| 1 |
[quote] I don't think that an team income imbalance of 4 m/e is a huge problem in and of itself, just a definite problem.[/quote]
|
1 |
[quote] I don't think that an team income imbalance of 4 m/e is a huge problem in and of itself, just a definite problem.[/quote]
|
| 2 |
There is no such imbalance. The second commander *still* generates the income. Each player on the smaller team gets 4/N metal more on the outset compared to the players in the larger team, where N is equal to the number of players in the smaller team.
|
2 |
There is no such imbalance. The second commander *still* generates the income. Each player on the smaller team gets 4/N metal more on the outset compared to the players in the larger team, where N is equal to the number of players in the smaller team.
|
| 3 |
\n
|
3 |
\n
|
| 4 |
[u]Team[/u] incomes are equal.
|
4 |
[u]Team[/u] incomes are equal.
|
|
|
5 |
\n
|
|
|
6 |
I believe the OP's complaint is that the bonus income is no longer 100% beholden do their strongest player, under assumption that this mode of uneven team compensation was anyhow supported by math, rather than just being a even teams income thing.
|
|
|
7 |
\n
|
|
|
8 |
This then is used to argue that the change breaks the balancer's math.
|
Zero-K v1.3.7.4 breaks odd teams balance