|
Post by ⓣⓡⓘⓒⓚⓨ48 on Mar 20, 2017 15:21:38 GMT -5
I sorta see what you are saying... however... and I am not trying to be difficult, instead, honestly trying to understand the beef. This is a team based game. You are saying that you think that you should only get rewarded for your own performance, even if your team loses. Well... you're on a team, so if that team loses, you lose. Am I missing something? You should absolutely be lumped in with the rest of your team when it comes to scores. The only way to justify completely solo reward systems is to make the game a Free-For-All Deathmatch. But then there would only be 1 winner with 2nd and 3rd place losers with rewards worth a damn... and a whole lot more losers than now. Maybe I am missing what you are saying... but I am absolutely of the mind that advancing in league points when your team loses, makes no sense. The core problem, though, is that I don't control my team unless I'm squadding with clan members, and my team winning or losing often has little to nothing to do with my skill. I have lost games where I scored higher than anyone on either team, but lost, because my team was woefully mismatched by the MM or had one or more ditchers. That's why people feel it's unfair - dramatic impact on your league placement from things that either are of Pix's own making (bad matches) or completely unrelated to your skill (ditchers, tankers). It would be a lot easier to take if you just dropped by a couple points for being top 1 or 2 on the losing team instead of 12 or 14. OK, so it is the amount of points lost. Well, I am not against a lower amount for top 2 or 3 players. However, I do not know how or why Pix came to the system they have now, so I don't know whether it is the right call on their part or not.
|
|
|
Post by Trogon on Mar 20, 2017 15:33:20 GMT -5
The core problem, though, is that I don't control my team unless I'm squadding with clan members, and my team winning or losing often has little to nothing to do with my skill. I have lost games where I scored higher than anyone on either team, but lost, because my team was woefully mismatched by the MM or had one or more ditchers. That's why people feel it's unfair - dramatic impact on your league placement from things that either are of Pix's own making (bad matches) or completely unrelated to your skill (ditchers, tankers). It would be a lot easier to take if you just dropped by a couple points for being top 1 or 2 on the losing team instead of 12 or 14. OK, so it is the amount of points lost. Well, I am not against a lower amount for top 2 or 3 players. However, I do not know how or why Pix came to the system they have now, so I don't know whether it is the right call on their part or not. Easing the point loss would help, just because it would ease the sting of the unfair matches, but I think the core of it is that the current system doesn't really do a very good job of rewarding the strength of individual or team performance relative to the strength of the opponents. Because hangar strength has nothing to do with it, when someone on my team has league scores close to mine but are tanking by playing with 1/1 destriers (yes seen that), I lose just as much as when it's a good match, or when I play against someone with a league score close to mine but is a tanker/clubber heading back up with a maxed hangar (or a squad of them - yes seen that too) I lose just as much as when playing against fair competition.
|
|
WHOPHARDED
Destrier
Posts: 34
Karma: 14
Pilot name: Whopharded
Platform: iOS
Clan: The Anti-Heros
League: Expert
Server Region: North America
|
Post by WHOPHARDED on Mar 20, 2017 16:01:16 GMT -5
I read the BLOG. It's all about the beacons, and the team win.... I get it.
So here is my beef. If I'm an INDIVIDUAL playing in a LEAGUE as an INDIVIDUAL, I should be accountable ONLY for my own performance. If I go to battle and my team looses but I score at the top of damage and beacons collection..... then I should not be penalized. Just make a decision, Squad League or Individual League..... but don't go trying to combine them. I sorta see what you are saying... however... and I am not trying to be difficult, instead, honestly trying to understand the beef. This is a team based game. You are saying that you think that you should only get rewarded for your own performance, even if your team loses. Well... you're on a team, so if that team loses, you lose. Am I missing something? You should absolutely be lumped in with the rest of your team when it comes to scores. The only way to justify completely solo reward systems is to make the game a Free-For-All Deathmatch. But then there would only be 1 winner with 2nd and 3rd place losers with rewards worth a damn... and a whole lot more losers than now. Maybe I am missing what you are saying... but I am absolutely of the mind that advancing in league points when your team loses, makes no sense. A notable response. Lets take a case to point... Suppose you enter a match and upon the spawn you see on your team, two bots with less than adequate hardware because they are experimenting and at some point, probably after you are 1st killed you notice a Griff on your team whom has yet to move because the pilot obviously decided to burn a cig and let you hang out to dry.
