|
Post by vin5240 on May 31, 2017 18:28:34 GMT -5
OP, you outscored the guy lol just wait til you get a match up vs all Champions like this! (while being in expert) The beacon bar went down very quickly haha Well..I mean they are squadded so they probably have a plan already since squads tend to have an advantage over a team of random players. In squad, you know who is going to cover you while in random team it's a bit difficult communicating.
|
|
|
Post by blackhawk2002 on May 31, 2017 19:18:29 GMT -5
Why is it we complain when we're on the bad end of the MM stick,but never pay attention or worry about it when we're benefiting from it. I'm sure the OP has had plenty of wins where his teams were filled with strong hangers vs bad red teams. Where was the outrage then?
Just a thought, cheers folks.
|
|
sdn
Recruit
Posts: 8
Karma: 4
League: Gold
Server Region: Asia
|
Post by sdn on May 31, 2017 19:57:51 GMT -5
Why is it we complain when we're on the bad end of the MM stick,but never pay attention or worry about it when we're benefiting from it. I'm sure the OP has had plenty of wins where his teams were filled with strong hangers vs bad red teams. Where was the outrage then? Just a thought, cheers folks. I, the OP, agree to this. Have had matches where we went right into the red spawn amd held them there. Those matches dint feel great, they felt awkward. I also had a match in dead city i guess, where i took my cossack all around, capturing all the outer beacons while the red blindly pushed towards the center beacon where my team pinned them down. Red's Beacon bar went down pretty quickly. Not really proud of those matches, hence sweeping them under the rug. It quite possible someone else out there is ranting about a match where i was in the red. After reading all the responses to this thread, i am starting to get it. There are players like me who are cursing MM while getting used to it and then there are players who got used to it, found ways to play around it, squad up, max out or whatever it is that they do at the champs level. Is this fair? I guess a company needs to make money from the game it develops. And the amount of money pix is making is a big proof that the game may not be fair, but the strategy is working out for them. Thumbs up!
|
|
|
Post by Russel on Jun 1, 2017 0:28:24 GMT -5
Alright then, running with that line of logic, if I'm always facing people who are my equal then why am I progressing so fast? You've said I should win my battles 50/50 yet if I did, I wouldn't shoot up so quickly that such a vicious punting would be required to get me back down to earth. Doesn't sound like the matchmaker is as competent at measuring my progress as you claim. Which, in fact, you go on to admit, as you say that with all the variables in the equation there isn't any way the matchmaker can give everyone a fair game, giving even more credence to the theory of pre-determined battles. Like you said; Making even roughly equal fights is an impossibility with all the changing factors, so, applying occam's razor, why should Pixonic bother trying to correct the uncorrectable when there is instead a much easier solution that also happens to make them more money? Also, the reaction image macro passed expiration date years ago. Try using this much more spicy meme. Whoa, it's not the "reaction image macro", it's just some picture to make me sound less complicated that I am. And I haven't said anywhere that "you are facing equal people". It is not the duels, for Pete's sake. More than that, I said several times that it TRYING to make matches more or less competitive, and believe me they are, for the most part. Problem is VERY simple. To get you an enemy - algorythm must know your skill. And to know your skill it must put you in a battle. And to put you in a battle - it must choose right enemies for you. Now you understand the problem? And NO, your skill cannot be determined by a single battle (or even by 10 battles), because you are doing fine against that player on that map, but might be doing bad against same player on a different map. Oh, and on a sidenote - I haven't seen SINGLE ONE rant where people are showing "Won battle" and complain about dishonest matchmaking, I wonder why is that ;)
|
|
|
Post by tekkamanblade on Jun 1, 2017 1:17:15 GMT -5
How about that? If you see a full squad red or pretty sure the match is going to lose, go ahead and leave the damn game. Don't waste your game time on a sure lose game, start another game where you could be matched against bronze new players and wash them like insects + easy 10 gold.
Very easy solution, what is up with all the bs?
|
|
sdn
Recruit
Posts: 8
Karma: 4
League: Gold
Server Region: Asia
|
Post by sdn on Jun 1, 2017 1:21:51 GMT -5
How about that? If you see a full squad red or pretty sure the match is going to lose, go ahead and leave the damn game. Don't waste your game time on a sure lose game, start another game where you could be matched against bronze new players and wash them like insects + easy 10 gold. Very easy solution, what is up with all the bs? All the bs here is because not all players want to 「meow」 out of games like you mentioned. If all players start doing this, then you will have 50% of matches being abandoned and the game will die a slow painful death! So yeah, come up with a better bs!
