|
Post by ł⸰§ĦȺĐ◎ŴƧŦḀɌ on Feb 15, 2017 12:47:36 GMT -5
TL;DR Version: Keep your bot levels and your weapon levels even to maintain a balance between endurance and damage output. Level 9 - 10 equipment is the new "grinding zone" while upgrading stuff to level 12 in the background.
Please bear in mind this is all pure speculation, and subject to change at the whim of the developers. The advice presented herein is based mostly on the following threads, and on many other discussions throughout the 'Net: war-robots-forum.freeforums.net/thread/2484/new-mm-14-17-summarizedwar-robots-forum.freeforums.net/thread/2296/pixonic-developer-news-2-2017war-robots-forum.freeforums.net/thread/1719/new-explained-theory-experience-updatedYour Mileage May Vary.There is a hidden statistic on your profile used by the new Matchmaker (MM) system. While Pixonic has not given it an official name, I've taken to calling it a "Performance Rating" or PR for short. This hidden value goes up or down based on the amount of damage you have done in a single match, relative to your teammates, and if the match was won or lost. The following graphic was created by former clubbers based on their research to find the most effective method of smurfing ( AKA "tanking" but that has multiple meanings depending on context), and illustrates the rise and fall of your PR. A lot of folks are pointing to their Win Percentage (win%) statistic or their Average Damage over last 50 Games statistic as the key metric, but really these are only general indicators as to where you should be placed in matchmaking, and the former clubbers have proven that out (or at least they are saying they did) by smurfing to the bottom ratings in far less than 50 rounds. The sad reality is that we've all been set up for failure under the previous version of the MM, since it was mostly based on weapon levels with a loose tier system. This created several 'sweet spots' where you could keep your weapons 2 levels stronger or more than your bots and have an edge against most of your opponents. Those days are over with, and from the few official statements Pixonic has made, there will be no going back. This has forced most of us to mothball our best weapons while we get our robot levels upgraded to match, and created an amazing amount of confusion with this overwhelming paradigm shift.One of the oldest strategic ratios in multiplayer gaming is endurance versus damage output. Stronger weapons put out more damage, but the longer you can endure, the longer your weapons will last to pump out that damage. With the new matchmaker, it's become much more strategic to limit your damage output in order to avoid being matched up with piss-poor players that happen to having high level equipment. This means shifting your upgrading efforts to bring up your endurance, in other words, your bot levels, thus balancing out your damage output. The most effective hangars with the most stable matchmaking experience seem to be those that keep their robot levels even with their weapon levels. Now, with all due respect to the many different play styles out there, there is also a strategic advantage to focus on beacon capturing. By creating bot builds meant to take or defend beacons, you'll still be contributing to a team win, but without overly increasing your PR with excessive damage output. Finally, I've personally noticed that with bots and weapons at level 9 to 10, the effect of the MM throwing over-leveled equipment at you is mitigated, since a high degree of skill can make up for the +2 relative equipment levels of Top Tier enemies.
|
|
|
Post by spawnreaper on Feb 15, 2017 12:51:12 GMT -5
So lvl 12 botz with lvl 1 weapons.....got it
|
|
|
Post by ł⸰§ĦȺĐ◎ŴƧŦḀɌ on Feb 15, 2017 12:52:32 GMT -5
Please keep in mind this thread is in the Tips & Advice section, and is not intended to debate the validity of Pixonic's actions. Please limit discussion to advice based on how the new MM works, not on how much some of us hate it.
|
|
|
Post by ł⸰§ĦȺĐ◎ŴƧŦḀɌ on Feb 15, 2017 12:54:52 GMT -5
So lvl 12 botz with lvl 1 weapons.....got it That's the very first mistake most folks will think of, but doing so will give you too much endurance without being able to defend yourself. You'll get swarmed and die by a thousand paper cuts, and likely not contribute much to your team but a few beacon captures. Still gotta win the match if you want a chance at Au rewards. In the long term, however, it would make a good smurfing strategy, I'm just morally opposed to those kind of extremes.
|
|
|
Post by spawnreaper on Feb 15, 2017 13:10:01 GMT -5
So lvl 12 botz with lvl 1 weapons.....got it That's the very first mistake most folks will think of, but doing so will give you too much endurance without being able to defend yourself. You'll get swarmed and die by a thousand paper cuts, and likely not contribute much to your team but a few beacon captures. Still gotta win the match if you want a chance at Au rewards. In the long term, however, it would make a good smurfing strategy, I'm just morally opposed to those kind of extremes. Thats what i figured to. Too lazy to try it myself so i put that out there to see if anyone else has tried it to get their feedback.
|
|
|
Post by ł⸰§ĦȺĐ◎ŴƧŦḀɌ on Feb 15, 2017 18:55:01 GMT -5
Jeez, must be pretty accurate if nobody's found anything to correct yet
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 19:06:35 GMT -5
Balanced weapons&bot levels, balanced across bots. I believe this will provide the greatest consistency in results, which in turn should lead to better consistency in matchmaking.
