|
Post by HEATHEN HERETIC on Jun 10, 2017 15:51:09 GMT -5
I found an easy solution to the match making algorithm Pixonic is using to pit us against each other. Throw it out. Why? Because they're using our league rankings as a big part of it, maybe even the whole of it. And if you have even two working brain cells you know that that ranking is a complete joke. It does not show what kind of pilot you are in general but ranks you according to the whims and antics of 11 other random players and their equipment. Forced 50% wins makes this kind of ranking even more ludicrous. So throw that out as well. But back to the match making system.
Here's my suggestion and it pertains only to solo matching....
SOLO MATCH MAKER FIXED
The number of slots a players has will be matched against other players with the same number of slots. If you have 4 slots all of your teammates and opponents will have 4 slots as well.
Your hanger averages will be matched with and against teammates and opponents with similar averages. Maybe 1 number up or down in any category according to player availability but more more than that. These numbers can change according to what you are currently running in your hanger. Your inventory does not affect your hanger averages in any way.
First step: Bot size to be averaged across your hanger. Fix a number to each bot size. I.e. Light = 2, Medium = 4, Heavy = 6
Second step: Bot upgrades to be averaged across your hanger.
Third step: Weapon sizes to be averaged across your hanger. Fix a number to each weapon size. I.e. Light = 2, Medium = 4, Heavy = 6.
Fourth step: Weapon upgrades to be averaged across your hanger.
Example for a 5 slot hanger
Bot: 2/Cossack Upgrade: 7
Weapon: 4/Tulumbas Upgrade: 8
Bot: 4/Galahad Upgrade: 5
Weapon: 4/Taran Upgrade: 4 Weapon: 2/Magnum Upgrade: 5 Weapon: 2/Magnum Upgrade: 6
Bot: 6/Griffin Upgrade: 8
Weapon: 4/Orkan Upgrade: 7 Weapon: 4/Orkan Upgrade: 6 Weapon: 2/Punisher Upgrade: 6 Weapon: 2/Punisher Upgrade: 8
Bot: 6/Natasha Upgrade: 10
Weapon: 6/King Dae Upgrade: 11 Weapon: 6/King Dae Upgrade: 12 Weapon: 2/Molot Upgrade: 12 Weapon: 2/Molot Upgrade: 12
Bot: 6/Fury Upgrade: 5
Weapon: 6/Trident Upgrade: 1 Weapon: 6/Trident Upgrade: 3 Weapon: 6/Ancile Upgrade: 4
Add the five bot sizes together thus...
2 + 4 + 6 + 6 + 6 = 24
Divide by the number of slots rounding up or down to the nearest whole number...
24/5 = 4.8 = 5
5 is your bot size average of the hanger.
Add the bot upgrades together and divide by the number of slots...
7 + 5 + 8 + 10 + 5 = 35
35/5 = 7
7 is the average upgrade of the bots in the hanger.
Add the weapons sizes together...
2+2+2+2+2+2(light weapons) + 4+4+4+4(medium weapons) + 6+6+6+6+6(heavy weapons) =
Divide 58 by the total number of weapon slots(15) in the hanger...
58/15 = 3.8666 = 4
4 is your average weapons size.
Add the weapons upgrades together...
5+6+6+8+12+12(light weapons) + 8+4+7+6(medium weapons) + 1+3+4+11+12(heavy weapons) = 105
Divide 105 by the total number of weapon slots in the hanger...
105/15 = 7
7 is your average weapons upgrade level.
Thus 5/7 is your hanger bot average and 4/7 is your hanger weapons average.
The number of slots in a player's hanger. The average size of the hanger's robots. The average upgrade level of the hanger's robots. The average size of the hanger's weapons. The average upgrade level of the hanger's weapons. That's 5 very simple numbers to use to match any hanger with another for game playing purposes.
Match players based on these 5 numbers and you will always have a fair and balanced solo match making system no matter how a player might change up their hangers between matches. No longer will any player be forced to play in a match with unfairly matched equipment according to their hanger averages. And this works for ANY configuration of hanger.
If you think it doesn't work I invite you to try it out with any hanger. It doesn't matter if a player has a 12/12 bot in their hanger when the overall average is what is considered to match them in game play. Your hanger averages will set the parameters so that you will not be able to just club your way through a match at will. All it will take is for your opponents to recognize what kind of threat they face and gang up on the highly upgraded machine/s. But that is a matter for player situational awareness and tactics and players will have to start recognizing this or be clubbed by a highly upgraded machine.
