Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   
Title: Zero-K: All Welcome
Host: CZrankSpringiee
Game version: Zero-K v1.4.6.12
Engine version: 100.0
Started: 7 years ago
Duration: 10 minutes
Players: 6
Bots: False
Mission: False
Watch Replay Now
Manual download

Team 1
Chance of victory: 41.1%

BErankFlipstip
Lynx
CZrankSap_ru
Team 2
Chance of victory: 58.9%

UArankdahn
USrankyanom
GBrankSlackbladder

Show winners



Preview
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 3 (46 records)
sort

7 years ago
Another good example of why full communism is stupid and teaches new players the wrong things. Sap_ru opened with a line of defenders and didn't even build any mexes until like halfway through the game, subsidized entirely by his teammates. Lynx ended up dying from being unable to produce enough units thanks to the resource drain going to Sap_ru's useless porc.

Honestly watching games like this makes me angry, and I doubt I'm the only one. Obviously Sap_ru is new, so mistakes are to be expected, but at the same time he basically robbed his team blind and caused them to do a lot worse than they would have done if it had just been 2v3 without him.

What's worse is that I've seen some 'new' players who have been around long enough that they've figured out how this works and actually abuse it on purpose. I mean, why should a newb bother learning to play well when they can just steal resources from their team and screw around playing com hero and porc fortress until the game ends? There's no accountability anywhere in this.
+1 / -1
quote:
Every solution which is not "have more players so that nabs that build no mexes get matched against nabs that build no mexes" is a bandaid at best.

I'm still pretty sure the problem is mismatched bad players, not communism. (I say bad player rather than newbie because Sap_ru is not very new.)

[Spoiler]

I also have much less than zero interest in seeing teammates contest mexes with each other, which is the only aspect of communism which would fix the issue you're talking about here.

Reverting overdrive and comm income communism is at least worth consideration (however that is also a conversation we are exceedingly efficient at having).
+7 / -0
snoke
7 years ago
if i was sap i would be annoyed seeing aeonios and chesti pissing bout his way playing on the forum and the replay as he didnt do bad (specially in context to elo and balance)
+0 / -0

7 years ago
snoke you're pretty terrible so I don't really care what you think. :[

I'm not saying that the teams were well balanced in this game, or that balance was possible with these players, but the game could have lasted longer and been less one-sided were it not for disproportionately throwing metal at a non-contributing player.

I'm not suggesting that communism be abolished, either, just that it should be cut in half. That way there would be a better balance between personal responsibility and supporting weaker players. I also think reclaim should be half-communized, for a variety of reasons. Privatizing overdrive would have had zero effect on this game, since overdrive never became relevant for that team anyway.

I also don't believe that segregating noobs into noob-only games is a good idea, even if we hypothetically had a much larger playerbase. It takes a good player to punish bad habits, and I think it's beneficial to have good players on the same team as noobs in order to teach them. However I think it's very bad when a noob doesn't build mexes but then doesn't see their income suffer as a result, because then they may easily fail to see what they did wrong in the first place, or fail to understand just how bad it was since the cost got dumped on someone else.

Finally, I don't think discussing this is pointless. The implementation isn't that complicated, and although I haven't looked at the code I'm pretty confident that I could have a working system PR'd in a day or two. However coding something that nobody else thinks is a good idea is most definitely pointless, and something I obviously can't avoid without discussing it first.
+0 / -3
quote:
snoke you're pretty terrible so I don't really care what you think.

He's 300 elo above you, so how is this even supposed to work?

Or if you think he's a terrible person, not a terrible player then your line is even worse.
+0 / -0
USrankaeonios you are pretty crap at ZK thus all of your arguments are void.
Fell free to prove me otherwise by winning a 1v1 game against me.
+1 / -1
Skasi
quote:
you are pretty crap at ZK thus all of your arguments are void

Buuut since you're the one saying that this argument is void too, riiight green hat pleb? :P


USrankaeonios do you randomly watch replays of past battles? I'm just curious, the playerlist doesn't show you as a player/live spec. Also, could you elaborate on "you're pretty terrible"? Is this about skill-at-ZK, is this about something that happened in this replay, is it even related to ZK or perhaps something completely different?
+1 / -0

7 years ago
Unless I'm mistaken, Snoke is favoured to win vs. aeonios 85% of the time? lol.