|
|
sdn
Recruit
Posts: 8
Karma: 4
League: Gold
Server Region: Asia
|
Post by sdn on Jun 1, 2017 1:28:08 GMT -5
Alright then, running with that line of logic, if I'm always facing people who are my equal then why am I progressing so fast? You've said I should win my battles 50/50 yet if I did, I wouldn't shoot up so quickly that such a vicious punting would be required to get me back down to earth. Doesn't sound like the matchmaker is as competent at measuring my progress as you claim. Which, in fact, you go on to admit, as you say that with all the variables in the equation there isn't any way the matchmaker can give everyone a fair game, giving even more credence to the theory of pre-determined battles. Like you said; Making even roughly equal fights is an impossibility with all the changing factors, so, applying occam's razor, why should Pixonic bother trying to correct the uncorrectable when there is instead a much easier solution that also happens to make them more money? Also, the reaction image macro passed expiration date years ago. Try using this much more spicy meme. Whoa, it's not the "reaction image macro", it's just some picture to make me sound less complicated that I am. And I haven't said anywhere that "you are facing equal people". It is not the duels, for Pete's sake. More than that, I said several times that it TRYING to make matches more or less competitive, and believe me they are, for the most part. Problem is VERY simple. To get you an enemy - algorythm must know your skill. And to know your skill it must put you in a battle. And to put you in a battle - it must choose right enemies for you. Now you understand the problem? And NO, your skill cannot be determined by a single battle (or even by 10 battles), because you are doing fine against that player on that map, but might be doing bad against same player on a different map. Oh, and on a sidenote - I haven't seen SINGLE ONE rant where people are showing "Won battle" and complain about dishonest matchmaking, I wonder why is that Classic circular issue. But that is not the problem i was pointing to. My problem is that a level 14 player with light/med bots and silver weapons being pitted against a level 20 player with heavy bots (they start at level 5 i guess?) and gold/wsp weapons. The opponent has surely been playing for a longer time or spent money to get those. Why should i be matched against him in any scenario? You mean to say MM throws players into a battle to see how soon i get killed, so higher battle so that it can then place them in noob battles? Neither of those is fair. But then, 'fair' is relative..
|
|
|
Post by Russel on Jun 1, 2017 4:00:09 GMT -5
Whoa, it's not the "reaction image macro", it's just some picture to make me sound less complicated that I am. And I haven't said anywhere that "you are facing equal people". It is not the duels, for Pete's sake. More than that, I said several times that it TRYING to make matches more or less competitive, and believe me they are, for the most part. Problem is VERY simple. To get you an enemy - algorythm must know your skill. And to know your skill it must put you in a battle. And to put you in a battle - it must choose right enemies for you. Now you understand the problem? And NO, your skill cannot be determined by a single battle (or even by 10 battles), because you are doing fine against that player on that map, but might be doing bad against same player on a different map. Oh, and on a sidenote - I haven't seen SINGLE ONE rant where people are showing "Won battle" and complain about dishonest matchmaking, I wonder why is that ;) Classic circular issue. But that is not the problem i was pointing to. My problem is that a level 14 player with light/med bots and silver weapons being pitted against a level 20 player with heavy bots (they start at level 5 i guess?) and gold/wsp weapons. The opponent has surely been playing for a longer time or spent money to get those. Why should i be matched against him in any scenario? You mean to say MM throws players into a battle to see how soon i get killed, so higher battle so that it can then place them in noob battles? Neither of those is fair. But then, 'fair' is relative.. These numbers mean nothing, honestly. The only thing that matters is your skill. It is impossible to balance out skills if you will take robot/weapon/player level. So "fair" matchmaking is when 80 out of 100 battles are interesting to play.
|
|
|
Post by War Child on Jun 1, 2017 4:40:49 GMT -5
Well, then here is the answer to your question. You were progressing too fast, and to give you decent competition MM was forced to compensate in big steps. I presume that you are not working in IT or mathematical sphere of any sort; The problem (and it is a real one) is to sort HUGE amount of values (players) in some kind of ranking system. More than that, each variable (player) is constantly changing - improving, upgrading weapons, replacing bots, buying something new, optimizing hangar for a map. So, moving in small steps won't ever work, because it would be pretty darn slow (think: years) to sort out several thousands of players this way. No bubble sorting or bisection method would work here. The problem is purely mathematical, and every solution here on forum works great for 10-1000 playerbase, but won't work for several thousands fast enough. If you really like to get inside of the problem - I can provide you with more technical details; if you are just willing to rant and find proof of a conspiracy - then I won't interfere more Alright then, running with that line of logic, if I'm always facing people who are my equal then why am I progressing so fast? You've said I should win my battles 50/50 yet if I did, I wouldn't shoot up so quickly that such a vicious punting would be required to get me back down to earth. Doesn't sound like the matchmaker is as competent at measuring my progress as you claim. Which, in fact, you go on to admit, as you say that with all the variables in the equation there isn't any way the matchmaker can give everyone a fair game, giving even more credence to the theory of pre-determined battles. Like you said; Making even roughly equal fights is an impossibility with all the changing factors, so, applying occam's razor, why should Pixonic bother trying to correct the uncorrectable when there is instead a much easier solution that also happens to make them more money? Also, the reaction image macro passed expiration date years ago. Try using this much more spicy meme. Honestly,I prefer the original