So...what do you suggest as a solution to the current matchmaking system? Mine is only one suggestion. I'm sure some of you have tried to figure it out. Let's hear your ideas and maybe we send them all to Pixonic for their considerations. Because judging by the complaints and from personal experience playing against highly upgraded players in solo matches there definitely needs to be a real solution to the problem.
|
|
|
Post by GuitarGuy on Jun 10, 2017 16:06:53 GMT -5
Its a great idea. The only issue i could see with it would be the wait times. The MM would have a hard time matching players with all the criteria you have listed. Its like that in Champ league now, sometimes the wait time can be 4 minutes in a squad just to get a game if all the guys in it are maxed and over 6000 league points.
|
|
|
Post by Danny Linguini on Jun 10, 2017 16:16:20 GMT -5
For all the its issues, I like the diversity of opponents the current mm provides. Sometimes you go up against a very evenly matched team, sometimes you're over-matched and get smashed to bits, sometimes under-matched and walk away with a quick and easy win. I think it all evens out, but it does get frustrating being on the losing end of a squash. If Pix were to adopt something like the OP laid out, I'd be afraid that every match would be against all the same sized and leveled bots, which would quickly get boring.
|
|
|
Post by HEATHEN HERETIC on Jun 10, 2017 16:33:50 GMT -5
Danny LinguiniMatching is the point. I've seen far too many of the supertankers running around in silver and bronze these days. Full 5 slot hangers of 10-12 bots and equipment clubbing their way through matches and taking all the Au and most of the Ag. You'd still get matches where a player with a highly upgraded machine mows their way through the competition but then it would be up to their opponents to recognize what was happening and put a stop to it or not. You still get plenty of diversity if you want it. You can run a Lancelot/2 in a hanger with a Destrier/12 or any combination of bots and weapons at all. It's just that your hanger averages will be the basis of your match ups. There's a very good reason there are different divisions in boxing. Yes, I grant that a smaller less well developed man can beat a larger more developed man in a fair fight. But on average the larger men will tend to win more times against smaller opponents than vice-versa.
|
|
|
Post by zer00eyz on Jun 10, 2017 18:31:41 GMT -5
Because they're using our league rankings as a big part of it, maybe even the whole of it. And if you have even two working brain cells you know that that ranking is a complete joke. It does not show what kind of pilot you are in general but ranks you according to the whims and antics of 11 other random players and their equipment. Forced 50% wins makes this kind of ranking even more ludicrous. So throw that out as well. But back to the match making system. I can't even get to the rest of what you wrote, because this part needs some serious deconstruction. I'll address some of the other things you suggest in a separate post. Lets assume that your right and that league score is what drives MM. Pix made it fairly clear that this probably the biggest factor in one of their recent updates, so lets just roll with it. So far so good! The rest of this has some issues and lets go after them! "whims and antics of 11 other random players" 22? 33? 44? Lets pick a multiple of 11, because were talking about your WHOLE league score and not the results of a single game. We could talk about 99 players, enough to move your league score down a full tier. We could get into a full "season"... 300 games so 3300 (potential) players. What becomes interesting when we go beyond one game and into many is that the largest factor in outcome becomes you. Your hanger, your bots, your weapons your skills. A close second (and maybe very close) is the missing man, however over time that impact should be balanced both for and against you and its effects negated. What is even more interesting is that we can call the impact of all these other players truly "random", and if we boil it down to simple terms (positive and negative) then it too over enough games will balance itself out. -------------------------------------------- "Forced 50% wins makes this kind of ranking even more ludicrous." This is a tough one. It has the stink of being right, in one incarnation of MM, for one period of time. Did MM ever "force" %50, no, probably not. However, the previous points distribution of MM would keep MANY players around this number as a byproduct of how it was set up. Those "whims and antics of 11 other random players" played a bigger role in your points gain or loss than the current setup. Does the current setup favor "damage", yes in a single match it DOES, however we have removed a lot of the randomness from the outcome and made the ranking tie to your own performance relative to your teams. Even the previous distribution had settling points, but those boundaries were much closer to 50% than they are today. You could be a chronic looser and league point stable at %40, or a chronic winner and league point stable at %60. The current distribution moves this spread to %30 and %80. We have seen people on this forum talk about their %40 hangers in the old system. I have maintained a mostly %60 rate in the previous, and am now at %66 (and rising) in the current.