You are going to lose the battle even though you are a rockstar, killing everyone and taking a fair shake of the beacons. Insult to injury is that because your appointed team was literally a "no show", you are about to lose hard earned league points. How could you call that at team?
|
|
|
Post by ⓣⓡⓘⓒⓚⓨ48 on Mar 20, 2017 16:34:38 GMT -5
@whopharded and TrogonPoints well taken, and I do agree that it absolutely sucks to be stuck with a bunch of Pee Wee Hermans who just want to play with themselves and stick to voyeurism, and, therefore, are not involved with the entire team in order to play for a win in this orgy of destruction we call a battle. I get those battles occasionally, too, but I have to say that it isn't that often. Are you seeing them more than say, 25% of the time? (25% is waaay too much, but I figure that is a good threshold number that, if crossed by the majority of players, Pix would have to change something up more than just adding a leaver league that doesn't really punish anything, from all that I can tell.) So, counter question... if the world was perfect, everyone lived in a climate like LA's, only pretty people existed, cars all had V8s that had no impact on the environment and got 60mpg, cats and dogs got along, and we could be guaranteed a 95%, or better, rate of games that have full teams that were not matched more than 2 levels +- in either direction, would you still prefer a different scoring system? Or just a reduction in the amount of points lost? I am being serious (even acknowledging the light tone of some of this post) and I ask this question purely from the stance of trying to not be nailed down to a particular notion without having a good idea of both sides of the argument to better decide where I should make my camp. *Also, I don't mind the experimenters all that much, I've done my fair share and may have caused a loss or two from staying in a bot too long to gauge its effectiveness... but the AFKs and the Ditchers can eat a hot, steaming, creamy bowl of Richard. Jus' sayin'.
|
|
|
Post by amidf on Mar 20, 2017 18:31:47 GMT -5
A notable response. Lets take a case to point... Suppose you enter a match and upon the spawn you see on your team, two bots with less than adequate hardware because they are experimenting and at some point, probably after you are 1st killed you notice a Griff on your team whom has yet to move because the pilot obviously decided to burn a cig and let you hang out to dry. You are going to lose the battle even though you are a rockstar, killing everyone and taking a fair shake of the beacons. Insult to injury is that because your appointed team was literally a "no show", you are about to lose hard earned league points. How could you call that at team? Those situations suck, but if you lose fewer points when some of your team is afk or, let's say, just off their game that day, you would have to win fewer points every time that happened to the red team. Difficult to implement, and it just gets us to the same place as if we kept the win and loss points exactly as they are now and just figured that half the time when there are bad players in the match, they are worse on blue, and half the time they are worse on red. It balances out, and as a result your points over many matches are what you put into those matches. Everyone else cancels out over the longer haul. Been saying this a lot lately, and I haven't seen a good counter argument. Don't take this as my saying tankers and poor players are OK. They take the fun out of the games they are in. What I am saying is that they have little impact on your long term league position. Edit: I screwed up quote again.