|
|
|
Post by Mechman-Mechout on Jun 1, 2017 9:18:03 GMT -5
Alright then, running with that line of logic, if I'm always facing people who are my equal then why am I progressing so fast? You've said I should win my battles 50/50 yet if I did, I wouldn't shoot up so quickly that such a vicious punting would be required to get me back down to earth. Doesn't sound like the matchmaker is as competent at measuring my progress as you claim. Which, in fact, you go on to admit, as you say that with all the variables in the equation there isn't any way the matchmaker can give everyone a fair game, giving even more credence to the theory of pre-determined battles. Like you said; Making even roughly equal fights is an impossibility with all the changing factors, so, applying occam's razor, why should Pixonic bother trying to correct the uncorrectable when there is instead a much easier solution that also happens to make them more money? Also, the reaction image macro passed expiration date years ago. Try using this much more spicy meme. Whoa, it's not the "reaction image macro", it's just some picture to make me sound less complicated that I am. And I haven't said anywhere that "you are facing equal people". It is not the duels, for Pete's sake. More than that, I said several times that it TRYING to make matches more or less competitive, and believe me they are, for the most part. Problem is VERY simple. To get you an enemy - algorythm must know your skill. And to know your skill it must put you in a battle. And to put you in a battle - it must choose right enemies for you. Now you understand the problem? And NO, your skill cannot be determined by a single battle (or even by 10 battles), because you are doing fine against that player on that map, but might be doing bad against same player on a different map. Oh, and on a sidenote - I haven't seen SINGLE ONE rant where people are showing "Won battle" and complain about dishonest matchmaking, I wonder why is that That's an interesting definition that is also false. - Actually, you said it in your very first post. I don't think I need to say any more about that so I won't. - Now, I had a post all ready to tackle the points you made, but I gave up before I could finish it because I honestly have no idea what kind of point you're trying to make here. Actually after all this I still have little clue what you're saying, because you keep changing your arguments. Are you arguing that the matchmaking is giving a perfectly fair experience, that it mostly gives a fair experience but players are often throwing it off, or that it can't give a fair experience because finding matched enemies gives way to a vicious cycle? - Pretty simple. People aren't quick to complain about winning.
|
|
|
Post by Mechman-Mechout on Jun 1, 2017 9:22:46 GMT -5
Alright then, running with that line of logic, if I'm always facing people who are my equal then why am I progressing so fast? You've said I should win my battles 50/50 yet if I did, I wouldn't shoot up so quickly that such a vicious punting would be required to get me back down to earth. Doesn't sound like the matchmaker is as competent at measuring my progress as you claim. Which, in fact, you go on to admit, as you say that with all the variables in the equation there isn't any way the matchmaker can give everyone a fair game, giving even more credence to the theory of pre-determined battles. Like you said; Making even roughly equal fights is an impossibility with all the changing factors, so, applying occam's razor, why should Pixonic bother trying to correct the uncorrectable when there is instead a much easier solution that also happens to make them more money? Also, the reaction image macro passed expiration date years ago. Try using this much more spicy meme. Honestly,I prefer the original That's okay, one day you'll open your arteries to the miracle of deep-frying.
|
|
|
Post by Russel on Jun 1, 2017 10:02:30 GMT -5
And I haven't said anywhere that "you are facing equal people". It is not the duels, for Pete's sake. More than that, I said several times that it TRYING to make matches more or less competitive, and believe me they are, for the most part. That's an interesting definition that is also false. - Actually, you said it in your very first post. I don't think I need to say any more about that so I won't. - Now, I had a post all ready to tackle the points you made, but I gave up before I could finish it because I honestly have no idea what kind of point you're trying to make here. Actually after all this I still have little clue what you're saying, because you keep changing your arguments. Are you arguing that the matchmaking is giving a perfectly fair experience, that it mostly gives a fair experience but players are often throwing it off, or that it can't give a fair experience because finding matched enemies gives way to a vicious cycle? Not changing arguments, just tried to explain it differently so you might listen, but I see that it's not happening. Okay, I'll put it in less complicated form. It is plain stupid to rant, at the same time, about: "MM is rigged! I am not getting honest competition!" and "Or my God, MM is forcing 50% winrate!!" So, I was illustrating why it is mutually exclusive (sorry, complex language again) impossible to get both "not force 50% rate" and "give equal enemies". I will repeat it once more, so you get the idea. I was saying that in hypothetical situation when one of these statements would be true, it will automatically trigger another one. Please understand the difference between: " [if] You get PERFECT matchmaking, what it would do? It would put you against player of the same skill\bots as you are"and "I haven't said anywhere that "you are facing equal people"."So I'll just repeat it once more: "MatchMaking is neither perfect, nor rigged. But it's much much much better than previous version". I hope that is simple enough not to get people mixed up in my text.
|
|
|
Post by MCYL on Jun 1, 2017 10:09:13 GMT -5
Let the screenshots speak for themselves. I was put in a match where the opponents were so owerpowered. My team members were just about equal in strength as i was. Check out one of the opponent players. Higher level, all heavybots, wsp and gold weapons. He was totally abusing my team until i took him down with my boa, going down myself in the process. What sort of evil matchmaking is this. Its like pix wanted me to lose for sure.