|
|
|
Post by zer00eyz on Jun 10, 2017 18:38:36 GMT -5
The number of slots a players has will be matched against other players with the same number of slots. If you have 4 slots all of your teammates and opponents will have 4 slots as well. This is a non starter. Your segmenting by slots? So in theory I can get to champion and only fight other 4 slot players? The OLD rules based MM had a problem (for pix) in so much as it created artificial places for you to "rest". You could build a boa hanger and roll with it, in theory, forever (or while you built a top tier hanger in the background). Those who are comfortable don't invest money in the game. By segegating by slots you have removed a major incentive to spend money on the game. If the current MM took total bots on each team into account we might see some better gameplay at certain levels. (+/- 1). The reality is that it MAY and the system may be getting thrown off by people who leave and have to be replaced quickly. EDIT: after thinking about this, the concept that your pitching is just another rules based MM. You could get far too comfortable playing one way and not be "pushed" (for lack of a better word) to advance.
|
|
|
Post by HEATHEN HERETIC on Jun 11, 2017 5:36:24 GMT -5
Because they're using our league rankings as a big part of it, maybe even the whole of it. And if you have even two working brain cells you know that that ranking is a complete joke. It does not show what kind of pilot you are in general but ranks you according to the whims and antics of 11 other random players and their equipment. Forced 50% wins makes this kind of ranking even more ludicrous. So throw that out as well. But back to the match making system. I can't even get to the rest of what you wrote, because this part needs some serious deconstruction. I'll address some of the other things you suggest in a separate post. Lets assume that your right and that league score is what drives MM. Pix made it fairly clear that this probably the biggest factor in one of their recent updates, so lets just roll with it. So far so good! The rest of this has some issues and lets go after them! "whims and antics of 11 other random players" 22? 33? 44? Lets pick a multiple of 11, because were talking about your WHOLE league score and not the results of a single game. We could talk about 99 players, enough to move your league score down a full tier. We could get into a full "season"... 300 games so 3300 (potential) players. What becomes interesting when we go beyond one game and into many is that the largest factor in outcome becomes you. Your hanger, your bots, your weapons your skills. A close second (and maybe very close) is the missing man, however over time that impact should be balanced both for and against you and its effects negated. What is even more interesting is that we can call the impact of all these other players truly "random", and if we boil it down to simple terms (positive and negative) then it too over enough games will balance itself out. -------------------------------------------- "Forced 50% wins makes this kind of ranking even more ludicrous." This is a tough one. It has the stink of being right, in one incarnation of MM, for one period of time. Did MM ever "force" %50, no, probably not. However, the previous points distribution of MM would keep MANY players around this number as a byproduct of how it was set up. Those "whims and antics of 11 other random players" played a bigger role in your points gain or loss than the current setup. Does the current setup favor "damage", yes in a single match it DOES, however we have removed a lot of the randomness from the outcome and made the ranking tie to your own performance relative to your teams. Even the previous distribution had settling points, but those boundaries were much closer to 50% than they are today. You could be a chronic looser and league point stable at %40, or a chronic winner and league point stable at %60. The current distribution moves this spread to %30 and %80. We have seen people on this forum talk about their %40 hangers in the old system. I have maintained a mostly %60 rate in the previous, and am now at %66 (and rising) in the current. Pixonic stated that their match making algorithm is based on their league rankings. Their words and I'm only restating what they told all of us. So you'd rather be ranked on team efforts than on your own abilities and achievments? Then how do we know who the best players actually are? Who's the best shooter? Who's the best pilot of a Carnage? Exactly what does the current league ranking tell anyone besides the fact that you have a full hanger of 11-12 bots and equipment and that you're incredibly lucky with the matching picks? I see some really big scores going on in the losing teams. Sometimes even better scores than the winning team put up. I could see it to some small degree if there were solid permanent teams involved but that's not what is occurring. In answer to your last post concerning slot numbers... 3 slot rankings. 4 slot rankings. 5 slot rankings. You're limiting the high ranking possibilities to only those with 5 slots and 11-12 bots with the current set up. I'm opening the ranking possibilities to every hanger and configuration. While I can take the criticism of my ideas I did also asked for other suggestions. Where's yours?
