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

Reaching a WHR amount where the game is no longer fun

118 posts, 2566 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 6 (118 records)
sort

2 months ago
After spending some time at 3.3k+ whr I noticed that I am basically "forced" to play certain strategies again and again because they are superior/easier (in my opinion) than others.

Trying to play a game not seriously does result in our team to lose in 3min because my bronze players have to play against 3-4 dark blue players.

Trying to play other facs/strategies do result in me slowly dieing 1v4 while my team cant push the other side.

I am somewhat interested to have an account where I do not play seriously at all, but that would be basically smurphing.

The other option I can think of is to basically resign my next 200 games to dump my rating, which does not seem fun for anyone else. Additionally this does not change the fact that my actual fighting power is way higher and could result to problems when I play serious again (e.g. high elo Saturdays).

Is it somehow allowed to have a second account where I dont play seriously?
Are there any other possible solutions to this problem?
+18 / -0
It'd be interesting to know what the certain strategies for team games you've discovered as optimal (have the biggest impact on winning the match) are
+4 / -0
2 months ago
Manu12 thinks his teams are bad ... should have seen Godde's :o Basically a squirming basket of lobsters. Godde also wanted to try off-the-wall strats and created an alt, called Sabaton iirc. He was found out after his lob strats were OP LOL. Of course the smurf was banned ... until 2200 I think.

Frankly I agree that teams with very high elo players are sucky and probably much more sucky for the high elo player to play in. I've experienced this effect to a much lesser extent when trying to carry a bunch of noobs against even mildly competent players: I got my ass kicked.

Maybe the solution is to cap the elo that the balancer takes into account at a high, but manageable limit. Maybe the lowest ranking purple player's elo is the default elo for the balancer to work with in a lobpot for ALL purple players.

The lobpot should be a big one though, maybe 20 player minimum, or the high elo player is still gonna skew things significantly in his team's favour.

Just a suggestion.
+1 / -0
2 months ago
1vory K1ng: TAAAANKS!!
+0 / -0
2 months ago
artillery monospam
+1 / -0
2 months ago
Don't start at front and you wont have to resign in 10 minutes.
+0 / -2
2 months ago
Maybe just permit smurf accounts? But mark them clearly and give them an initial rating equal to the high WHR player's current rating, in the expectation that the rating will decrease as they play suboptimally.
+0 / -0
How about a randomly balanced room with no elo gain?
+2 / -0

2 months ago
I think at high level the balance is no longer accurate. A single strong player cannot make up for the shortcomings of the other weaker players from a strategic point of view. When there is a very strong player on a team, as in the case of DErankManu12, the balance should also take into account the weaknesses of the remaining teammates (and not pit them against a battalion of high rank players mitigated by a single player with rank Red or gray)
+3 / -0
2 months ago
Increasing the complexity and implementing new stuff in Zero-K can have a good impact on making strong players select multiple fair options to win a match. Right now if you are high ELO either you go economy, rush something with your team, or rush bertha.

I proposed a long time ago the modular unit system. You can have a small glimpse on how it would works if you play Zero Wars and use those special commanders. Imagine all units that can be modular and from there you change how units work in the home menu(site) or in-game. All these changes, of course, will come with a price in terms of metal income. If you want a glave that fires EMP bullets the cost of that glave will increase. If you want an outlaw with EMP wave it will have a slight increase.
The only problem for all of this will come in balance where I will clearly assist in any way possible. To perfect the balance we can also use Zero Wars system since you can clearly see how units interact with fight command.

I still strongly consider that a total revamp in terms of unit complexity for this game will make everything better and will also bring more people here, thus increasing our chances for a better and stronger game.
+0 / -2

2 months ago
unknownrankTinySpider the problem is that you often have to fill 3 front spots yourself. And you better eco too.
+2 / -0
I think the problem here is squarely the astronomical skill variation within a single game.

Unfortunately, playing games with a narrower skill distribution seems not just unavailable for an outspoken and non-negligible share of our player base, but - judging from the rest of this thread - possibly also undesirable and maybe even unthinkable.

And so we're left with suggestions like "pretend skill higher than 2200 doesn't exist", "allow smurfs", "random balance" (which is what you get if everyone smurfs, anyway), and even "make a completely different game".
+3 / -1
2 months ago
EErankAdminAnarchid actually creating high elo rooms is impossible without asking a moderator. Something which I have already pointed out https://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/31815

Given the above, you might imagine how ironic it is reading a moderator write the following:
quote:
Unfortunately, playing games with a narrower skill distribution seems not just unavailable for an outspoken and non-negligible share of our player base, but - judging from the rest of this thread - possibly also undesirable and maybe even unthinkable.
+1 / -0


2 months ago
quote:
actually creating high elo rooms is impossible without asking a moderator

That falls under "unavailable", indeed.
+1 / -1
Here's a suggestion you can add to your mocking list: Allow everyone to host a game with elo limits.
+0 / -0
Sure:

quote:
Unfortunately, playing games with a narrower skill distribution seems not just unavailable for an outspoken and non-negligible share of our player base, but - judging from the rest of this thread - possibly also undesirable and maybe even unthinkable. Allow everyone to host a game with elo limits.


On a serious note, i don't think we're exactly disagreeing here.

(Except i do think that "random balance" as a solution to bad balance is a particularly hilarious take).
+2 / -1
2 months ago
I think the most hilarious take is a moderator repeating what everyone suggested in a mocking post without offering a single solution of their own. Despite being fully aware that the status quo is entirely enforced by his own group.
+1 / -0
How does me not offering a better solution make your suggestion of making things even worse immune to criticism?
+2 / -0
2 months ago
I think the ideal would be if vets could be given permission to not play their best if they don't feel like it, instead of always being expected to count for 3 players because balancer says they do.

That would indeed require some kind of random balance, WHR-free room.
+0 / -0

2 months ago
BRrankManored no one is forcing people to play their best, RUrankFirepluk play atrociously and you don't see anyone banning him for it.

I agree that it would be nice to have 2 separate elo for serious/non-serious intent [hey isn't this what matchmaking elo and casual elo is for] but since MM is basically deserted and there is no way to tell whether you are playing casual serious or non-serious. so the problem is intractable.

you can just say the hell to it and play however you want and take your lost when you lose, your elo would make an average of it.

the simplest solution to my eye is just to start using MM already but hey I've been banging that drums for months and no one want to hear it anymore.
+3 / -0
Page of 6 (118 records)