Can someone explain why this and why me? The reason it seemed like Pixonic wanted you to lose is because Pixonic wanted you to lose. The matchmaking is currently programmed to match players against high or low level enemies, dependent on your win rate. They're trying to keep you around 50%, so you'll probably go through a lot more losses before your score is reduced and you can start winning again. And before you even ask; No, no there isn't anything you can do about it. Even if you aren't overwhelmed by the enemy, your team (also selected for win-culling) certainly will be. If you can't handle every game being rigged (and believe me, I can't blame you) I'd advise you abandon this game as soon as possible, because the matchmaking doesn't seem to be improving any day soon. If you're still into giant 'bot games, there's an upcoming project called Battle Titans, created by the old devs of War Robots. It's definitely worth a look. Looking at the results that doesn't seem the case. I think Pixonic assumed you know about beacons. I mean...c'mon man low tiers have a heap of lighter bots even if you defend every beacon you still need at least 3 to win...how many did your team get?
|
|
|
Post by Mechman-Mechout on Jun 1, 2017 11:58:25 GMT -5
That's an interesting definition that is also false. - Actually, you said it in your very first post. I don't think I need to say any more about that so I won't. - Now, I had a post all ready to tackle the points you made, but I gave up before I could finish it because I honestly have no idea what kind of point you're trying to make here. Actually after all this I still have little clue what you're saying, because you keep changing your arguments. Are you arguing that the matchmaking is giving a perfectly fair experience, that it mostly gives a fair experience but players are often throwing it off, or that it can't give a fair experience because finding matched enemies gives way to a vicious cycle? Not changing arguments, just tried to explain it differently so you might listen, but I see that it's not happening. Okay, I'll put it in less complicated form. It is plain stupid to rant, at the same time, about: "MM is rigged! I am not getting honest competition!" and "Or my God, MM is forcing 50% winrate!!" So, I was illustrating why it is mutually exclusive (sorry, complex language again) impossible to get both "not force 50% rate" and "give equal enemies". I will repeat it once more, so you get the idea. I was saying that in hypothetical situation when one of these statements would be true, it will automatically trigger another one. Please understand the difference between: " [if] You get PERFECT matchmaking, what it would do? It would put you against player of the same skill\bots as you are"and "I haven't said anywhere that "you are facing equal people"."So I'll just repeat it once more: "MatchMaking is neither perfect, nor rigged. But it's much much much better than previous version". I hope that is simple enough not to get people mixed up in my text. Alright, look dude. Forget the arguments, the semantics and the figures. I, and many others, have seen a trend that puts strong evidence towards pre-determined outcomes. Battles are strongly biased in one side's favor, more often than not. I've seen it so many times it isn't even funny. You explain this as the MM simply trying to find "equally skilled" players, which it cannot do with accuracy, therefor, lopsided battles. I say that I shouldn't be having teammates exhaust their hangars within four minutes of the match beginning, even if the battle is lopsided. I say that if your matchmaking is acting like that, then it's either very poor or rigged. The opponents are not fair. Not because we lose, but because of how we lose.
|
|
|
Post by Mechman-Mechout on Jun 1, 2017 12:00:08 GMT -5
The reason it seemed like Pixonic wanted you to lose is because Pixonic wanted you to lose. The matchmaking is currently programmed to match players against high or low level enemies, dependent on your win rate. They're trying to keep you around 50%, so you'll probably go through a lot more losses before your score is reduced and you can start winning again. And before you even ask; No, no there isn't anything you can do about it. Even if you aren't overwhelmed by the enemy, your team (also selected for win-culling) certainly will be. If you can't handle every game being rigged (and believe me, I can't blame you) I'd advise you abandon this game as soon as possible, because the matchmaking doesn't seem to be improving any day soon. If you're still into giant 'bot games, there's an upcoming project called Battle Titans, created by the old devs of War Robots. It's definitely worth a look. Looking at the results that doesn't seem the case. I think Pixonic assumed you know about beacons. I mean...c'mon man low tiers have a heap of lighter bots even if you defend every beacon you still need at least 3 to win...how many did your team get? You quoted the wrong person dude, dunno if he's going to see your reply.
|
|
|
Post by Russel on Jun 1, 2017 12:18:29 GMT -5
Not changing arguments, just tried to explain it differently so you might listen, but I see that it's not happening. Okay, I'll put it in less complicated form. It is plain stupid to rant, at the same time, about: "MM is rigged! I am not getting honest competition!" and "Or my God, MM is forcing 50% winrate!!" So, I was illustrating why it is mutually exclusive (sorry, complex language again) impossible to get both "not force 50% rate" and "give equal enemies". I will repeat it once more, so you get the idea. I was saying that in hypothetical situation when one of these statements would be true, it will automatically trigger another one. Please understand the difference between: " [if] You get PERFECT matchmaking, what it would do? It would put you against player of the same skill\bots as you are"and "I haven't said anywhere that "you are facing equal people"."So I'll just repeat it once more: "MatchMaking is neither perfect, nor rigged. But it's much much much better than previous version". I hope that is simple enough not to get people mixed up in my text. Alright, look dude. Forget the arguments, the semantics and the figures. I, and many others, have seen a trend that puts strong evidence towards pre-determined outcomes. Battles are strongly biased in one side's favor, more often than not. I've seen it so many times it isn't even funny. You explain this as the MM simply trying to find "equally skilled" players, which it cannot do with accuracy, therefor, lopsided battles. I say that I shouldn't be having teammates exhaust their hangars within four minutes of the match beginning, even if the battle is lopsided. I say that if your matchmaking is acting like that, then it's either very poor or rigged. The opponents are not fair. Not because we lose, but because of how we lose. Absolutely. MM is pretty bad, and some matches are just laughable. I am 100% agree with you here. But it is bad not because it's rigged, and is better than hangar-based system. And it is still better than any other idea discussed here, and pretty playable, with awful battles being more of an exception than a rule.