|
|
|
Post by zer00eyz on Jun 11, 2017 10:53:41 GMT -5
Pixonic stated that their match making algorithm is based on their league rankings. Their words and I'm only restating what they told all of us. So you'd rather be ranked on team efforts than on your own abilities and achievments? Then how do we know who the best players actually are? Who's the best shooter? Who's the best pilot of a Carnage? Exactly what does the current league ranking tell anyone besides the fact that you have a full hanger of 11-12 bots and equipment and that you're incredibly lucky with the matching picks? I see some really big scores going on in the losing teams. Sometimes even better scores than the winning team put up. I could see it to some small degree if there were solid permanent teams involved but that's not what is occurring. In answer to your last post concerning slot numbers... 3 slot rankings. 4 slot rankings. 5 slot rankings. You're limiting the high ranking possibilities to only those with 5 slots and 11-12 bots with the current set up. I'm opening the ranking possibilities to every hanger and configuration. While I can take the criticism of my ideas I did also asked for other suggestions. Where's yours? Ok, hostile much: "Pixonic stated that their match making algorithm is based on their league rankings. Their words and I'm only restating what they told all of us." Yes Im aware, I added that fact to this thread. It needed to be here, to note that you didn't pull the idea that MM was based on league score out of thin air. However I don't think it is the only factor, but that is fairly debatable, and not even part of the point I was trying to make. "So you'd rather be ranked on team efforts than on your own abilities and achievments?" It is a team game, this is always going to be part of it. If I wanted to be ranked on my ability alone I would go play street fighter. "Then how do we know who the best players actually are? Who's the best shooter? Who's the best pilot of a Carnage?" Your system doesn't account for this. Why are you brining it up? Are you under the impression that the leagues are supposed to do this? "Exactly what does the current league ranking tell anyone besides the fact that you have a full hanger of 11-12 bots and equipment and that you're incredibly lucky with the matching picks?" Uhhh, leauges serve the same function as they do in soccer, it is a talent pool, one that you as an individual can break out of. " I see some really big scores going on in the losing teams. Sometimes even better scores than the winning team put up." By scores do you mean damage? Damage is how were sorted, but it isn't the only thing that goes into a win. Im often on the team with lower total damage but in the win column. Tactics can beat equipment. " I could see it to some small degree if there were solid permanent teams involved but that's not what is occurring." No clue where this came from, but you can do this, squad, all the time. So you want to be subject to the whims of 5 people you know and another team (so 6 randoms). ------------------------------------------------------------ I wanted to point out the factual errors in your opening statement, nothing more, nothing less. I also wanted to point out the fact that 4 vs 5 slot hangers would be bad for pix, and would be a non starter. Think about all the threads of "why can't I play with my friend with 4 slots" replacing "why do I drag my lower league friend up to my league when we play"... It isn't the best part of the suggestion, but balancing for total bots per team is (and should be part of todays MM if it isn't). The problem is that once you have to balance this, you open the door for "stalker clubbling" something you trying to avoid by accounting for "slots" in your version of MM. Lets leave that in there, and look at how your averaging then. 1 level 1 cossack + 1 level 12 ancilot = two medium bots at level 6. If I round out my hanger with a Rog and a Carnage (4 slots only) both at level 6 I'm likely to be facing NEW players. I am a clubber. -------------------------------------------------- " I did also asked for other suggestions" I don't have an issue with leagues. The elegance of them is that when the post game points distribution is right (and the one we have now is BETTER than the previous winner take all version but it still isn't what it needs to be, pix needs to hire someone to model their game and bring them a proper suggestion) is that it is self leveling over a number of games. Is it exploitable? Yes it is, and so is just about every system that you can create. However, I will make an alternative suggestion, one that someone else pointed out is used in another game. The leagues aren't bad, were lacking game "modes" (games outside the league system), and depending on what pix does with custom matches we might see something interesting there.
|
|
|
Post by HEATHEN HERETIC on Jun 11, 2017 14:59:32 GMT -5
zer00eyzNo hostility, just a frank discussion. I'm not Rick Sanchez. Why is it that some people assume I'm being hostile all the time? ? I admit to being a little put off by Pixonic's league and matching algorithm but I really want to know what else people might have in the way of ideas for fixing the game's deficient qualities. If that MM poll in these forums is correct then far more than half the people who've participated in it don't much care for the current MM and by extention the league rankings. *Normal conversational tone being used* Pixonic keeps tabs on everything we do down to what bot you do it in. That's evidenced by the tasks they give us to aquire Au and WSP. So it's entirely possible to have true player rankings alongside league rankings if you wish. I just don't put any stock in team based rankings when it comes to determining how good a player is. Great players, sh*tty teams. Happens everywhere not just the game. League ranking is primarily something done for teams not individuals. You can be the best quarterback in the league but that doesn't matter one whit in league ranking if your team loses more than it wins. And as I've said elsewhere it's almost impossible to run the same squad with the same members and equipment at all times you are playing. If you are then you're extremely fortunate. Kudos. So for most of us we're back to random teammates. But that's entirely beside the point of this thread. My matching fix isn't for team squading, it's exclusively for SOLO matching. I was very clear with that intent in my original post. That being said I'm entirely open to hand picked squads of whoever and whatever slots and equipment you wish in your squads. For team squading I actually wouldn't mind a clan/team league ranking so long as it was kept separate from individual ranking. I seriously doubt you'd be able to club using my system. You start with one slot and graduate to more on your own. Even if you decided to upgrade your single machine to 12/12 without opening another slot at some point you would most probably be forced to open another slot since in all probability you would be unable to find players to be matched with. You'd simply upgrade yourself out of available players in your tier. You'd either have to aquire a less upgraded machine and weapons thereby dropping your averages to usefulness again or get the next slot and bot. Because with my method clubbing would only be possible if the other players were truly just bad or inept players. And to that I say learn fast or die.