|
|
|
Post by GreenFace on Mar 21, 2017 0:27:53 GMT -5
I get those battles occasionally, too, but I have to say that it isn't that often. Are you seeing them more than say, 25% of the time? So, counter question... if the world was perfect, everyone lived in a climate like LA's, only pretty people existed, cars all had V8s that had no impact on the environment and got 60mpg, cats and dogs got along, and we could be guaranteed a 95%, or better, rate of games that have full teams that were not matched more than 2 levels +- in either direction, would you still prefer a different scoring system? Or just a reduction in the amount of points lost? What league you're in? Maybe in the higher ones, there's not much fluctuations, since everybody there already have established gears mostly. But in lower league, I can say that the percentage is on 50%, or strong 40% at the very least. IMHO, I think you're missing the point. It's not about "dreaming for an ideal world". It's about fairness and consistency. It already applied on many games, so it's a reality. Battlefield, Point Blank, Call of Duty, you name it. Your personal rank would not demoted because of the losses in random matches. In War Robots, the developer seems overwhelmed by many good concepts they wanna apply to the game, but many times they failed to recognize the inconsistencies/contradictions that may happened between some different concepts. War Robots right now is all about Capture The Flag and/or King of The Hill game modes, right... But rewarding damage much more than beacons/flag in Capture The Flag mode? Really? Is that Capture The FLAG or Capture The DAMAGE??? Punishing players who fight to the death but loosing only because they've been MATCHED BY THE GAME with incompetent teammates or stellar opponents? Aw come one... Is it fair? At least in other games, we can choose which room we wanna fight in. Just a thought
|
|
|
Post by ⓣⓡⓘⓒⓚⓨ48 on Mar 21, 2017 0:41:51 GMT -5
I get those battles occasionally, too, but I have to say that it isn't that often. Are you seeing them more than say, 25% of the time? So, counter question... if the world was perfect, everyone lived in a climate like LA's, only pretty people existed, cars all had V8s that had no impact on the environment and got 60mpg, cats and dogs got along, and we could be guaranteed a 95%, or better, rate of games that have full teams that were not matched more than 2 levels +- in either direction, would you still prefer a different scoring system? Or just a reduction in the amount of points lost? What league you're in? Maybe in the higher ones, there's not much fluctuations, since everybody there already have established gears mostly. But in lower league, I can say that the percentage is on 50%, or strong 40% at the very least. IMHO, I think you're missing the point. It's not about "dreaming for an ideal world". It's about fairness and consistency. It already applied on many games, so it's a reality. Battlefield, Point Blank, Call of Duty, you name it. Your personal rank would not suffered because of the losses. In War Robots, the developer seems overwhelmed by many good concepts they wanna apply to the game, but many times they failed to recognize the inconsistencies/contradictions that may happened between some different concepts. Rewarding damage much more than beacons in Capture The Flag mode? Really? Punishing players who fight to the death but loosing only because they've been MATCHED BY THE GAME with incompetent teammates or stellar opponents? At least in other games, we can choose which room we wanna fight in. Just a thought I didn't miss the point... It was a legitimate question sprinkled with, what I had hoped, was humor. Seriously just wondering what scoring system would be better? I'm in silver 1... And frankly... Kinda happy to stay here a bit since I'm still experimenting with builds. I really don't see a bunch of craziness... Mostly damn good matches as far as bot and weapon levels.
|
|
|
Post by GreenFace on Mar 21, 2017 1:08:36 GMT -5
I didn't miss the point... It was a legitimate question sprinkled with, what I had hoped, was humor. Seriously just wondering what scoring system would be better? I'm in silver 1... And frankly... Kinda happy to stay here a bit since I'm still experimenting with builds. I really don't see a bunch of craziness... Mostly damn good matches as far as bot and weapon levels. From what I understand, he meant that it's better if the game separates individual score and team score. Punish players for their OWN lack of achievements, not for others' incompetences. As well as rewarding also. In other games, we can loose many battles (low win percentage), but it won't get us demoted, as long as our individual performance is strong enough (good kill/death ratio, assist, etc). In War Robots, all get thrown and mixed together in one bowl. There you are... Your league is quite high. Some threads said that the higher the tier, more stabilized the MM is. In Bronze (or even Private), there are many proofs that we faced Silver and higher guys (maxed, sometimes)
|
|
|
Post by amidf on Mar 21, 2017 10:10:49 GMT -5
Will no one agree that poor teammates are equally distributed and so have no net effect on your point level?
Same goes for good teammates.