Note that this is in no way the best hangar. 5 cappers are the truth on that front, particularly if you zeo out your average damage first. Then 5 Au per match and a near 100% win rate become possible.
|
|
|
Post by gladiator84 on Feb 15, 2017 22:09:30 GMT -5
How would you balance across different bot classes? For example, do you level mediums a few levels above heavies, and lights a few levels above mediums? Or level all bots the same?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 22:36:30 GMT -5
How would you balance across different bot classes? For example, do you level mediums a few levels above heavies, and lights a few levels above mediums? Or level all bots the same? Excellent question. What about all light, or all med hangars?
|
|
|
Post by ł⸰§ĦȺĐ◎ŴƧŦḀɌ on Feb 15, 2017 23:42:16 GMT -5
Pixo has already mentioned doing away with the robot weight classes, and regrouping bots by intended roles instead. We'll see, I've noticed over the years that most humans find... creative ways of not getting stuck with a predetermined label. And really it is just arbitrary labels.
Now, I'll tell you to ignore the weight classes and just keep everything even. Some other folks have recommended +2 levels for lights, +1 levels for mediums, as relative to your heavies. Honestly, I think it would only make a marginal difference anyway.
All light or medium hangars tho, that's a slippery slope towards smurfing, buuut yanno, more shades of grey. No moral difference to me as say running a hangar full of Gareths, or Carnages. Hyper-specialization of a class, reminds me of my min/maxing days playing AD&D characters, like my Ranger with maxed points in throwing daggers. DM made her carry around several bags of cheap leaf knifes to keep up with her in-game RoF. Worst case, hangar full of Ecu Cossacks, mad beacon capturing plus loss of PR,so when it gets boring, switch to high damage and stomp your way back up the scale. Not as reprehensible as outright smurfing, because at least a beacon capper still helps your team win, but I'd still call it a lie of omission.
|
|
|
Post by EatStinkyTofu on Feb 16, 2017 9:32:14 GMT -5
A super beacon capper--Cossack with near-max Ecu--might be a good one for a newer player who is still trying to stockpile Au to build upntheir hangar. Reliable source of Au and keeps the avg damage low
|
|
|
Post by Ⅎ₹ѺC₭₩ELDEℲ₹ on Feb 16, 2017 9:50:06 GMT -5
I actually don't think this scoring system is deciding anything at the moment..it might just be operating in the background. Avg damage decides your matches at the moment - for now ...This point system might be an intra league points system once the leagues go live..
|
|
|
Post by ł⸰§ĦȺĐ◎ŴƧŦḀɌ on Feb 16, 2017 10:57:22 GMT -5
I strongly disagree. As I said in the original post, we've gotten testimonials from clubbers that you can 'smurf' your way to the bottom ranks long before your average damage stat catches up to reflect those actions. I know, it's like trying to prove that the elephant in the sky really does exist, but that's what hidden variables do to people. Nobody wants to believe until they can see it for themselves. Until Pixo grows some balls and admits to us what is going on, the debates will rage on.
|
|
|
Post by SlowReflexes on Feb 16, 2017 11:42:48 GMT -5
Unless you're at Top, it seems to be best to not be a pure brawler. If you try that without maxed gear, you will find yourself going directly head to head against people with maxed gear every match, and being frustrated. Being able to fight is useful, but unless you're willing to openly tank you have to diversify. Smurf (still try to win, but in a way that reduces damage) instead. For me the result isn't ideal - you're likely to succeed as a supporting player rather than fail as a lead and I prefer being the lead, but hey you can win and get gold. Beats the alternative. Just had this match on PP: Match was full of *monsters*, maxed or very close to max meta hangars, with an emphasis on brawling. Sure I kind of got carried some, but only some - I really did contribute and got the gold to show. And for a couple of minutes I was teamed up with no name (clan head of clan with no name) and it was *glorious*.