|
|
|
Post by HEATHEN HERETIC on Jun 15, 2017 3:32:59 GMT -5
So despite all the moaning and groaning about the solo match making system noone else has any ideas on how to fix it? Really??
|
|
|
Post by moody on Jun 15, 2017 23:01:13 GMT -5
So despite all the moaning and groaning about the solo match making system noone else has any ideas on how to fix it? Really?? I think I have posted before. The actual figures would have to be adjusted somewhat and I don't have the stats to tell me exactly how. Similar to the old mm system. Each of your slots has a hangar score. This is made up of a base rating for each bot or weapon with 6% extra given per level for each bot and weapon. Each bot and weapon has to have a seperate base rating because quite frankly a galahad is better than a golem. Now. your first slot is counted for 100%, Second for 80%, third for 60%, forth for 40% and fifth for 20%. That means a 4 slot player could have mildly higher level bots (20 out of 300 - 7% or so - essential a level up overall).
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jun 16, 2017 0:13:27 GMT -5
The problem with a system that uses any sort of hangar averaging mechanism is this:
Slot 1: level 1 Cossack with no weapons Slot 2: level 1 Cossack with no weapons Slot 3: level 1 Cossack with no weapons Slot 4: level 1 Cossack with no weapons Slot 5: 12/12/12/12 Tarancilot
The average level(or points) of this hangar is very low. If this player faces level 3-4 players, he will never need anything but his Ancilot to seal club.
It is extremely hard to come up with a fair MM that can't be exploited. The solution is to give enough incentive to not exploit, or remove the incentives gained by exploring. I.e. a tiered silver reward system.
|
|
zigzak0110
Destrier
Posts: 102
Karma: 124
Pilot name: zigzak0110
Platform: Android
League: Champion
Server Region: Asia
|
Post by zigzak0110 on Jun 16, 2017 0:41:33 GMT -5
The solution is to give enough incentive to not exploit, or remove the incentives gained by exploring. I.e. a tiered silver reward system. Totally agree! The problem is no matter league you're in, battle reward stays the same. They just need to make LQ less rewarding and make the gold + silver earned scale with the current league you're in. Instead Pix offered us with league points base on our performance during a match, as if league point is the ultimate reward we players are all aiming for.
|
|
|
Post by HEATHEN HERETIC on Jun 16, 2017 7:23:01 GMT -5
The problem with a system that uses any sort of hangar averaging mechanism is this: Slot 1: level 1 Cossack with no weapons Slot 2: level 1 Cossack with no weapons Slot 3: level 1 Cossack with no weapons Slot 4: level 1 Cossack with no weapons Slot 5: 12/12/12/12 Tarancilot The average level(or points) of this hangar is very low. If this player faces level 3-4 players, he will never need anything but his Ancilot to seal club. It is extremely hard to come up with a fair MM that can't be exploited. The solution is to give enough incentive to not exploit, or remove the incentives gained by exploring. I.e. a tiered silver reward system. So a 3/3 bot average and a 2/5 weapons average. You don't think you could counter this with any setup of 5 robots equaling these averages? I just have to ask, how cr*ppy is your gameplay? Are you seriously going to play a hanger that weak? Because if 2-3 opposing players combine their fire on your Lance it will go down and rather quickly. I admit the Lance could do a lot of damage. Then it's gone. Then what? I would force players to recognize the real threats on the field and deal with them accordingly. Or die as any weaker player should.
|
|
|
Post by bilbobaggins on Jun 16, 2017 7:30:53 GMT -5
I like to know where I am in a game, and this type of system will not show me where I am. Everyone would basically be everywhere, which would be chaotic.