|
|
|
Post by Mechman-Mechout on Jun 1, 2017 12:25:34 GMT -5
Alright, look dude. Forget the arguments, the semantics and the figures. I, and many others, have seen a trend that puts strong evidence towards pre-determined outcomes. Battles are strongly biased in one side's favor, more often than not. I've seen it so many times it isn't even funny. You explain this as the MM simply trying to find "equally skilled" players, which it cannot do with accuracy, therefor, lopsided battles. I say that I shouldn't be having teammates exhaust their hangars within four minutes of the match beginning, even if the battle is lopsided. I say that if your matchmaking is acting like that, then it's either very poor or rigged. The opponents are not fair. Not because we lose, but because of how we lose. Absolutely. MM is pretty bad, and some matches are just laughable. I am 100% agree with you here. But it is bad not because it's rigged, and is better than hangar-based system. And it is still better than any other idea discussed here, and pretty playable, with awful battles being more of an exception than a rule. Instead of continuing a pointless argument, let us instead agree to mostly disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Russel on Jun 1, 2017 12:30:59 GMT -5
Absolutely. MM is pretty bad, and some matches are just laughable. I am 100% agree with you here. But it is bad not because it's rigged, and is better than hangar-based system. And it is still better than any other idea discussed here, and pretty playable, with awful battles being more of an exception than a rule. Instead of continuing a pointless argument, let us instead agree to mostly disagree. I was going to post a "handshake" pic, but remembered that you don't like simple pictures, so I'll just agree without pics.
|
|
|
Post by make7upyours on Jun 1, 2017 13:04:42 GMT -5
Welcome to the suck, friend. Well said. /thread
|
|
sdn
Recruit
Posts: 8
Karma: 4
League: Gold
Server Region: Asia
|
Post by sdn on Jun 2, 2017 0:32:39 GMT -5
The reason it seemed like Pixonic wanted you to lose is because Pixonic wanted you to lose. The matchmaking is currently programmed to match players against high or low level enemies, dependent on your win rate. They're trying to keep you around 50%, so you'll probably go through a lot more losses before your score is reduced and you can start winning again. And before you even ask; No, no there isn't anything you can do about it. Even if you aren't overwhelmed by the enemy, your team (also selected for win-culling) certainly will be. If you can't handle every game being rigged (and believe me, I can't blame you) I'd advise you abandon this game as soon as possible, because the matchmaking doesn't seem to be improving any day soon. If you're still into giant 'bot games, there's an upcoming project called Battle Titans, created by the old devs of War Robots. It's definitely worth a look. Looking at the results that doesn't seem the case. I think Pixonic assumed you know about beacons. I mean...c'mon man low tiers have a heap of lighter bots even if you defend every beacon you still need at least 3 to win...how many did your team get? Hey brother, please dont judge. The reason i took the pain of coming here, creating an account and starting this thread is because i had a match where a bunch of heavy bots rushed straight to our spawn amd shredded our team to peices with gold and wsp weapons. We could barely move out of spawn to go grab the beacons. Shredded! Totally pawned! And that is when i checked the stats after battle and saw four out of our 6 opponents had all heavy bots while my team was full of silver only med/light bots. Was wondering how the mm ended up matching us.
|
|
|
Post by Russel on Jun 2, 2017 4:08:46 GMT -5
Looking at the results that doesn't seem the case. I think Pixonic assumed you know about beacons. I mean...c'mon man low tiers have a heap of lighter bots even if you defend every beacon you still need at least 3 to win...how many did your team get? Hey brother, please dont judge. The reason i took the pain of coming here, creating an account and starting this thread is because i had a match where a bunch of heavy bots rushed straight to our spawn amd shredded our team to peices with gold and wsp weapons. We could barely move out of spawn to go grab the beacons. Shredded! Totally pawned! And that is when i checked the stats after battle and saw four out of our 6 opponents had all heavy bots while my team was full of silver only med/light bots. Was wondering how the mm ended up matching us. Hey, bro, I'm with you on that. Everybody is starting on the same page; you never want to know thing I was assuming or taking for granted in the game when I first started :-) As a general rule it is better NOT to be hit in a smaller bot, than to be be hit in a bigger, badder bot. So I recommend you upgrade your bots, they are good enough all the way up to Gold, maybe even Diamond. You will be able to run, get beacons and deal some damage with them. Oh, and whatever you do - do NOT remain at spawn. Remember, if your spawn even get overrun - you can always eject from your bot and respawn in new bot back in the base, without need to run all the way back there. (of course you might think about getting 5 slot to be able to do that painlessly)
|
|
sdn
Recruit
Posts: 8
Karma: 4
League: Gold
Server Region: Asia
|
Post by sdn on Jun 2, 2017 21:05:39 GMT -5
Got it! If MM puts me in a losing battle with teammates who dont capture beacons, i have to do all of it by myself to get that victory! No other way to it. Right? But before you say "hey you owerpowered the enemies", no i did not, i out-skilled them. Thematch was in Yamantau. Took first three beacons for my team with my cossack before it died at the center beacon. Had to recapture the center beacon four more times and hold it for advantage. Hence the 600k damage. The match ended with the red bad just a little lesser than ours at the end of time. Very close battle. Yes am happy that i pulled this off against a team full of irritating run-arounds and an enemy team obsessed with the center beacon. But now, whats next? Here's my hangar. How do i proceed with these robots? I have the gold for the fourth hangar slot, but i am holding it off until my three bots are in a decent shape. I just crossed level 20 and got the workshop. So no plasma weapons for now till i gather enough wsp. How do i level these bots to remain competetive and balanced in my tier? Should i keep them or switch? Also, my griff is lvl6 with lvl5 weapons. Can someone explain how much i can lvl my boa and cossack to meet my griff's scale to fall under a consistent tier? And final question, how does the league matter into all this. P.S. I have gone through other threads but unable to grasp the concept of balanced levelling. Hence seeking i fo specific to my hangar. Please dont judge.