Hidden elos are a disease in the ZK community, driving our ragers to stay.
+0 / -0

7 years ago
http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/422571

snoke plops next to the one mex in the crater instead of next to the 3 mexes in the corner, then takes forever to take the corner mexes. Loses based on pure eco failure, a newb mistake at best. Am I supposed to take his comments on eco balance seriously? Also if sap gets offended he should make an effort to improve. Is anyone here seriously going to tell me that the way he played was even remotely skilled or that it benefitted his team at all? I don't recall saying anything that insulted him personally and I'm not going to sit here and tolerate snarky comments insinuating that I did.

I haven't played in quite a while but elo seems like it's been inflated badly since I last played, especially in teams. I've seen a lot of players that are considerably worse than me, that have 1600+ elo these days. Means nothing. Also, I was never really big on team games although I did play them from time to time, but the majority of the team games I've seen recently (last 6 months?) have sucked horribly, this one being a good example, and I'm pointing to the recent changes in communism and ROI as being responsible for the decay in game quality. I think having good quality games is a major contributor to new player retention, which is another major concern that this game currently faces.

PLrankOrfelius you hardly play anymore, and most games outside of tournaments you tend to resign rush. If you were playing seriously I doubt that I could beat you, but I've also been working on an ai for quite some time now which has given me a lot of insights into the game that are not reflected in my elo.
+0 / -0


7 years ago
So you want a higher ROI income time (especially for mexes)? If I understand correctly, you think it is more important for games to be higher quality than it is for new players to feel like they are able to contribute to the games. Perhaps there is some truth in that, they can aspire to be the ones with resources. However it can backfire when people end up spamming economy and effectively depriving it from their allies.
+0 / -0

7 years ago
Elo inflation might account for like... 100 elo maybe? Depends where you are. Just because you can spot mistakes in other people's play doesn't mean you're better than them. It just means they're not perfect. There are very few players here who are even able to play an entire game without fucking up enormously in some way.
+1 / -0
Skasi
I consider MoonQ10x to be very unbalanced and to be favoring NE in 1v1. Everything is so far apart for SW and the heightmap slows down movement of reinforcements even more. That said, rushing LLT/Defender and those four windgens at front seem pretty strange indeed. Anyway, a single game is not really meaningful. I'm certain every player's had some extremely awful situations.
+0 / -0


7 years ago
quote:
I don't recall saying anything that insulted him personally and I'm not going to sit here and tolerate snarky comments insinuating that I did.

quote:
snoke you're pretty terrible

My patience with deliberate obtuseness has been ground very thin in the past few days and I do not appreciate seeing it wear out further.
+0 / -0
snoke
7 years ago
you blame ppl for focussing on strategies and teamplay instead of silly backyard mexes. you blame me for pointing out ppl might find it unpolite u blame them. u say u dont care any answers to your critic but post it anyways... now u blame for my way playing? whats your problem mate seriously a teammate fighting for the front line is generally alot more usefull then a teammate building his backyard garden. instead of playing some teamgames and maybe start understanding this game u blame it should become more sim city. cant take this shit serious
+0 / -0
I went and watched this game and the one aeonios linked.

It seems like what is being complained about is an inability for big teams players to adapt to smaller teams/1v1. In big teams, plenty of players can get away with not knowing how to mex, because territory becomes more important once there's a certain player density.

In both cases, the things that Sap_ru and snoke did were acceptable or even good play if it was a more populated game. Hence why snoke's elo doesn't reflect how poor a mexless start is for win-rate. They likely play more big teams than small.

So I think Aeonios' criticism is kind of valid, but it's specific and unasked for, and he has no justification for calling snoke terrible. It's also not grounds for casual dismissal. Snoke is simply a better teams player despite his circumstantially suboptimal eco, and Aeonios's eco isn't so much better than Snokes that he can play the authority card. If Aeonios' was any good at eco he'd be 1700+.
+3 / -0

7 years ago
At the risk of taking USrankaeonios more seriously than his attitude deserves...

First and foremost, a system which will lead to teammates contesting mexes with each other is simply bad, for that reason. End of story. I believe there is no redeeming feature of any such system which would outweigh this.

quote:
I also think reclaim should be half-communized

This is a conversation which has not been had before. That being said, I think this would make the problem you are complaining about even worse, since reclaiming aggressively is how many high-elo teams players get ahead and carry their team (watch almost any SKrankSvatopluk game).

quote:
I also don't believe that segregating noobs into noob-only games is a good idea, even if we hypothetically had a much larger playerbase. It takes a good player to punish bad habits, and I think it's beneficial to have good players on the same team as noobs in order to teach them.