|
|
|
Post by HEATHEN HERETIC on Jun 16, 2017 7:53:17 GMT -5
I like to know where I am in a game, and this type of system will not show me where I am. Everyone would basically be everywhere, which would be chaotic. Where you are in the game?? So how does the current ranking do that for you as an individual? Can you tell how well you pilot your machines? Are you a good shooter or an excellent shooter? By bot how good of a pilot are you? I wonder how they figure out who the best players are on sports teams? Oh wait, I do know. They use a player's individual statistics and match them against those of other players to determine who is the best in their positions, etc. This game is trying to pretend you are part of a permanent team, which you are not, and ranking you based on the randomness of 11 other players and circumstance. That's why they call it "league" ranking. That's something you only do for teams. Where's your team? You might as well spin a wheel or throw dice to determine your rank. Because I've seen 3 slot players in the Champions league. Their stats don't match their ranks. How does that occur? Because of the randomness of the matches. I've deliberately tanked matches and watched my ranking go up by 4 tiers. Turned around and played hard getting top 3 marks nearly every time and went right back down. Useless and ridiculous. Or using your terms, everywhere and chaotic.
|
|
|
Post by bilbobaggins on Jun 16, 2017 7:59:42 GMT -5
I like to know where I am in a game, and this type of system will not show me where I am. Everyone would basically be everywhere, which would be chaotic. Where you are in the game?? So how does the current ranking do that for you as an individual? Can you tell how well you pilot your machines? Are you a good shooter or an excellent shooter? By bot how good of a pilot are you? I wonder how they figure out who the best players are on sports teams? Oh wait, I do know. They use a player's individual statistics and match them against those of other players to determine who is the best in their positions, etc. This game is trying to pretend you are part of a permanent team, which you are not, and ranking you based on the randomness of 11 other players and circumstance. That's why they call it "league" ranking. That's something you only do for teams. Where's your team? You might as well spin a wheel or throw dice to determine your rank. Because I've seen 3 slot players in the Champions league. Their stats don't match their ranks. How does that occur? Because of the randomness of the matches. I've deliberately tanked matches and watched my ranking go up by 4 tiers. Turned around and played hard getting top 3 marks nearly every time and went right back down. Useless and ridiculous. Or using your terms, everywhere and chaotic. You're a brick wall, aren't you?
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jun 16, 2017 10:05:27 GMT -5
The problem with a system that uses any sort of hangar averaging mechanism is this: Slot 1: level 1 Cossack with no weapons Slot 2: level 1 Cossack with no weapons Slot 3: level 1 Cossack with no weapons Slot 4: level 1 Cossack with no weapons Slot 5: 12/12/12/12 Tarancilot The average level(or points) of this hangar is very low. If this player faces level 3-4 players, he will never need anything but his Ancilot to seal club. It is extremely hard to come up with a fair MM that can't be exploited. The solution is to give enough incentive to not exploit, or remove the incentives gained by exploring. I.e. a tiered silver reward system. So a 3/3 bot average and a 4/6 weapons average. You don't think you could counter this with any setup of 5 robots equaling these averages? I just have to ask, how cr*ppy is your gameplay? Are you seriously going to play a hanger that weak? Because if 2-3 opposing players combine their fire on your Lance it will go down and rather quickly. I admit the Lance could do a lot of damage. Then it's gone. Then what? I would force players to recognize the real threats on the field and deal with them accordingly. Or die as any weaker player should. No, I would not run that hangar. Exploiters will. I'm 8/9 and am competitive against 12/12 hangars, so my gameplay is fine. And no, two or three level 3 bots will not take down a maxed out Ancilot. Have you ever faced a maxed out Ancilot? Level 3-4 bots don't have enough health to last long enough to break the shields. And the most troubling thing? Your solution to a glaring problem is "well the players being taking advantage of just need to be better and realize that so they can focus their efforts to desperately try to stop it". Your solution would be an entire team of 3/4 bots just feeding themselves to a clubber. One maxed Ancilot would last the entire game against 3/4 bots.
