Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

New man too high and oh I cant play. And twin coms.

16 posts, 372 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort
Hii, its me, here again for whining, whinging, complaining and to lay blame on others. But what else can be expected from passive-aggressive shitty human being anyway?

First raging whine: do new players start with too high elo score? I feel like yes. Looking at "show rating statistics", they (not all) go down first. Spying on some gives roughly 1405->1370, 1345->1295, 1505->1460, 1515->1490, 1360->1160, 1240->1160, you get the point. Would it be bad if they start lower right away? Would that matter? For a just tiny bit better balance? Maybe it would give more wins too for positive feelings to start zero-k with? Because, just a purple blue gut feeling and with some random battles results observations: team with newest guy/most new guys loses easily(yes, exceptions do exist). Its for mostly small battles, where new guys have the biggest impact, dont go crazy on me all right? Small battles anyway have balance problems easily. Which leads me to another midless complaining of;

!predict. Hide that? Show it after battle? Again purple blue gut churning, but really, even 40% vs 60% is big, and its just not fair. Because its not fair. And I believe the !predict works pretty good(insert here too high elo new guy to mess it up, because rated too high and doesnt know the game, double bad for balance and team effort. Especially if other team has no new guy), and again looking at some random small battle results, its (always) the team with lower chance to win to lose. Yes after battle % is different, but something that goes below 40%/60% after battle was not !predicted to even balance. Example: 41,9% !predict -> after battle 26,4%. A good balanced 50% !predict does not change much after battle. Maybe its just me, but I dont like bad balance. Whats the point of pew pew boom when your !predicted chance of shit % is in actuality less than that, because, yes, theres probably the new guy bonus on your team too. And maybe, for battle room, double ask if people really want to start that bad !predict game? Its not good to be good, having small battle win % against you, like yesterday for me, in three small games out of four my team had the 30% chance. So, I cant play small games because I cant carry and play for extra +20% or so, ok learned that. Great, its the pot for me because I mostly unbalance the balance for my team.
And yes yes game is chaotic, you can win small uneven battles by some stupid mistakes or newbie kicks or whatever, dont tear me a new one. Maybe nicer to play if you dont know you are going to lose? I dont know... maybe?

Also, spying on peoples battles where I wasnt involved, I took a quick extra survey of uneven battles results:
Team with 2 coms for 1 player lost 26 and won 14 battles from total of 40. So, as is known, two coms balance is bad too. Anyone with harder data on this? And more importantly should this be fixed somehow already?

Kindly, the obnoxious, toxic and always miserable to play with Kapy. (Oh, I just had to)
+2 / -0
I feel you, playing from the top of the ladder in lobpots is very not enjoyable in a long term.

I have a theory that once you get high enough to be the highest in team you get boosted in whr by winning games where newbies leave and you get their coms instead them building 16 storages. Then you get miserable games for whr gained in those games in other games that are actually balanced and no people left. High variance for top players since they often benefit from (rely on) their weakest players disconnecting/leaving the game to gain stuff - which is high variance event.

Yes, double com is often a pain, especially that you don't get any extra income for having 2 player's share of commanders (even the income from com gets shared to the team [anecdotal evidence, correct me if I'm wrong] so screw u, more for storage spammers).

Sadly there are no easy solutions for issues with balance, I agree that newbies could start at lower rating though. What could also be done could be rating the AI from balanced (even commanders) games and using players' games against AI to seed their early whr rating. Sadly often these games are single player and not recorded in the system so that's probably not worth the effort. Still I'm curious about what brutal's whr would be judging from 1v1 and 2v2s.

That's why when the bug with zero-wars caused me to loose 300 whr randomly I decided to go with it and now I play actively to drop below top 50 without trolling the games too hard, aka playing for fun, screwing the team.
+1 / -0
10 days ago
It's sad when the best thing new players can do to help their team is to immediately resign and give their com to the highest elo player on the team.
+2 / -0
10 days ago
Its whr, not elo?

I only learned like a month or so ago that double com does not give double income. And I got that double com way often and I still couldnt do what would be expected, seemed weird, but now I know better. Very bad.

Maybe give extra com for the second best too? Its just, cmon, double com balance is bad, try to fix. Or I dont know, maybe they have tried. Or maybe they need tickets to do anything.
+1 / -0
[Spoiler]

Yes it was changed to whole history rating.
+5 / -0
10 days ago
Part of the problem with double com is that (I believe) the balance system treats a double com situation as if there are two players of the highest rating on that team. Receiving an extra com but not double the metal income means that you aren't able to perform as two players, even though that's how the balancer treats it.
+1 / -0


10 days ago
The balancer equalizes the average ratings of the teams, even if the teams are uneven. For example the below would be perfectly balanced according to the algorithm:

2000+1500 vs 1750+1750+1750

Then it gives an extra commander to the smaller team's highest rated player.

Metal income is divided equally between the players of the smaller team, and this includes all income from commanders. In the above example, the 2000 and 1500 player would both get 6 metal/s from the income provided by commanders.
+1 / -0

10 days ago
I like play with FIrankKapy. Together we are unmatched rulers of FolsomDamDeluxeV4 south.
+1 / -0

10 days ago
Double com is shit. I always telling that and have been telling that since i had to play with them. Game in any case is not balanced when there is two coms. However devs decided not to change it. Two coms is gauntlet challange.
+1 / -0
10 days ago
quote:
Together we are unmatched rulers of FolsomDamDeluxeV4 south.


And just think, one day we might even rule the south so well we actually win.
+1 / -0

9 days ago
I don't think anybody, dev or not, thinks double-com is all that great. The difficulty is working out a reasonable solution.
+1 / -1
9 days ago
What double com solutions have been tried? None? I mean my sample of 40 random battles might be wrong, but I doubt it is. Some people can pull off 2 com magic, but they are rare. I nominate Zenfur for being one of them.

I would start by making it harder to start uneven battles. Cant start a start vote when uneven, without first voting for starting a start vote to start uneven... no, I lost it, but something like that
+0 / -0


9 days ago
Uneven start vote could require a higher threshold for success.

E.g. Start 5v5 - 5 votes needed to success (50% rounded up)
Start 5v4 - "Do you want to start this UNEVEN game? y/n" - 7 votes needed for success (75%, rounded up)
+2 / -0
That might do a little bit but there are significant limitations. People join and exit the player list during the start vote quite frequently. Also it seems like there are a substantial proportion of people who either don't notice or don't care that a game is numerically imbalanced, so it wouldn't surprise me to see those votes pass relatively frequently even if the person who is going to get stuck with double-com would prefer to wait or what have you.

The solution I personally employ is "look at the game, and if it looks unfun, don't play".
+1 / -0
9 days ago
Yes, people appear and disappear just before game starts, maybe the whatever-it-is-that-calculates-balance just before game starts could stop the game from starting if unbalanced, then start another vote that needs more votes to pass. And of course inform people that uneven teams happened and we need to vote again.
+0 / -0
9 days ago
I would prefer the possibility to specify I should be spec-ed if certain conditions meet "at start". Conditions could be: get 2 comms, more than Q whr balance difference, player X is in your team, more than Y players, less than Z players, etc.

The conditions for everybody should be run until there is no change in player spec-ed (such that one player spec-ed can be taken into account by other conditions).

I can try to do this manually, but with all people joining/leaving/afk-ing plus the balance is quite hard to get it right...
+0 / -0