There was a claim in this game that Galamesh's Silo sunk into the ground for no reason.
I checked the replay.
What happened is he built a Silo in a rampart near an edge, and then built a seismic missile and had it in the silo. An attacking Crabe fired at the Silo and the Seismic missile died in it and exploded making a hole in the ground under the silo. Everything looks like the expected behaviour.

1) The prediction system is not always accurate.
2) The "noobs" can play against each other all they want, they don't have to play vs. all the really good people.
3) The goal for everyone isn't necessarily to win, really, the #1 goal for everyone should be to have fun.
4) Usually, in FFA, the not-so-good players team up against the better players, so it isn't actually as unbalanced, and in big team games they are usually balanced anyway, and 1v1s are also balanced now.

I have played some very good, and very close FFA games with people that are way worse than me, (even though I am not that good either), and everyone still had a lot of fun.

There are quite a few FFA games where low ranked players win actually, Also it is a lot more fun to win when nobody thinks you can win.

quote: There was a claim in this game that Galamesh's Silo sunk into the ground for no reason. I checked the replay. What happened is he built a Silo in a rampart near an edge, and then built a seismic missile and had it in the silo. An attacking Crabe fired at the Silo and the Seismic missile died in it and exploded making a hole in the ground under the silo. Everything looks like the expected behaviour.

What confused me about the way it sank is that my understanding of quake is that it smoothens. Why didn't the edge of the platform go down? Why did only the silo itself go wayyyyyyy down, way lower that the immediate surrounding ground? Also the silo keeps sinking even after the quake is destroyed.

quote: Chance of victory: 0.8% Chance of victory: 14.7% Chance of victory: 13.8% Chance of victory: 0.3% Chance of victory: 6.8% Chance of victory: 63.6% http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/1161191 Chance of victory: 82.3% http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/1161202 Chance of victory: 70.8% ... Why do players join such games? Why not let the noobs not play among each other? The greed for fresh lobster flesh kills the whole eco system. Maybe some steam players would be there if not for old vets cooking them so crisply. Recently there was the drama because some player was "not taking FFA seriously enough" and how that ruins match quality and enjoyment. I think players joining ultra unbalanced rooms does the same.

Becaused the community is very small, so you play the games you get, not the ones that are ideal.

EDIT: Additional note for Tester5555, the public lobbies are just that: pulic. Nothing stops you from creating your own lobby, restrict who joins and force higher ranked players to be spectators or leave.

quote: Of course your goal in the game is to win. You engage in a rule-based activity predicated on all players pursuing victory. The goal is to win; that's part of the rules, at least for this game. You engage in said activity for the purpose of having fun. The game is an instrument to fun, and following the rules of the game is playing the game. If trying to win is not fun for you, then the game is not aligned with your fun.

To be fair people do enjoy doing random things in games, such as driving the slowest car on reverse for an entire race... or setting remote charges on a vehicle and waiting for an opponent to get in only to detonate it just as they reach the combat zone... dumb things like that. Heck, SC:BW no rush 20 manner game... that was a DARK era, but it was a thing.

The nuance is that you can pick your own level of involvement, but you can't pick other people's. If they get in on your shenanigans, great. If not, they're just playing the game as intended.

This whole "you're anti fun" argument comes from a really selfish desire for others to conform to one's standards. If the game's basic rules are eliminate others, it's reasonable to expect others to do just that.

The silo fell slowly? I don't see how that would happen. How is the terrain modified pregame in this map?

quote: Could there be a way to raise/lower terrain even if a structure sits on top of it?

This was possibly and was bad for the game.

Sounds liable to cause further issues. Can you give examples of problems and why it wasn't reasonable to use a shield to stop the problems?

Tbh i don't remember why i didn't just Eos it. Surely it would have been even more useless when dead

I recall there being some sort of GG.OrigMapHeight that maps can supply to replace Spring.GetOrigMapHeight for the purpose of restore. Maybe it does other things too.

Ok so I tested this to see whether the Silo issue had anything to do with my map or map generation.
I recreated the situation on original Azure Rampart, in this battle: https://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/1163567
I also built the silo near the rampart corner, build Quake and fired AoE weapon at it. Exactly same effect, Quake made a hole, Silo ends up in a hole, nearby cons slowly fall to it (I was wrong originally saying that Silo slowly fell, only cons did).