-Amid
|
|
|
Post by SGT D00M! on Mar 21, 2017 13:24:51 GMT -5
ⓣⓡⓘⓒⓚⓨ48 and amidf, a system that better weighted actual player skill and contribution over the current single data point system would be an improvement. 1 point per kill and beacon and 1 point per 100,000 damage, with ties going to damage would be fairer, encourage mediums and mixed play style and would be much harder to game. That is the problem with the current system, it does not measure skill per game contribution, only by damage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 13:29:12 GMT -5
Will no one agree that poor teammates are equally distributed and so have no net effect on your point level? Same goes for good teammates. -Amid If would be if the system was entirely random. But is it? I would challenge that assumption. As I've said before, Pix doesn't really leave as much to random chance as you might think. Some manipulation is probably going on under the hood to encourage certain kinds of player behavior.
|
|
[AurN] perfectlyGoodInk
Aurora Clan Moderator
Posts: 729
Karma: 556
Platform: Android
Clan: leader of Aurora Nova [AurN]
League: Gold
Server Region: North America
Favorite robot: Bishop from Aliens, although WALL-E is a close second
|
Post by [AurN] perfectlyGoodInk on Mar 21, 2017 13:47:32 GMT -5
It's been a significant improvement for me, as I'll chug over to a nearby unprotected beacon no matter what I'm piloting, but the tanker/clubber problem is still prevalent and still the main determinant of most matches. A leaver queue is a ridiculous band-aid, since it just hides tanking and does nothing to prevent the clubbing that tanking enables.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 13:56:47 GMT -5
It's been a significant improvement for me, as I'll chug over to a nearby unprotected beacon no matter what I'm piloting, but the tanker/clubber problem is still prevalent and still the main determinant of most matches. A leaver queue is a ridiculous band-aid, since it just hides tanking and does nothing to prevent the clubbing that tanking enables.Listen to this man. He speaks the truth. A simple max gear test for each league is all that is needed. If you fail the test, you get no rewards. Clubbing is now over *and* you increase the potential hangar diversity *and* leagues are now more meaningful. "Everyone running the highest level stuff they could possibly have" isn't actually good for the game.
|
|
|
Post by SoCalGrndR on Mar 21, 2017 14:57:31 GMT -5
I have been steadily making a gradual rise through the tiers. Sometimes the rise has felt like a roller coaster, but there has been steady progression overall.
Feb - ranked Gold I and maintained March - made cut Diamond III, by 3 cups and fell back immediately. The weeks since I have hit D II challenge matches 3 times and fell back. What has changed for me is not falling back as far each time. The 2nd time I broke 2400, never went below. The same for 2500 cups. When I broke through to Diamond II I did not just clear I went to 2689, a 1/3 into D II.
I do run 95% solo. I see alot of variance with MM: - wide ranging levels on both sides - clan battles where, I'm the only non-clan/squad - ditchers/tankers/leavers etc.....
*But I also see a tremendous amount of matches that go down to 3 min left & 2 min left and down to the wire matches. I do see alot of matches with a mix of bots that balance out the mix!
*What I dont alot of discussion is the amount of time Pix is taking to rework the game - Bots, Weapons, Maps, Spawn locations, Point System, Leaver League and ... but damn...
For something that is 100% free, 100% choice, I see alot people putting out 100 「female dog」. It is just gets tiring.
If more pilots spent more time sharpening their skills on the battlefield, their time spent sharpening their tongue on the forum would diminish and all would be happier!
|
|
[NovR] VR-01
Destrier
Posts: 71
Karma: 64
Pilot name: VR-01
Platform: Android
Clan: Nova Rising
League: Master
Server Region: Asia
|
Post by [NovR] VR-01 on Mar 22, 2017 22:30:06 GMT -5
The scoring itself does not do much for me, but the fact that wins take you up and losses take you down does. I have always played to win -- no tanking whatsoever -- and this new system forces my team to be on the same page as me.
Barring the occassional ditcher on either side, the matches have been pretty good. I can occassionally win gold when the stars align and I get top 3 damage or beacons.
Yeah, I get hammered quite hard whenever my rating goes high enough for the next tier; in these matches I try to make myself as annoying as possible. Sneaking up to a TT Fury or blasting away the energy shield from an Ancilot on my Thunder Carnage, for example. I'm an annoying pest, and I'm not going down without a fight! This means I still have fun, even when losing.
I'm currently coming up to Gold 2 on Android. 2 qualifying games to go. This is my third attempt. XD
|
|