hazmatt
Destrier
Posts: 32
Karma: 22
|
Post by hazmatt on Feb 22, 2017 6:06:07 GMT -5
Basing leagues on damage output is not a good idea. Top tier will be dominated by lvl 12 short range weapons. Then, a few tiers lower, lvl 12 long range weapons will potentially dominate over lvl 9 short range weapons.
Leagues should be based on a combination of the number of weapon hard points, weapons level and size (heavy, medium or light weapons) robot hit points, average damage, beacons captured and liberated.
The previous tiers system was definitely flawed but, it was much closer to acceptable than the current mess. From what I see in the description of leagues, it will not be much better.
|
|
|
|
Post by suntron on Feb 22, 2017 6:55:07 GMT -5
Basing leagues on damage output is not a good idea. Top tier will be dominated by lvl 12 short range weapons. Then, a few tiers lower, lvl 12 long range weapons will potentially dominate over lvl 9 short range weapons. Leagues should be based on a combination of the number of weapon hard points, weapons level and size (heavy, medium or light weapons) robot hit points, average damage, beacons captured and liberated. The previous tiers system was definitely flawed but, it was much closer to acceptable than the current mess. From what I see in the description of leagues, it will not be much better. Yes they needed to change their definition of "best" as most damage. When the league interface worked I saw the top players were all knife fighting lancelot+griffin hangers with the odd Rhino. Not good for diversity. Also in the current system there is no need to try to win to progress, just do lots of damage. They should include beacon liberating and to a lesser scale captures. Even better would be to weight a beacon liberation on how long it is held for. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 17:33:53 GMT -5
Even better would be to weight a beacon liberation on how long it is held for. Dunno about that. It seems like the person that grabs closest beacon, which is rarely contested would gain an artificial ranking of skills for work that's not actually done (AKA defending said beacon). Or a Cossack capper that leaves while another teammate moves in to defend would also benefit from work not actually done. |
|
wrilley
Destrier
Posts: 33
Karma: 16
|
Post by wrilley on Feb 22, 2017 17:56:42 GMT -5
I can't remember where I read it, but I do think they plan to add other metrics (like captures, etc) to the system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 18:53:46 GMT -5
I say screw beacons!
|
|
hazmatt
Destrier
Posts: 32
Karma: 22
|
Post by hazmatt on Feb 23, 2017 10:07:31 GMT -5
I think number of weapons, weapon sizes, weapon levels and robot hit points should be the primary factors for determining what league you are in. Whether your weapons are short, medium or long range should not matter. Therefore, damage ranking should not mean as much. I don't know exactly how to mix beacons into your performance rating but, I do think they should be included.
|
|
|
|
Post by suntron on Feb 23, 2017 10:10:09 GMT -5
Even better would be to weight a beacon liberation on how long it is held for. Dunno about that. It seems like the person that grabs closest beacon, which is rarely contested would gain an artificial ranking of skills for work that's not actually done (AKA defending said beacon). Or a Cossack capper that leaves while another teammate moves in to defend would also benefit from work not actually done. True but liberation rather than capture would mitigate the uncontested close beacon captures. |
|
hazmatt
Destrier
Posts: 32
Karma: 22
|
Post by hazmatt on Feb 23, 2017 13:54:03 GMT -5
Perhaps a point system of some sort for beacons. 1 for an uncontested solo cap. 2 for a lib followed by 2 more for the follow up cap. If 2 players are involved in a lib or cap, they split the points based on the % of time they were involved in the action.
Maybe you get extra points for shooting an enemy from a beacon and or extra points for shooting an enemy that is actively liberating or capping a beacon.
Just spitballing ideas.
|
|
kjester
Destrier
Posts: 31
Karma: 16
|
Post by kjester on Feb 26, 2017 0:17:06 GMT -5
I wish War Robots would have more spitball ideas like you do Hazmatt. I was planning on making a very similar proposal for War Robots as I was reading these, and then I saw your post. lol
|
|
|
|
Post by SoCalGrndR on Feb 27, 2017 4:11:27 GMT -5
I think ties on beacons should go to pilot that held the beacons longer. I believe that is much more of a strategic benefit to actually winning the game vs. any raw capping number.
If that was implemented it might refocus some strategies and change some hangers made just to cap beacons with out defending them, doubtful but possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by K A Z on Feb 27, 2017 4:59:08 GMT -5
I think ties on beacons should go to pilot that held the beacons longer. I believe that is much more of a strategic benefit to actually winning the game vs. any raw capping number. If that was implemented it might refocus some strategies and change some hangers made just to cap beacons with out defending them, doubtful but possible. Agree, that would be nice...but there is no way to measure that I guess; it's not a direct mathematical parameter that could be expressed in a purely numerical way, as the raw caps are now. That is unless you want to have a (live) jury board for each match  |
|
|
|
Post by wildboar on Feb 27, 2017 7:09:46 GMT -5
If it is a measurable metric you want Capture /seconds.. cap beacon A it stays held for 50 seconds ... 50 seconds worth of points
Capture Beacon A for 20 , B for 30 , C for 30...you have 80 seconds of points... it must already be measured in some way in order for the beacon progress bars to deplete...
Obviously this simple measure would weigh in favour of the home beacon(s) as it they are an easy capture but the beacons could be given a weighting depending on how hard they are to capture ... multiplier of 1.5 for centre ... x2 for Red team home (or some other multiplier)
That way you have a raw number, just like damage in the stats not just #of beacons
just thinking out loud :-)
|
|
kjester
Destrier
Posts: 31
Karma: 16
|
Post by kjester on Mar 4, 2017 22:41:27 GMT -5
Personally I think if there is a tie for beacons, the gold should just go to whoever did the most damage. I run a hangar of two Leos, a Lance, a Griffin and a Patton. Not one bot is built for beacon capping, but often I will get three beacons in a match. If someone spends the entire match with Stalkers doing nothing but running around grabbing beacons and ends up with 3 caps and 50K damage and I get 3 caps and 450K damage, I think I did far more to help the team win.
Far too often I will kill a bot and get a home beacon back, then move off to kill two more bots to get the middle beacon before dying. Just to drop in a new bot and see both beacons are already lost. I wouldnt want my beacons I fought hard to get to become worth less because my teammates arent aggressive enough to keep them.
Though I have to admit, I love what they are doing with leagues. To get positive points you need to be top two on your team in a loss or be on the winning team. Damage is still the money maker but winning holds a greater importance now IMO. Which by default puts more emphasis on capping beacons. ....... Though in truth, it also makes me hate getting screwed by pilots who drop out even more. lol
|
|
