitch until people report it?
|
|
|
|
Post by ⓣⓡⓘⓒⓚⓨ48 on Feb 24, 2017 14:13:32 GMT -5
OP, the sincerity of your apology is in question, now that you are actively asking for a different "recipe."
Just sayin'.
|
|
|
|
Post by whatttupG on Feb 24, 2017 14:51:24 GMT -5
If the MM worked, and leagues or whatever structure rewarded progress, tanking would go away on its own.
If I had to offer what place tanking is on the War Robots list of problems, it'd be no higher than about fourth.
|
|
|
|
Post by blastronaut on Feb 25, 2017 1:41:33 GMT -5
- Eliminate the loophole that allows players to match up against vastly inferior players.
- Penalize tanking.
- Have strong incentives to play your best game over a long time.
 |
|
|
|
Post by AηɗυηєɗнєƖ [ǀƬA] on Feb 25, 2017 3:32:14 GMT -5
If the MM worked, and leagues or whatever structure rewarded progress, tanking would go away on its own. No, it wouldn't. Some people, a possibly unsurprisingly high % of people actually, will always prefer the easy money scheme paying low to higher rewards you actually have to fight for. |
|
|
|
Post by whatttupG on Feb 25, 2017 11:43:43 GMT -5
If the MM worked, and leagues or whatever structure rewarded progress, tanking would go away on its own. No, it wouldn't. Some people, a possibly unsurprisingly high % of people actually, will always prefer the easy money scheme paying low to higher rewards you actually have to fight for. I don't follow, a working system would give nothing to quitters, and possibly penalize them in a scoring way so they drop themselves out. In fact you could even have the software automatically detect serial quitters or tankers and send them to a type of LCQ tier. LCQ is a motocross term for the last chance qualifier (if you're unfamiliar) and is made up of most everyone who hasn't made the main event by winning a birth already. Here, they have to win, as in first place, to move on (or maybe it's first and second place too, I forget) but the point is once you descend to here, you need to win outright to move on. This is a great system for motocross because 99% of this race shouldn't be in the main event anyways, still is systematically takes the creme of the crop and it also allows for a good rider who should, but has had bad luck so far, to get a final chance to race with the scrubs and run the table. This would work great for quitters and tankers to me, if you don't take first, you don't leave the league. You stay there, the rest of of play elsewhere in real leagues (or whatever) and you're not in the way. On topic per the OP, this is a solution. |
|
![[AurN]Zenotaph Avatar](http://www.teeri.net/aurn/aurnlogo28feb1-avatar.jpg){kind=avatar}
![AηɗυηєɗнєƖ [ǀƬA] Avatar](http://storage.proboards.com/6607038/avatar/qqeAJ4RKEanLTDewVuIX.jpg)