|
|
|
Post by HEATHEN HERETIC on Jun 16, 2017 18:40:27 GMT -5
So a 3/3 bot average and a 4/6 weapons average. You don't think you could counter this with any setup of 5 robots equaling these averages? I just have to ask, how cr*ppy is your gameplay? Are you seriously going to play a hanger that weak? Because if 2-3 opposing players combine their fire on your Lance it will go down and rather quickly. I admit the Lance could do a lot of damage. Then it's gone. Then what? I would force players to recognize the real threats on the field and deal with them accordingly. Or die as any weaker player should. No, I would not run that hangar. Exploiters will. I'm 8/9 and am competitive against 12/12 hangars, so my gameplay is fine. And no, two or three level 3 bots will not take down a maxed out Ancilot. Have you ever faced a maxed out Ancilot? Level 3-4 bots don't have enough health to last long enough to break the shields. And the most troubling thing? Your solution to a glaring problem is "well the players being taking advantage of just need to be better and realize that so they can focus their efforts to desperately try to stop it". Your solution would be an entire team of 3/4 bots just feeding themselves to a clubber. One maxed Ancilot would last the entire game against 3/4 bots. I think I see what you believe you see because I believe you misunderstood the numbers I quoted. The 3/3 = the average bot size with an average upgrade level of 3. Light/medium bot upgrade level 3 hanger average. The 2/5 = an average weapons size with an average upgrade level of 5. Medium weapons upgrade level 5 hanger average. Give me just two-three Golems leveled to 3 with level 5 weapons and your 12/12 Ancilot is badly damaged or destroyed if I play smart. And there are 5 other players on my team with the same hanger averages. Who knows what they've got in their hanger. Even if you have six players on your team with the same hanger you described you're still going to have a 50/50 chance of winning or losing. Only player skill will determine the match outcomes as many of the matches we have now are not. Far too often I've seen a full 11/11-12/12 hanger or two put in matches with most other players having an average hanger of 6/6 with maybe one or two other having up to 8/8 or 9/9. And it happens far too many times in my experience. While you can claim my system would be exploitable in some way the current system is a disaster. It allows this kind of matching and encourages players to tank for it to occur. And it's the league rankings that are driving the bus where matching is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jun 16, 2017 19:35:50 GMT -5
HEATHEN HERETICFor one, you're making a wild assumption thinking the players that use Golems have the skills and knowledge to combat a Tarancilot effectively. Secondly, I'll adjust the hangar: 4 Level 1 Gepards, all with 3 Level 1 molots 1 12/12/12 Tarancilot Average bot size: 4*4 + 6 = 22 / 5 = 4.40. Average bot level: 1*4 + 12 = 16 / 5 = 3.20. Average weapon size: 2*16 + 6*3 = 32 + 18 = 50 / 19 = 2.63. Average weapon level: 1*16 + 12*3 = 16 + 36 = 52 / 19 = 2.74. So using your matchmaker, someone could use a maxed Tarancilot against mostly medium bots not over level 3, equipped with mostly light weapons not even leveled to 3. I get that this system is your baby and all, but it's easier to exploit than anything we've had so far. The point is, the matchmaker isn't the broken part. It's the rewards system.
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jun 16, 2017 19:37:53 GMT -5
To expand on that: tier the silver rewards by league. So when the tankers drop down to lower leagues to club, they're making less silver than they would make if they just played in their appropriate league.
|
|
|
Post by zer00eyz on Jun 16, 2017 19:56:20 GMT -5
To expand on that: tier the silver rewards by league. So when the tankers drop down to lower leagues to club, they're making less silver than they would make if they just played in their appropriate league. In theory the rewards are already "tiered". Reward is tied to damage, so a level 12 bots have more staying power and more damaging power vs lower level bots. They are able to get a bigger chunk of what is available on the field.
