|
Post by blastronaut on Feb 15, 2017 11:00:06 GMT -5
So I see incentive to get to 12/12, since there is no higher bot competition, making skill more important, but the possible downside is getting caught up in Clan Wars, if that's not your thing. The only other potential "sweet spot" I see is 9, where most bot reach max speed, effectively making the maps feel smaller. So...should I try a 9/1 hangar for 50 battles then? How about a 12/1? Seems like a lot of work though...think I'll hang at 8/8 and see what the Leagues bring. Yes. In the mean time just level your bots up to 12 and 「fake pee place」 lvl 1 molots. Leveling bots is quicker than leveling weapons so its really win-win.
|
|
|
Post by SGT D00M! on Feb 15, 2017 11:18:36 GMT -5
Ok REALLY stupid question coming... This writeup seems to make the most sense so far but I cannot help but think: Why upgrade anything? I'm positive I am missing something pretty basic here but it seems best just to play your hangar and never upgrade bots or weapons. With the tiers system - it seemed like you were trying to figure out a "perfect setup" for each tier - once that was achieved, you moved to the bottom and started the process all over again (Example: 4/6; 6/8; 8/10; etc..) What's the point here? Spot on. Unless they do include meaningful leagues, it's indeed all for nothing...taking one step further here: you can play really crappy and will have same outcome - half loses, half wins. Epic conceptual fail if you ask me. The elo concept is working properly only if all players have equal chances (chess = yes, War Robots = no). Here in case you perform above average, due to inferior set of gear, you play actually a different game than other blues or reds; how silly is that? Enough complaining Only target would be to max hangar and only then you could get some true benefit from upgrading and have fair matches. Did you bother reading the OP at all? NOT WIN% BASED. I.E. War Robots MM IS NOT WIN% BASED. Any questions or was that clear eneough? Stop worrying about the damage metric and focus on winning and your win% will go up. Everyone is so used to winning based on tier camping, that learning new skills seems hard. ALSO; any upgrade gives you a small boost against peers until the damage average catches up. Keep upgrading and using better bots and weapons and you will always be a small step ahead of the MM. Or cry about it....endlessly. I would just play the hangar I enjoy and upgrade as I go. Playing mixed hangar right now and the new MM works ok for it. Notsaying the MM is great, but the whining is not making it better and I still enjoy my matches.
|
|
|
Post by Ⅎ₹ѺC₭₩ELDEℲ₹ on Feb 15, 2017 11:26:45 GMT -5
The Largest point is that Damage is the MM criteria selection out of the box...As the MM is refined it will take other factors into the equation as Pix sees fit...The MM is months old... Other metrics will be used to fine tune. For now its Damage only. Hopefully one of the stats will be the tanker stat : 50% damage spikes and drops...Like the idiots on the freeway doing reckless lane changes.
|
|
|
Post by blastronaut on Feb 15, 2017 11:32:27 GMT -5
The Largest point is that Damage is the MM criteria selection out of the box...As the MM is refined it will take other factors into the equation as Pix sees fit...The MM is months old... Other metrics will be used to fine tune. For now its Damage only. Hopefully one of the stats will be the tanker stat : 50% damage spikes and drops...Like the idiots on the freeway doing reckless lane changes. If you aren't ready for my sudden unsignaled lane changes, then you need to pay more attention to your surroundings.
|
|
|
Post by spawnreaper on Feb 15, 2017 11:33:41 GMT -5
So glad pixonic decided to put us all in one big test server.....question is, is it for this game or they collecting data for another game down the road. So far all i see is a mm that is more easier exploited than the last mm. The lack of flexability with this mm alone, makes me consider it a fail move.
|
|
|
Post by spawnreaper on Feb 15, 2017 11:36:06 GMT -5
The Largest point is that Damage is the MM criteria selection out of the box...As the MM is refined it will take other factors into the equation as Pix sees fit...The MM is months old... Other metrics will be used to fine tune. For now its Damage only. Hopefully one of the stats will be the tanker stat : 50% damage spikes and drops...Like the idiots on the freeway doing reckless lane changes. So each time pix changes somthing are we in for another mnth of mm chaos?