It is a matter of degrees. Players should be matched with other players in a range around their current skill. However, (say) a 1400 player is likely to both learn more and have more fun playing against a 1600-1700 player rather than getting shitstomped by a 2100 player. Playing against the 2100 player teaches lessons which the 1400 player is simply not ready to learn yet. The way for a 1400 player to best learn from a 2100 player is to watch the 2100 player play games against evenly matched opponents IMO.

quote:
However I think it's very bad when a noob doesn't build mexes but then doesn't see their income suffer as a result, because then they may easily fail to see what they did wrong in the first place, or fail to understand just how bad it was since the cost got dumped on someone else.

This would be solved by players who do this being sometimes matched with other players who do this, so there is nobody to carry the team.

quote:
I'm pointing to the recent changes in communism and ROI as being responsible for the decay in game quality

I think this is a mistaken belief. Admittedly, I may be marginally prejudiced by my own style being built around doing a lot with a little.

[Spoiler]
+5 / -0
I was interested in this claim that the "recent" communism changes cause elo inflation.

Since the popular approach of just claiming things on anecdotal evidence doesn't seem like something that would actually produce any knowledge, and i don't really have an agenda to push by any means necessary, i've decided to try to check data. Since i'm an unrepentant egoist with an unchecked data privilege, and since my teams elo doesn't seem to have changed all that much in the last few years (it is generally much more stable than my 1v1 elo), i've decided to check whether the "recent overdrive change" can be seen to have affected my teams win rate.

1) First, i needed to date the "recent mex overdrive changes". I assumed that any commit that changes the income distribution would appear here. On this assumption, the latest candidate commit would be on Jan 5, 2015. The earliest date on which the change would have affected my winrate, however, would have been on the next day, when it went live.

2) Second, i needed a table of my teamgame battle results, with small teamgames (in which i'm likely to only play with highly competent people),duels, etc filtered away. That was easy enough to acquire. It seems i've played no games on fifth or sixth, so this minor dating difference is not relevant.

3) Now, it's eyeballing (and statistics, if anyone cares) time! It seems i didn't play that many games, so the results are not going to be very reliable. Still, they are going to be better than calling names and explaining how i am superior to everyone else (that doesn't need explaining, anyway).

Simply eyeballing the data doesn't seem to suggest i've started winning much more in 2015 in general (except in the last week where i get a nice 5-streak). So let's do some simple rate comparisons.

There are 77 games in this dataset played after 2015-01-06; of them, 36 were won, giving a win rate of ~46.7%.
There are 86 games in this dataset played between 2015-01-06 and 2014-01-06; of them, i've won 46, that is ~53.4%.

It seems that my win rate has slightly decreased after the overdrive change. If we consider this difference significant, then it conflicts with the hypothesis that elo has inflated significantly after 2015-01-06 due to the overdrive change, because it would pit me against players with an inflated skill rating, and elevate my win rate.
+4 / -0
EErankAdminAnarchid
I think it's not that elos are inflated, it's that communism rewards specialisation. Before communism someone who didn't mex was a player who didn't influence games after the five minute marl. Now with communism, plenty of people seem to not even think about economy while still having respectable elos. Because honestly, I've got a similar knee-jerk to aeonios when it comes to people not mexing. I look at how trash their economy is and then I get confused why they're curb-stomping me.

If I'm right, the average difference between 1v1 and teams elo should be greater than it was before the communism changes. I've not the know-how nor the inclination to check that though.
+0 / -0


7 years ago
I think the prediction of the specialization hypothesis on my win rate would be an increase, because it implies that the economic skillset becomes rarer. I carry that skillset in a rather unchanging form, and that should be a powerful enabler for those non-economic specialist allies to win in whatever non-economic way they would choose.

On the other hand, maybe it took my wetware a long time to catch on to this and i've begun specializing on macro and ground control in teamgames only recently, and **that**'s the explanation for the five-streak.
+0 / -0
I don't think that elo is inflated. I think that better players left the game.

quote:
PLrankOrfelius you hardly play anymore, and most games outside of tournaments you tend to resign rush.

Right. You play more often that I of course. Eh, I don't do that anymore for the most part. Maybe you got that idea from my games against Fealthas lately, where I experimented with a bunch of weird openers.
+0 / -0
Page of 3 (46 records)