|
|
|
Post by ł⸰§ĦȺĐ◎ŴƧŦḀɌ on Feb 16, 2017 14:20:42 GMT -5
That's not exactly what I mean by smurfing... In the context of War Robots, I mean deliberately lowering your damage output by various means in order to be matched with lower ranked players. There is a massive scale there-in, ranging from idling for an entire match on the low down dirty end, up to focusing on beacon captures instead of damage (my recommendation). One quibble with the following quote, War Robots does not have an Elo system, it's a skill rating, which is similar but a lot less subtle than Elo ratings. Still a near perfect explaination of what smurfing means. gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/5670/what-is-smurfing-in-online-games
"In the context of Starcraft (and it is different in other games), smurfing referred to utilizing an account with a lower ranking (usually ICCUP) than is accurate for you as a player, to beat up on lesser players. Since Starcraft 2 has a built in ELO style system, this would mean buying a new account (or destroying your own ranking) and losing all your matches to be placed in a league below your skill level (or using one that is already in such a position). Since ELO style ranking systems require a sample size of multiple games to make accurate prediction of the skill level, players can trick the system into believing they possess a lower skill level. Smurfing is not unique to ELO style rankings either. Many tournaments are held for lower skilled players and by misrepresening themselves, highly skilled players can enter these tournaments. This often times constitutes fraud or cheating, but may be by design. For example, the Team Liquid Attack pits a professional player against a series of lesser players. Often times they will intentionally mix in another professional player and present him as a lesser player for comedic value. This is by design (and fun to watch). Usually, however, smurfing is tantamount to taking candy from a baby."
|
|
|
Post by ⓣⓡⓘⓒⓚⓨ48 on Feb 16, 2017 14:26:00 GMT -5
I honestly think that the term "smurfing" as applied here, is wrongly done.
I think the focus on the amount of damage dished out being the only way to play with honor... may be, nay, is, erroneous. Being role specific, if it contributes to the win, is not smurfing. Now, that does not mean that running all ecu cossies is the best help in the world... as I would say it is not and is more along that slippery tanking\smurfing slope. But just like in other games or in real-world warfighting, specializing in a role other than "tank" or "knifer" can be better if your equipment and skillset lie in that direction.
I will try to explain... If one is a capper, one still needs to be able to shoot and damage/distract the enemy and fill in the flanker role when needed. Focus on the beacons, sure. But not contributing in other ways when the opportunity arises, will deffo help bring the team down. In other words... being a capper, means more than just the beacons. Likewise, if in Mid Range or Long Range support role, one should still try and cap, or pressure the reds by advancing to forward sniping positions, with the understanding that one may die and may need to re-spawn. The risk is high with using big, slow, unprotected bots in front line positions, but the reward if your team is able to support you by advancing the line of short range knifer/brawler bots, in turn, is worth it. Although, a mid-range Carny will fulfill that need well and help eliminate the risk, to a degree.
Either way, not focusing on putting out the most damage possible, with the highest level and biggest bots and weapons one can own, is not tanking or smurfing. It is being tactically sound and trying to win, IMO. And, if one is not a level 10-12 weapon carrier, it makes sense to specialize in something other than damage if one is seeing nothing but those levels of bots and weapons. Not to throw a match, but to help adjust the rating by dealing less damage than one is capable of when running only damage dealers. That is smart playing. Not the same as dropping 50 matches and affecting everyone else by falsely giving wins to those that should have lost and losses to those that should have won. But, instead, is playing in a way that still helps the team and adjusts your rating in a good way, at the same time. I think all would agree, that if one is in 7/9 bots, and is facing mostly 10/12 enemies, it's not where one would normally want to play.
Yes, there is a line that separates "tankers/smurfers" from role specific play. The difference between doing as little as possible in a match so that you lose and tank your rating, and changing from a damage dealing methodology to a support role, is a stark one.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by ł⸰§ĦȺĐ◎ŴƧŦḀɌ on Feb 16, 2017 15:03:34 GMT -5
I honestly think that the term "smurfing" as applied here, is wrongly done. [...] Yes, there is a line that separates "tankers/smurfers" from role specific play. The difference between doing as little as possible in a match so that you lose and tank your rating, and changing from a damage dealing methodology to a support role, is a stark one. Thoughts? I think that my experiences as a former troll are creating a bias in my terminology. Doing anything specific to reduce your damaged output could be defined as smurfing (or 'tanking' if you prefer but I don't) on technicalities, which I would have done as a troll in my former life... But you hit the nail square on the head for my intentions, so my thanks for pointing out a bit of moral high ground. I do NOT consider being a dedicated beacon capper to be a bad thing. In fact, I envision 2 main player types in the future of War Robots, damage brawlers and beacon eaters. A good mix of both on a team is already essential to winning, but the new MM is forcing that evolution to happen a lot quicker. I EAT BEACONS!