|
|
|
Post by Trogon on Feb 15, 2017 13:33:32 GMT -5
This sounds great, but I'm pretty sure that MM sometimes builds teams more concerned about the total team average than the individual deviation from that average. Played one game this morning and top avg damage on one team was 45% higher than the low avg damage. And I know I've been in matches where there are like 3 on each team with 500k+ avg and then 3 on each team with around 300k avg. I've also been in matches where the whole team except me is 500k+ avg and I have ~350k. There was always a 350k on the other team to balance it out. So the matches may be "even", but it doesn't always provide a good play experience for the lower people, leading to a lot of the frustration.
I do get a lot of matches with less deviation from the average, and those are usually good games. It's the ones with the huge deviations that are infuriating. And for some reason, I don't think I've ever been on the opposite end of the deviation - I can't remember ever being the only 350k damage in a group of 200k.
|
|
|
Post by blastronaut on Feb 15, 2017 13:48:28 GMT -5
I just had a fun match with the new MM
______________________Winning team______________Losing team_______ Total avg damage ________1,252,689_________________1,247,176________ Total actual damage ______1,156,950 __________________654,086________ Variance avg vs actual ______112,869 __________________143,277________
So in a match of 12 players whose Avg damage was 208,322, the avg variance was 128,073. Average damage was a very bad predictor for actual damage, 61.5% off to be exact.
Why did the MM perform so poorly? There were two on the winning side that had much better equipment.
Why doesn't Pixonic factor equipment into their matchmaker? It's definitely not for fairness so most likely greed.
|
|
|
Post by buzzard on Feb 15, 2017 14:08:57 GMT -5
I just had a fun match with the new MM ______________________Winning team______________Losing team_______ Total avg damage ________1,252,689_________________1,247,176________ Total actual damage ______1,156,950 __________________654,086________ Variance avg vs actual ______112,869 __________________143,277________ So in a match of 12 players whose Avg damage was 208,322, the avg variance was 128,073. Average damage was a very bad predictor for actual damage, 61.5% off to be exact.Why did the MM perform so poorly? There were two on the winning side that had much better equipment. Why doesn't Pixonic factor equipment into their matchmaker? It's definitely not for fairness so most likely greed.Definitely forget actual damage during the match. You cant predict that unless you have a crystal ball. SO are those numbers the profile dmg added together for the 6 people on each team? If so winning team's avg dmg was 208k and the losing team was 208k. The MM did its job as it was designed with an exact match of avg dmg teams. How did you calculate average variance? Is this the amount from the average of each averaged together?
|
|
|
Post by blastronaut on Feb 15, 2017 14:17:16 GMT -5
I just had a fun match with the new MM ______________________Winning team______________Losing team_______ Total avg damage ________1,252,689_________________1,247,176________ Total actual damage ______1,156,950 __________________654,086________ Variance avg vs actual ______112,869 __________________143,277________ So in a match of 12 players whose Avg damage was 208,322, the avg variance was 128,073. Average damage was a very bad predictor for actual damage, 61.5% off to be exact.Why did the MM perform so poorly? There were two on the winning side that had much better equipment. Why doesn't Pixonic factor equipment into their matchmaker? It's definitely not for fairness so most likely greed.Definitely forget actual damage during the match. You cant predict that unless you have a crystal ball. SO are those numbers the profile dmg added together for the 6 people on each team? If so winning team's avg dmg was 208k and the losing team was 208k. The MM did its job as it was designed with an exact match of avg dmg teams. How did you calculate average variance? Is this the amount from the average of each averaged together? I feel like i shouldn't have to hold your hand on this. You can crunch those numbers yourself. The MM made teams that were equal in avg. damage before the match that were definitely not equal in actual damage during the match. Both teams averaged together had an avg. individual (avg dmg last 50) of 208k. But the average variance per player of (last 50 avg) vs (actual damage) was 128k. Because of differences in equipment. In Layman's terms. You are average joe and you always score 208k, but in this match you scored either 316k or 80k.