|
|
|
Post by Russel on Jun 3, 2017 0:10:33 GMT -5
Got it! If MM puts me in a losing battle with teammates who dont capture beacons, i have to do all of it by myself to get that victory! No other way to it. Right? But before you say "hey you owerpowered the enemies", no i did not, i out-skilled them. Thematch was in Yamantau. Took first three beacons for my team with my cossack before it died at the center beacon. Had to recapture the center beacon four more times and hold it for advantage. Hence the 600k damage. The match ended with the red bad just a little lesser than ours at the end of time. Very close battle. Yes am happy that i pulled this off against a team full of irritating run-arounds and an enemy team obsessed with the center beacon. But now, whats next? Here's my hangar. How do i proceed with these robots? I have the gold for the fourth hangar slot, but i am holding it off until my three bots are in a decent shape. I just crossed level 20 and got the workshop. So no plasma weapons for now till i gather enough wsp. How do i level these bots to remain competetive and balanced in my tier? Should i keep them or switch? Also, my griff is lvl6 with lvl5 weapons. Can someone explain how much i can lvl my boa and cossack to meet my griff's scale to fall under a consistent tier? And final question, how does the league matter into all this. P.S. I have gone through other threads but unable to grasp the concept of balanced levelling. Hence seeking i fo specific to my hangar. Please dont judge. :) A great job indeed! Remind me of good times when I was roaming fields in my Cossack.. So, on your questions. Get as many slots as fast as possible. Many bots/weapons are coming at level 5/6 right of the shelf, so you basically can get lvl5-6 bot/weapons in a day. More than that, upgrading something to lvl4-5 is very fast usually, too. So you can get, say, a Leo(6) with a Thunder and Pinatas (5) for Silver right away. Now to hangar - ditch Punishers, they are bad for now. Might became good in summer, but now there are better choices. You can try and build 100% silver hangar, as I once did myself. You got Griffin with long range rockets already, and a Cossack; might try out putting a shield on a Cossack, to make it more durable. Also get yourself a Leo (maybe even two), with a Thunder+Pinatas for personal encounters. Also you can try Molot Griffin, it has 800m maximum range, but actually good at 600-700 range - exactly what you need to counter Tulu, Pins, Zeus and Tridents (you will get a lot of latter sometime soon). Then when you get you WP collected enough - make a move either to a long range (Tridents for a Leo/Natasha) or a short range (plasma for Griffin) Or even get a Carnage, it's the best WP bot out there. The main thing here is to try to keep upgrading all the time, because time is the most valuable resource in a game. So, you don't want to spend it on 「dookie」. On your current stuff: Griffin is definitely worth keeping. Boa and Cossack might be good, too. I like playing Cossack in Diamond myself; but that's "subjective" bots. So if you don't like them - replace with something else. Maybe a Leo or another Griffin for now. Or get a Natasha for long range (don't run Natasha in close combat, it's 「dookie」, really). Upgrade weapons first. Try to make everything +\- equally leveled, so get everything to lvl6 for starters. Bots are best used at lvl9, and weapons are good enough on 8-9. Of course 12/12 performs better, but take too much time/silver for that. Dont spend Gold for upgrades/paint jobs, do daily tasks and you will have plenty of it soon. I made 11k+ in three months time, and I play 1-2 hours a day. Silver is a real problem, even if you don't fell it now. Go to wiki and see upgrade prices for levels 7 and above. warrobots.wikia.com/And don't believe that you need gold weapons/bots to be competitive. They are fun to play with, but not required for win in any way. It is easy to bring havoc to Golden guys with just WP and silver stuff. Oh, and don't buy WP with gold never ever ever forever.
|
|
|
Post by Russel on Jun 3, 2017 0:13:41 GMT -5
To be clear: by saying "upgrade weapons first" I mean: 1) upgrade everything to equal level 2) when bots and weapons are equal, upgrade weapons one more time 3) go to p.1 and repeat
P.s and your weapon level/bots/slots have minimal impact on your league standing. Almost none.