|
|
|
Post by SlowReflexes on Feb 16, 2017 17:38:06 GMT -5
I honestly think that the term "smurfing" as applied here, is wrongly done. [...] Yes, there is a line that separates "tankers/smurfers" from role specific play. The difference between doing as little as possible in a match so that you lose and tank your rating, and changing from a damage dealing methodology to a support role, is a stark one. Thoughts? I think that my experiences as a former troll are creating a bias in my terminology. Doing anything specific to reduce your damaged output could be defined as smurfing (or 'tanking' if you prefer but I don't) on technicalities, which I would have done as a troll in my former life... But you hit the nail square on the head for my intentions, so my thanks for pointing out a bit of moral high ground. I do NOT consider being a dedicated beacon capper to be a bad thing. In fact, I envision 2 main player types in the future of War Robots, damage brawlers and beacon eaters. A good mix of both on a team is already essential to winning, but the new MM is forcing that evolution to happen a lot quicker. I EAT BEACONS! A distinction I have consistently made because I think it's useful and important..... Smurfing is changing your play style to reduce damage done, but you're still playing and trying to win. Naturally there is a wide range of possible changes in play style this could cover. Me, I just swapped a rhino for a stalker and play fairly normally within the constraints of the new hardware. Tanking is minimizing your damage done without seriously trying to win. (Those guys who take 2 beacons and quit out, yeah they're tanking.) Not everyone may agree with me, but that's my suggestion and I think it's a good one. Now people might decide on using different words to describe the two different ways of playing, but I think we should definitely differentiate the two and not use the same term for both.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 18:21:59 GMT -5
The game was always territory control first, destroy the enemy second. The previous system(and even the current match rewards) worked to the contrary, allowing(and pretty much mandating) lighter bots armed way above their level of play down low, and heavy bots armed with as much as possible on high.
Changing your play style to incorporate beacons, and area control, in a game that's only play mode is TERRITORY CONTROL, is not smurfing nor twinking unless it is done with the explicit intent of fighting the new and ill equipped.
Its called playing territory control.
Overwatch is Blizzard's TF2. In TF2, it's very possible to win matches with the whole team playing Soldier or heavy, but it's also very inefficient, and often very easy to counter with a diverse team of specialists.
If it were TDM, sure I can see how damage per battle could equate to playing well, but IT'S NOT TDM, so doing the most damage does not necessarily mean 'playing well'.
While I agree that it's partially Pixonic's fault that the old system allowed us to believe light bots could be used as brawlers,dealing the most damage was being productive, and the only endgame is 12/12 shield mediums,heavies, and Furies, it was never meant to be that way, and Pix has fixed it.
At an end to clubbing, ANYONE that played with weapons significantly higher than bots should have expected a kick in the rear.
It's territory control, not Quake. The longer it takes everyone to get away from the american football standpoint of having to make it to the opposition's endzone(spawn), and swap to the TC/Invade/defend mindset of "advance, disrupt and hold the line", the longer people are going to be miserable with this game.
|
|
|
Post by spawnreaper on Feb 16, 2017 20:13:14 GMT -5
Think that theres a new type of tanking. People that just dont care anymore cause they are forced to play a way they dont want to. With botz they are forced to play with. At lvls that bore them. They just go through the motions because nothing about this game excites them anymore. Must be their fault somehow because they dont want to TT, and enjoyed the game the way it used to be. Probley hoping this nightmare of a MM ends and a new better system gets installed.
|
|
|
Post by Ⅎ₹ѺC₭₩ELDEℲ₹ on Feb 16, 2017 20:22:28 GMT -5
@ Spawnreaper
|
|
|
Post by ł⸰§ĦȺĐ◎ŴƧŦḀɌ on Feb 16, 2017 22:01:57 GMT -5
The terms we use are slang and community defined, so ultimately just semantics. Meh.