|
|
|
Post by buzzard on Feb 15, 2017 14:27:21 GMT -5
Definitely forget actual damage during the match. You cant predict that unless you have a crystal ball. SO are those numbers the profile dmg added together for the 6 people on each team? If so winning team's avg dmg was 208k and the losing team was 208k. The MM did its job as it was designed with an exact match of avg dmg teams. How did you calculate average variance? Is this the amount from the average of each averaged together? I feel like i shouldn't have to hold your hand on this. You can crunch those numbers yourself. The MM made teams that were equal in avg. damage before the match that were definitely not equal in actual damage during the match. Both teams averaged together had an avg. individual (avg dmg last 50) of 208k. But the average variance per player of (last 50 avg) vs (actual damage) was 128k. Because of differences in equipment. I was seeing if he was referring to something else since you cant be surprised if any 1 match is vastly different than the average. You will get variance from a number of different things. Including equipment, skill, etc
|
|
|
Post by blastronaut on Feb 15, 2017 14:31:42 GMT -5
I feel like i shouldn't have to hold your hand on this. You can crunch those numbers yourself. The MM made teams that were equal in avg. damage before the match that were definitely not equal in actual damage during the match. Both teams averaged together had an avg. individual (avg dmg last 50) of 208k. But the average variance per player of (last 50 avg) vs (actual damage) was 128k. Because of differences in equipment. I was seeing if he was referring to something else since you cant be surprised if any 1 match is vastly different than the average. You will get variance from a number of different things. Including equipment, skill, etc So you feel like the MM is working well when one team gets steamrolled and not a single player on either side was within 75k of their (last 50) average? I guess we have a different definition of "working well".
|
|
|
Post by Ⅎ₹ѺC₭₩ELDEℲ₹ on Feb 15, 2017 14:47:22 GMT -5
blastronaut Your "brilliant" exposé does not take into account people who are misrepresenting their Avg. damage by doing what you do...When you sneak into the nursery and light up the joint, the MM does not reflect your true Avg either.
The end game of tanking is deliberately concealing the fact you are more skilled than you let on...Deceptive and dishonest.. Its like a top player in any sport putting on a disguise and tolling players in a lower league to feed their conceited ego.
Your attitude and general demeanor here is that you are closer to leaving this game for greener pastures...If you need help to facilitate that obvious looming decision, feel free to hit me up.
|
|
|
Post by critter667 on Feb 15, 2017 14:52:04 GMT -5
I was seeing if he was referring to something else since you cant be surprised if any 1 match is vastly different than the average. You will get variance from a number of different things. Including equipment, skill, etc So you feel like the MM is working well when one team gets steamrolled and not a single player on either side was within 75k of their (last 50) average? I guess we have a different definition of "working well". Um... Wouldn't steamrolling by definition mean that people would not have time to inflict the usual damage amount?
|
|
|
Post by buzzard on Feb 15, 2017 15:36:43 GMT -5
I was seeing if he was referring to something else since you cant be surprised if any 1 match is vastly different than the average. You will get variance from a number of different things. Including equipment, skill, etc So you feel like the MM is working well when one team gets steamrolled and not a single player on either side was within 75k of their (last 50) average? I guess we have a different definition of "working well". What MM can prevent some matches where it is a lopsided victory? You never saw a landslide with the old tier system?
