Post by beaconzzzz on Mar 21, 2017 16:10:07 GMT -5
The war robots legue system is a great way to rank players, ditchers are still garbage, but thats life. Their decision to have the matchmaker creating balanced games is ok as well, but together the system doesn't work. The whole team gets points or the whole team doesn't, this does not work for players actually trying to move legues but its a great way for players to stay where they are.
Maybe using damage as a benchmark isn't completely fair, but using winning or losing as the only benchmark creates insane levels of uncertainty for players rankings. This could be solved by having the top players of the top teams and the bottom players of the lower teams gaining and losing massive amounts of legue points while the opposite players lose single digits. But since the range of points is not large enough, every player will spend all their time oscillating between two known points.
The lowest being a point where they can single handedly clinch a game against the most capable opponents at that level, and the point where five of the most capable teammates at that level cannot carry you to victory against the least capable opponents of that legue.
I finish with the most damage half of the times that I lose, and the other half, I'm either in the middle of my team or i glitched out, but I'm still losing 3/8ths of my games because i matched with teammates who are trash. Now i experience almost no mobility. I believe due to the small sample size of games I am on the lower end of this possible spectrum and it pisses me off.
Is the possibility of a low damage player assisting in a victory really matter more than the possibility that a high damage player got screwed by 「dookie」ty teammates? I don't think so. In the likely situation, low damage teammates don't contribute much (think they do? adjust point disbursment with beacon numbers) and high damage players are getting the most done.
Maybe using damage as a benchmark isn't completely fair, but using winning or losing as the only benchmark creates insane levels of uncertainty for players rankings. This could be solved by having the top players of the top teams and the bottom players of the lower teams gaining and losing massive amounts of legue points while the opposite players lose single digits. But since the range of points is not large enough, every player will spend all their time oscillating between two known points.
The lowest being a point where they can single handedly clinch a game against the most capable opponents at that level, and the point where five of the most capable teammates at that level cannot carry you to victory against the least capable opponents of that legue.
I finish with the most damage half of the times that I lose, and the other half, I'm either in the middle of my team or i glitched out, but I'm still losing 3/8ths of my games because i matched with teammates who are trash. Now i experience almost no mobility. I believe due to the small sample size of games I am on the lower end of this possible spectrum and it pisses me off.
Is the possibility of a low damage player assisting in a victory really matter more than the possibility that a high damage player got screwed by 「dookie」ty teammates? I don't think so. In the likely situation, low damage teammates don't contribute much (think they do? adjust point disbursment with beacon numbers) and high damage players are getting the most done.