|
|
|
Post by MCYL on Jun 3, 2017 0:57:58 GMT -5
Keep in mind everyone when you are squadding unless your entire squad is at the same level you will be numerically slightly disadvantaged. This is because MM places a squad according to its strongest member. As to facing impossible odds whilst playing solo, you have 2 problems. tanking losers on the way down in your team and tanking losers on their way up in the other team. This is a huge problem at expert level as a large population of expert, master & champions are hanging from bronze to gold to LQ. Hence MM has to lump in several tiers together to form a game. Here's an example of one on their way up: Even without end of game scoreboards it's pretty easy to find them, they tend to get played for fools during a firefight but soak damage like it's trivial. It's pretty funny, with Pix's ID mistake you can take a look at the 「dookie」s on FB if they didn't setup a gaming acc.
|
|
|
Post by hyderier on Jun 3, 2017 1:00:14 GMT -5
sdn There is no balanced leveling. The upgrades get so slow, that your progress is stopped by MM throwing you too good opponents. Well, unless you use a lot of real money... In a way it doesn't matter what you do. That's the upside of current MM. So do what you find most fun way to play, what works for you. Of course you don't know what's fun and works for you without trying, so in fact it does matter greatly what you do... The crucial question, do you play for free or are you buying gold with real money? If you are playing for free, beacon capture gold is the only gold you can keep getting reliably (in addition to the daily missions), without shooting up through league ranks to be soon teamed up with other blues who outclass you (and get all the damage gold). So optimize for beacon capture. Note, optimize, not maximize, because you also want to win the battle.
|
|
|
Post by moses on Jun 3, 2017 1:19:32 GMT -5
Alright then, running with that line of logic, if I'm always facing people who are my equal then why am I progressing so fast? You've said I should win my battles 50/50 yet if I did, I wouldn't shoot up so quickly that such a vicious punting would be required to get me back down to earth. Doesn't sound like the matchmaker is as competent at measuring my progress as you claim. Which, in fact, you go on to admit, as you say that with all the variables in the equation there isn't any way the matchmaker can give everyone a fair game, giving even more credence to the theory of pre-determined battles. Like you said; Making even roughly equal fights is an impossibility with all the changing factors, so, applying occam's razor, why should Pixonic bother trying to correct the uncorrectable when there is instead a much easier solution that also happens to make them more money? Also, the reaction image macro passed expiration date years ago. Try using this much more spicy meme. Whoa, it's not the "reaction image macro", it's just some picture to make me sound less complicated that I am. And I haven't said anywhere that "you are facing equal people". It is not the duels, for Pete's sake. More than that, I said several times that it TRYING to make matches more or less competitive, and believe me they are, for the most part. Problem is VERY simple. To get you an enemy - algorythm must know your skill. And to know your skill it must put you in a battle. And to put you in a battle - it must choose right enemies for you. Now you understand the problem? And NO, your skill cannot be determined by a single battle (or even by 10 battles), because you are doing fine against that player on that map, but might be doing bad against same player on a different map. Oh, and on a sidenote - I haven't seen SINGLE ONE rant where people are showing "Won battle" and complain about dishonest matchmaking, I wonder why is that Matchmaking theoretically works here by matching you with people at similar league points to you - checking for available players +\- X points from you and widening that search as time goes since there is an optimal balance to time to get a match and the spread of league point levels in a given game. so the key variables to determine how close league point spread in for a specific instance of matchmaking are: 1) number of available players of a given league points level in matchmaking at that given moment 2) the rate at which the boundaries of the search expand obviously there are vast numbers of concurrent instances and players entering and leaving the MM queue all the time plus other variables, but basically that is it. what determines win rate in the ideal world is then whether a players current league points put him in the same ball park as players of similar ability (function of player skill and hangar, not controlled by Pix). If other players with similar league points are worse than you, then your win rate should increase, league points increase and you rise up the leagues until you are in the right place for your given abilities (skill plus hangar), at which point you should plateau as win rate trends to 50%. vice versa if your league points put you in matches with people of higher abilities this will mean lower win rate and you fall down the leagues. so key to getting this system working is: 1) setting the initial league points of the player - the monthly resets, this must be more than a function of win rate, damage alone and should take in an assessment of hangar (as part of a Pix algorithm) 2) having sufficient concurrent active players of given abilities 3) having an efficient matching algorithm to sort them quickly and getting it so that league point spread is minimised. This system is already sufficient to get people to spend money on gold and premium since skill alone will only get you so far with a given hangar and there are significant advantages to certain gold weapons and silver for upgrades at the level 10+ really needs VIP if you want to get enough for the next one by the time the 4-5 day counter is up. So what causes the problems we all, including the OP are complaining about? My view is that it is a combination of 2 and 3 above ( sometimes insufficient players of a given level and plus some inefficiencies in the matching algorithm - maybe prioritising speed of match too much over quality?) plus the human factor of leavers, tankers, people with poor internet connections and occasional people that hand their device to their 3 year old kid to play a few games. The best fix? Have more players, more engaged, more frequently online. People enjoying the game will spend time and money (if you price and pitch monetisation right for the given audience). People also spend money if the playing field changes - new / rebalanced bots / weapons suddenly become change the dynamic. There is room to create some frustration to nudge monetisation , but this is better done for Pix by shaking the game play up and making old hangars semi-redundant and force change in bots / weapons / style of play than by screwing us over by purposefully giving you bad matches. In fact, I would guess that coming up with a system to purposefully give you bad matches would be even harder than getting the match making to work properly and give you consistently decent matches
|
|
|
Post by hyderier on Jun 3, 2017 3:33:53 GMT -5
1) setting the initial league points of the player - the monthly resets, What do you mean? There are no monthly resets. The start-of-season 5 qualification matches are just normal matches, gaining/losing normal amount of league points. They're just not shown for 5 matches. Kinda lame really. Or did it change for this league season? At least for me it looked exactly like that also this time.