|
|
|
Post by whatttupG on Feb 15, 2017 16:05:49 GMT -5
I think you're being overly literal, assuming MM is based directly on average damage. My first 2 matches this morning, the red team's average damage was 15-20k higher than the blues. Both losses. Then the losses started getting really lopsided. The one with the 5 man squad from No Sniper was horrific, and their 'random' took 10 gold and was by far the best player in the match (maxed meta hangar, 70% wins, nearly 700k avg damage). I stopped comparing average damage then. But, let's talk about outliers. I'm willing to grant that that squad match was an outlier. However, simply branding as 'outlier' and removing any data points that might throw off your thesis seems..... dishonest. You can't use squad matches because you are self selecting your team mates. Therefore it is impossible to use an individuals avg damage rating. It wouldnt be hard to figure out how squading is matching. At one point Pix said is it based on the highest squad member, but there is a bug and at times the lowest is used. As far as throwing out the outliers I agree with you. It isn't the right way to do this. I am a scientist by profession and I would never throw out data points in an actual experiment. You would need to collect a larger amount of data to get within statistical significance. For this though, I think the trend is clear enough even when you have to bump a datapoint or two. Great thread. However what you found also works in squad action just fine so don't sell anything short here. I tested this out all day yesterday as well (no data or screenshots) and found a very revealing approach, then an interesting twist on accident, exactly on the topic of squads. In short all I can say is I fried my rating so hard that when I returned to a normal style of gameplay, including squad action, the 'averages' were so screwed up I'm still seeing its effects the next day. The MM is screwy for a couple reasons, part because it sucks, part because it uses a stupid metric to match, and part because players sick of A and B there, have taken C to a whole new level. Because the MM uses C to match you up, the players have taken the hammer to every side of C imaginable and then some. Again, just got done proving this yesterday, it works whether or not you're in squad. Down the road, it's likely this MM doesn't change much because (going statistics now) this short term noise will level out and eventually flatten. In the end, the amount of people hacking away will grow smaller, those of us already tired will grow more tired, and once the data set achieves a massive outlier proof size, we will likely be unable to screw it around anymore and the issue of being able to manipulate C will fall away. Even in a flawed architecture that uses the wrong metric, massive amounts of data and gargantuan averages will almost become self aware like skynet and we will have no escape. Of course I bet we see leagues before this goes much further, once we separate ourselves into classes, this damage based system hits the trash and we all move forward eventually referring back to this era as a time in history... 'hey remember the 2.5 patch, I was there, you're so lucky you missed out!!'
|
|
|
Post by blastronaut on Feb 15, 2017 16:12:46 GMT -5
So you feel like the MM is working well when one team gets steamrolled and not a single player on either side was within 75k of their (last 50) average? I guess we have a different definition of "working well". What MM can prevent some matches where it is a lopsided victory? You never saw a landslide with the old tier system? Of course there were, but they were caused by skill and teamwork not predetermined by a flawed MM.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrick on Feb 15, 2017 16:15:52 GMT -5
Even in a flawed architecture that uses the wrong metric, massive amounts of data and gargantuan averages will almost become self aware like skynet and we will have no escape. hahahahaha - love this
|
|
|
Post by whatttupG on Feb 15, 2017 16:16:45 GMT -5
"The MM made teams that were equal in avg. damage before the match."
This is the gem on this page, please take note. There is a huge reason why looking at the scoreboard after a match doesn't help figure out what the heck is going on, it's because of the thing in quotes above. Win rates too, they don't add up much for good reason, that reason is the same reason already in quotes.
Blastronaut is clearly a math/stats guy or some kinda engineer. He has buried you with numbers, facts and data litter this thread, yet per usual life on the BBS or internets in general, the debate seems to be anything but closed.