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jun 16, 2017 20:31:52 GMT -5
To expand on that: tier the silver rewards by league. So when the tankers drop down to lower leagues to club, they're making less silver than they would make if they just played in their appropriate league. In theory the rewards are already "tiered". Reward is tied to damage, so a level 12 bots have more staying power and more damaging power vs lower level bots. They are able to get a bigger chunk of what is available on the field. Thats rarely how it works out. More often than not, teams aren't meching out. So while more HP is available theoretically, it's not all being achieved. On top of that, your teammates do more damage, so for each individual player, it becomes harder to get high damage totals. That along with the fact there are shields everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by HEATHEN HERETIC on Jun 16, 2017 21:06:49 GMT -5
HEATHEN HERETICFor one, you're making a wild assumption thinking the players that use Golems have the skills and knowledge to combat a Tarancilot effectively. Secondly, I'll adjust the hangar: 4 Level 1 Gepards, all with 3 Level 1 molots 1 12/12/12 Tarancilot Average bot size: 4*4 + 6 = 22 / 5 = 4.40. Average bot level: 1*4 + 12 = 16 / 5 = 3.20. Average weapon size: 2*16 + 6*3 = 32 + 18 = 50 / 19 = 2.63. Average weapon level: 1*16 + 12*3 = 16 + 36 = 52 / 19 = 2.74. So using your matchmaker, someone could use a maxed Tarancilot against mostly medium bots not over level 3, equipped with mostly light weapons not even leveled to 3. I get that this system is your baby and all, but it's easier to exploit than anything we've had so far. The point is, the matchmaker isn't the broken part. It's the rewards system. I had to go back and check my original post. Instead of dividing by the number of weapons I should have stated dividing by the number of weapons slots. That turns your previous hanger into 3/3 bot 2/5 weapon averages. Sorry about that. Your math here is a bit off as well... Bots: 4 Gepards × 2(size) = 8 1 Lancelot × 6(size) = 6 8 + 6 = 14 14 ÷ 5 slots/robots = 2.8 or 3 Bot upgrades: 4 Gepards × 1(upgrade level) = 4 1 Lancelot × 12(upgrade level) = 12 4 + 12 = 16 16 ÷ 5 slots/robots = 3.2 or 3. 3/3 light/medium bot size and upgrade average. Weapons: 12 Molots × 2 = 24 1 Ancile × 6 = 6 2 Tarans × 4 = 8 24 + 6 + 6 = 36 36 ÷ 15 weapon slots = 2.4 or 2 Weapons upgrades: 12 Molots × 1 = 12 1 Ancile × 12 = 12 2 Tarans × 12 = 24 12 + 12 + 24 = 48 48 ÷ 15 weapon slots = 3.2 or 3 2/3 weapons size and upgrade average. I leave it to players to decide what they put in their hangers and to build smart hangers just as the present system does. Build smart, upgrade smart, play smart or get killed off quickly.
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jun 16, 2017 21:39:34 GMT -5
Meant Pattons and 4 level 1 Molots. The math is not wrong on that. Given that, I'll leave you be. You clearly don't want to hear anything that doesn't support your idea.
|
|
|
Post by valoricus on Jun 16, 2017 21:47:29 GMT -5
I'm close to quitting as the matchmaker is extremely unfair/screwed up. Recently, I moved from Bronze 2 to Bronze 1. In Bronze 2, the fights were pretty fair and balance. Now, I am forced to face opposition with weapons that melt me in a few shots. It's not fun anymore.
|
|
|
Post by HEATHEN HERETIC on Jun 16, 2017 22:00:45 GMT -5
Meant Pattons and 4 level 1 Molots. The math is not wrong on that. Math is still off a bit... Bots: 4 Pattons × 4(size) = 16 1 Lancelot × 6(size) = 6 16 + 6 = 20 20 ÷ 5 slots/robots = 4 Bot upgrades: 4 Pattons × 1(upgrade level) = 4 1 Lancelot × 12(upgrade level) = 12 4 + 12 = 16 16 ÷ 5 slots/robots = 3.2 or 3. 3/3 light/medium bot size and upgrade average. Weapons: 16 Molots × 2 = 32 1 Ancile × 6 = 6 2 Tarans × 4 = 8 32 + 6 + 6 = 44 44 ÷ 19 weapon slots = 2.31 or 2 Weapons upgrades: 16 Molots × 1 = 16 1 Ancile × 12 = 12 2 Tarans × 12 = 24 16 + 12 + 24 = 52 52 ÷ 19 weapon slots = 2.7 or 3 2/3 weapons size and upgrade average. 4/3 2/3
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jun 16, 2017 22:10:19 GMT -5
You keep applying an "upgrade level" of 3 to level 1 Molots. I'm not quite understanding that, unless you're intending to apply a penalty to players with level 1 weapons.
|
|
|
Post by HEATHEN HERETIC on Jun 17, 2017 0:23:59 GMT -5
You keep applying an "upgrade level" of 3 to level 1 Molots. I'm not quite understanding that, unless you're intending to apply a penalty to players with level 1 weapons. Apparently I'm dyslexic. I read that wrong. ? Will fix.
|
|
|
Post by zer00eyz on Jun 17, 2017 1:15:08 GMT -5
You keep applying an "upgrade level" of 3 to level 1 Molots. I'm not quite understanding that, unless you're intending to apply a penalty to players with level 1 weapons. Apparently I'm dyslexic. I read that wrong. ? Will fix. OK, build this hanger in your system: 2 12/12 acilots, and 2 1/1 cossacks, and a 6/6 Orkin rog. Now make a hanger that has all bots and weapons within 1 level of each other that this hanger will face, make them perfectly even.
|
|