|
|
|
Post by SlowReflexes on Feb 16, 2017 23:27:16 GMT -5
The game was always territory control first, destroy the enemy second. The previous system(and even the current match rewards) worked to the contrary, allowing(and pretty much mandating) lighter bots armed way above their level of play down low, and heavy bots armed with as much as possible on high. Changing your play style to incorporate beacons, and area control, in a game that's only play mode is TERRITORY CONTROL, is not smurfing nor twinking unless it is done with the explicit intent of fighting the new and ill equipped. Its called playing territory control. Overwatch is Blizzard's TF2. In TF2, it's very possible to win matches with the whole team playing Soldier or heavy, but it's also very inefficient, and often very easy to counter with a diverse team of specialists. If it were TDM, sure I can see how damage per battle could equate to playing well, but IT'S NOT TDM, so doing the most damage does not necessarily mean 'playing well'. While I agree that it's partially Pixonic's fault that the old system allowed us to believe light bots could be used as brawlers,dealing the most damage was being productive, and the only endgame is 12/12 shield mediums,heavies, and Furies, it was never meant to be that way, and Pix has fixed it. At an end to clubbing, ANYONE that played with weapons significantly higher than bots should have expected a kick in the rear. It's territory control, not Quake. The longer it takes everyone to get away from the american football standpoint of having to make it to the opposition's endzone(spawn), and swap to the TC/Invade/defend mindset of "advance, disrupt and hold the line", the longer people are going to be miserable with this game. You are making false distinctions, as well as overlooking something vital. You're posing 'doing damage' and 'taking territory' as an either/or, which is incorrect. And what you're neglecting..... How exactly do you propose to *take* territory from someone who wants to keep it? Or hold your own territory from someone who wants to take it from you? You accomplish that by doing damage. You can do damage to no territorial benefit. Seen that often enough. But you can't take and hold territory without directly damaging the other fellow, enough to either force him to withdraw or kill him if he won't. Infiltration tactics are useful and valid, in this game they're aimed at temporarily applying force to valuable point targets - like beacons, or particularly important enemy mechs - rather than taking and holding any particular area. (The giveaway is that infiltrator types tend to run away.....)
|
|
|
Post by SlowReflexes on Feb 16, 2017 23:32:11 GMT -5
The end result of 'playing more for beacons than damage' is that you look to do less of the heavy lifting of fighting at the front to push forward, stop pushes, actively turn flanks to enfilade defenders.... and look either to support the folks on the front, or better yet do some of that infiltration stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 23:36:34 GMT -5
I've said it elsewhere, my personal play style consists of ruining the "battle plan" every person is prone to making when dropping into a game. Eh, I've kinda said my peace through and through, probably going to just lurk the wiki until this whole thing ends, one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by SlowReflexes on Feb 16, 2017 23:38:47 GMT -5
Hmmm, I should probably point out another thing you have wrong.
This game is not about territory control. That's not the end, the goal. The goal, what this game is about, is beacon control.
Territory control is simply a very effective means to gaining beacon control.
But it's not perfect and there are other (as I mentioned, infiltration is one) approaches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 23:51:34 GMT -5
Hmmm, I should probably point out another thing you have wrong. This game is not about territory control. That's not the end, the goal. The goal, what this game is about, is beacon control. Territory control is simply a very effective means to gaining beacon control. But it's not perfect and there are other (as I mentioned, infiltration is one) approaches. Game modes that function by way of specific areas that need to be captured and can be captured by either team at any time throughout the match is called Territory Control, while a single point is King of the Hill and perma swaps where one team has to stop the other is Attack/defend.
|
|
|
Post by SlowReflexes on Feb 16, 2017 23:58:28 GMT -5
Hmmm, I should probably point out another thing you have wrong. This game is not about territory control. That's not the end, the goal. The goal, what this game is about, is beacon control. Territory control is simply a very effective means to gaining beacon control. But it's not perfect and there are other (as I mentioned, infiltration is one) approaches. Game modes that function by way of specific areas that need to be captured and can be captured by eiher The territory and the beacons are distinct. If you need something to remind you of this, remember the clueless teammate who kills an enemy Stalker that snuck in and took your home beacon (with no other enemy anywhere nearby) and walks away without retaking the beacon. Or, even worse, a teammate who camps almost on top of a red beacon, but not quite close enough to take it. Seen people do that next to their home beacon.
|
|
|
Post by ł⸰§ĦȺĐ◎ŴƧŦḀɌ on Feb 17, 2017 3:55:57 GMT -5
Chill. It's a descriptive title of a specific type of Capture The Flag gaming. Depends on what era you grew up in, but it's still ALL SLANG.
I grew up on CTF: Flag Running, Point Dominance, Escort, King of the Hill, Assault, and Area Dominance. I am neither more nor less correct in my terminology than either of you.
|
|
Tarastir
Destrier
Posts: 68
Karma: 44
Pilot name: Tarastir
Platform: Android
League: Expert
Server Region: Europe
|
Post by Tarastir on Feb 17, 2017 5:51:14 GMT -5
I grew up on Unreal Tournament, and "Domination" is really close to what we have in War Robots. You win by controlling some specific locations, the more the better. In War Robots you have only up to 5 "respawns". You could even compare Bots/Weapons to the Weapons in UT - TT Fury is like the Rocket Launcher, Trebs are like Sniper Rifles. Nothing better that smashing a camper with your Flak Cannon. Maybe we just need more cover on big maps, so you could reach those campers unharmed?
Back to the topic - I think the matchmaking is based on average damage and not Elo rating, but maybe it's just coincidence and both values show your skill level?
|
|