Top notch work sir, you crushed it in my view, I'm sure others will fall in line eventually so stay the course, you have this.
|
|
|
Post by buzzard on Feb 15, 2017 16:17:04 GMT -5
What MM can prevent some matches where it is a lopsided victory? You never saw a landslide with the old tier system? Of course there were, but they were caused by skill and teamwork not predetermined by a flawed MM. Skill and team work still play into the new MM. You can end up with less skilled players with stronger gear having the same avg dmg and they had a good game, or team mates saved them from bad situations or did a good job with beacons whatever. The MMs job is to put the right boxers in the ring, not to determine the outcome. The unskilled pilot with good gear is like the boxer with a 6 inch reach advantage. Sometimes he connects.
|
|
|
Post by Trogon on Feb 15, 2017 16:43:55 GMT -5
Of course there were, but they were caused by skill and teamwork not predetermined by a flawed MM. Skill and team work still play into the new MM. You can end up with less skilled players with stronger gear having the same avg dmg and they had a good game, or team mates saved them from bad situations or did a good job with beacons whatever. The MMs job is to put the right boxers in the ring, not to determine the outcome. The unskilled pilot with good gear is like the boxer with a 6 inch reach advantage. Sometimes he connects. I think it's a fallacy to assume that under this MM when there is a mismatch in player equipment levels, the player with the higher level gear is always going to be less skilled. A skilled player with an all 12/12 hangar may not necessarily have a significantly higher average damage when playing against other 12/12s as an 8/8 player does playing against other 8/8s. The 12/12s probably have a lot more shields and more skill, making it harder for that 12/12 player to score massive damage against skilled 12/12 opponents. Then he gets pulled into matches with skilled 8/8s and dominates. I know my average damage running 8/8 heavies is about the same as when I was running 4/8 mediums, even though on paper the total damage potential of my 8/8 heavies is higher, because I now have more weapons per bot. So the average damage of a skilled 12/12 might not be enough higher than mine to prevent us from getting matched together regularly (which is what seems to be happening).
|
|
|
Post by buzzard on Feb 15, 2017 16:52:55 GMT -5
Skill and team work still play into the new MM. You can end up with less skilled players with stronger gear having the same avg dmg and they had a good game, or team mates saved them from bad situations or did a good job with beacons whatever. The MMs job is to put the right boxers in the ring, not to determine the outcome. The unskilled pilot with good gear is like the boxer with a 6 inch reach advantage. Sometimes he connects. I think it's a fallacy to assume that under this MM when there is a mismatch in player equipment levels, the player with the higher level gear is always going to be less skilled. A skilled player with an all 12/12 hangar may not necessarily have a significantly higher average damage when playing against other 12/12s as an 8/8 player does playing against other 8/8s. The 12/12s probably have a lot more shields and more skill, making it harder for that 12/12 player to score massive damage against skilled 12/12 opponents. Then he gets pulled into matches with skilled 8/8s and dominates. I know my average damage running 8/8 heavies is about the same as when I was running 4/8 mediums, even though on paper the total damage potential of my 8/8 heavies is higher, because I now have more weapons per bot. So the average damage of a skilled 12/12 might not be enough higher than mine to prevent us from getting matched together regularly (which is what seems to be happening). I couldnt agree more Trogon. That was an example. In the OP I talk about that. Play style and other things also factor in.
|
|
|
Post by KaneoheGrown on Feb 15, 2017 16:54:03 GMT -5
Definitely forget actual damage during the match. You cant predict that unless you have a crystal ball. SO are those numbers the profile dmg added together for the 6 people on each team? If so winning team's avg dmg was 208k and the losing team was 208k. The MM did its job as it was designed with an exact match of avg dmg teams. How did you calculate average variance? Is this the amount from the average of each averaged together? I feel like i shouldn't have to hold your hand on this. You can crunch those numbers yourself. The MM made teams that were equal in avg. damage before the match that were definitely not equal in actual damage during the match. Both teams averaged together had an avg. individual (avg dmg last 50) of 208k. But the average variance per player of (last 50 avg) vs (actual damage) was 128k. Because of differences in equipment. In Layman's terms. You are average joe and you always score 208k, but in this match you scored either 316k or 80k. While I agree on the underlying premise that avg and actual were way off (in this one instance) However, you're completely ignoring two variables that greatly impact actual damage, map and spawn. I can spawn at farm on Springfield (with reds at city side dam) in a Tri fury and rack up 1 mill pretty easily. With 600k average, the 1 mil doesn't seem appropriate until we take it in context of map and spawn. So the original statement that actual damage isn't a good metric to compare against avg damage still holds true. (To include this match can easily be an outlier for damage output by reds).