|
|
|
Post by moses on Jun 3, 2017 4:17:13 GMT -5
1) setting the initial league points of the player - the monthly resets, What do you mean? There are no monthly resets. The start-of-season 5 qualification matches are just normal matches, gaining/losing normal amount of league points. They're just not shown for 5 matches. Kinda lame really. Or did it change for this league season? At least for me it looked exactly like that also this time. If you screw up those matches you will drop to lower league, if you do really well you should move up. At least that is what should be happening. As I remember people discussed using it specifically to tank quickly and get the gold again for promotion as they move back up the leagues In champions they reset you back to 5000 points every time so that you can always drop down and new players can make it into champions and be on the same points level I think what we see though is that they are still not getting it right, hence the constant changes, but the theory is right
|
|
|
Post by Russel on Jun 3, 2017 4:24:31 GMT -5
Whoa, it's not the "reaction image macro", it's just some picture to make me sound less complicated that I am. And I haven't said anywhere that "you are facing equal people". It is not the duels, for Pete's sake. More than that, I said several times that it TRYING to make matches more or less competitive, and believe me they are, for the most part. Problem is VERY simple. To get you an enemy - algorythm must know your skill. And to know your skill it must put you in a battle. And to put you in a battle - it must choose right enemies for you. Now you understand the problem? And NO, your skill cannot be determined by a single battle (or even by 10 battles), because you are doing fine against that player on that map, but might be doing bad against same player on a different map. Oh, and on a sidenote - I haven't seen SINGLE ONE rant where people are showing "Won battle" and complain about dishonest matchmaking, I wonder why is that ;) Matchmaking theoretically works here by matching you with people at similar league points to you - checking for available players +\- X points from you and widening that search as time goes since there is an optimal balance to time to get a match and the spread of league point levels in a given game. so the key variables to determine how close league point spread in for a specific instance of matchmaking are: 1) number of available players of a given league points level in matchmaking at that given moment 2) the rate at which the boundaries of the search expand obviously there are vast numbers of concurrent instances and players entering and leaving the MM queue all the time plus other variables, but basically that is it. what determines win rate in the ideal world is then whether a players current league points put him in the same ball park as players of similar ability (function of player skill and hangar, not controlled by Pix). If other players with similar league points are worse than you, then your win rate should increase, league points increase and you rise up the leagues until you are in the right place for your given abilities (skill plus hangar), at which point you should plateau as win rate trends to 50%. vice versa if your league points put you in matches with people of higher abilities this will mean lower win rate and you fall down the leagues. so key to getting this system working is: 1) setting the initial league points of the player - the monthly resets, this must be more than a function of win rate, damage alone and should take in an assessment of hangar (as part of a Pix algorithm) 2) having sufficient concurrent active players of given abilities 3) having an efficient matching algorithm to sort them quickly and getting it so that league point spread is minimised. This system is already sufficient to get people to spend money on gold and premium since skill alone will only get you so far with a given hangar and there are significant advantages to certain gold weapons and silver for upgrades at the level 10+ really needs VIP if you want to get enough for the next one by the time the 4-5 day counter is up. So what causes the problems we all, including the OP are complaining about? My view is that it is a combination of 2 and 3 above ( sometimes insufficient players of a given level and plus some inefficiencies in the matching algorithm - maybe prioritising speed of match too much over quality?) plus the human factor of leavers, tankers, people with poor internet connections and occasional people that hand their device to their 3 year old kid to play a few games. The best fix? Have more players, more engaged, more frequently online. People enjoying the game will spend time and money (if you price and pitch monetisation right for the given audience). People also spend money if the playing field changes - new / rebalanced bots / weapons suddenly become change the dynamic. There is room to create some frustration to nudge monetisation , but this is better done for Pix by shaking the game play up and making old hangars semi-redundant and force change in bots / weapons / style of play than by screwing us over by purposefully giving you bad matches. In fact, I would guess that coming up with a system to purposefully give you bad matches would be even harder than getting the match making to work properly and give you consistently decent matches That would be true in the hypothetical world, where everybody plays the same strategy with same bots. But in real life, you might have a sniper (a good one), who can be extremely efficient (say, even on DeadCity or PowerPlant) if he is in the same team with some 「deteriorated bum-bum」 knife-fighter. So, in the same team, these guys could outperform Champions, easily. However, if you put two such snipers on the same team with, say, support bots (Trident Fury) and beacon runners, they would be outperformed by a more balanced team. So I hope they are matching players not only by League points, but by some "compatibility score", too. But that might be just my imagination :-)
|
|