|
|
|
Post by tsunisterbr on Feb 15, 2017 16:55:06 GMT -5
Look, mixing different level players and putting them together on a match would be understandable if the game had a small playerbase, as a way to fulfill holes. This isn't such case. War Robots has surpassed 20 million downloads worldwide. It's just plain stupid what they are doing. BTW, I'm glad I'm not the only thinking this way, ALL the posts in their facebook profile have people complaining about the MM.
|
|
|
Post by blastronaut on Feb 15, 2017 17:22:29 GMT -5
I feel like i shouldn't have to hold your hand on this. You can crunch those numbers yourself. The MM made teams that were equal in avg. damage before the match that were definitely not equal in actual damage during the match. Both teams averaged together had an avg. individual (avg dmg last 50) of 208k. But the average variance per player of (last 50 avg) vs (actual damage) was 128k. Because of differences in equipment. In Layman's terms. You are average joe and you always score 208k, but in this match you scored either 316k or 80k. While I agree on the underlying premise that avg and actual were way off (in this one instance) However, you're completely ignoring two variables that greatly impact actual damage, map and spawn. I can spawn at farm on Springfield (with reds at city side dam) in a Tri fury and rack up 1 mill pretty easily. With 600k average, the 1 mil doesn't seem appropriate until we take it in context of map and spawn. So the original statement that actual damage isn't a good metric to compare against avg damage still holds true. (To include this match can easily be an outlier for damage output by reds). It was on Powerplant, so map and spawn didn't contribute much to this one. 3 players scored way over their average (2 on winning and 1 on losing side) while 9 scored way under. 4 on the losing side scored under because all the damage was betting eaten up by the top 2. On the losing side they simply meched out before they could do damage because of overwhelming firepower by Reds. I'm finding this sort of match to be much more common than in the old matchmaker. I think it's partially due to the buff of the Leo, medium bots like Golem have a really tough time with Leo now, when previously they were on equal footing. This was in a game where nobody seemed to be actively tanking either. IMO there are a lot of factors that are being ignored by Pixonic that could make the game more fun for everyone. Particularly a hangar slot factor. I don't want to squad with or against teams with less bots than me. It is annoying to lose on beacons when your teammates mech out, and annoying to win too fast because it skews your avg dmg way down.
|
|
|
Post by buzzard on Feb 15, 2017 17:30:10 GMT -5
While I agree on the underlying premise that avg and actual were way off (in this one instance) However, you're completely ignoring two variables that greatly impact actual damage, map and spawn. I can spawn at farm on Springfield (with reds at city side dam) in a Tri fury and rack up 1 mill pretty easily. With 600k average, the 1 mil doesn't seem appropriate until we take it in context of map and spawn. So the original statement that actual damage isn't a good metric to compare against avg damage still holds true. (To include this match can easily be an outlier for damage output by reds). It was on Powerplant, so map and spawn didn't contribute much to this one. 3 players scored way over their average (2 on winning and 1 on losing side) while 9 scored way under. 4 on the losing side scored under because all the damage was betting eaten up by the top 2. On the losing side they simply meched out before they could do damage because of overwhelming firepower by Reds. I'm finding this sort of match to be much more common than in the old matchmaker. I think it's partially due to the buff of the Leo, medium bots like Golem have a really tough time with Leo now, when previously they were on equal footing. This was in a game where nobody seemed to be actively tanking either. IMO there are a lot of factors that are being ignored by Pixonic that could make the game more fun for everyone. Particularly a hangar slot factor. I don't want to squad with or against teams with less bots than me. It is annoying to lose on beacons when your teammates mech out, and annoying to win too fast because it skews your avg dmg way down. Damn, I actually agree with you on something. I dont think we know for sure that there isn't some type of hangar contribution that is subtle and secondary there already. If it isn't, it would make a lot of sense for this to be there. Depending on how many people matching, this could be the thing that fine tunes, but is first to go if it can't find pilots.
|
|
|
Post by KaneoheGrown on Feb 15, 2017 18:31:33 GMT -5
Agreed, the hangar slot issue is a real pain. A 3 slot player really shouldn't be teamed with 4 and 5 slot hangar players.
Just FYI, PP does have spawn spots that affect player damage and ability to win. Matches with teams on the hillside vs teams close to the beach are terribly unbalanced.
A thunder ork Lances (or thunder pinata Leo) can sit in the alley and crush people trying to take the beacon. Two decent players can lock down two beacons (beach and alley) pretty successfully.
Reds are forced into trying to take the other three beacons (including blues home beacon). Reds are killed by sheer attrition due to their inability to get reinforcements back into the fight quick (like how blues home spawn provides).
In the end it becomes a meat grinder. I've pulled 1-1.2 mil games by simply holding the alley for the entire game. Reds literally come running in to get face smashed due to being down on beacons.
|
|
|
Post by SlowReflexes on Feb 15, 2017 18:33:37 GMT -5
It used to be that an easy way to complete the 'win 8 battles' daily task was to do the same thing you do when you don't want to play certain maps - start a battle, then quit before the 15 seconds ran out.
It used to be, that if the team you were going to be on won, you'd get credited with a win toward that task.
They fixed that. It doesn't work anymore.
I've played a decent amount today and I only play half the maps, so I've been leaving A LOT of battles before the 15 sec timer runs out. (You know how it goes, you only want to play 3/6 maps, you'd think you've got a 50% chance of getting a good one first time out but you get bad maps 5-6 times in a row before a good one.) No credited wins.
Only my 'real' wins have counted toward the goal, and I've been largely repeating a bad losing streak I had 50 matches ago. I've won 4 times today out of, well, a lot of matches, never did damage over my existing average but my win % went down only 2% and my average damage has gone up. (Ex, you lose and do around 300k damage and your avg damage goes from 460 to 462. The old me 50 matches ago was having a *bad* time.) Anyway.....
|
|
|
Post by SlowReflexes on Feb 15, 2017 18:41:01 GMT -5
Agreed, the hangar slot issue is a real pain. A 3 slot player really shouldn't be teamed with 4 and 5 slot hangar players. Just FYI, PP does have spawn spots that affect player damage and ability to win. Matches with teams on the hillside vs teams close to the beach are terribly unbalanced. A thunder ork Lances (or thunder pinata Leo) can sit in the alley and crush people trying to take the beacon. Two decent players can lock down two beacons (beach and alley) pretty successfully. Reds are forced into trying to take the other three beacons (including blues home beacon). Reds are killed by sheer attrition due to their inability to get reinforcements back into the fight quick (like how blues home spawn provides). In the end it becomes a meat grinder. I've pulled 1-1.2 mil games by simply holding the alley for the entire game. Reds literally come running in to get face smashed due to being down on beacons. Digression, but that PP spawn asymmetry (beach vs hill) shows this game was made by campers. The people down closer to the beach essentially have 1 home and 2 side (a and b) beacons. The people on the hill have a home and side. But to compensate for the built in automatic beacon disadvantage, they have a better location to camp. Hah.
|
|
|
Post by KaneoheGrown on Feb 15, 2017 18:49:39 GMT -5
Yep, problem is you always need the beacons to win, so eventually you're forced off the hilltop. The "fairest" spawn appears to be when both teams spawn across from each other next to the beach (though one team is slightly closer to the hillside defacto "center" beacon).
Sorry didn't mean to derail the MM discussion (which I think has been largely spot on about Avg Damage being your MM factor). Carry on...
|
|