Battle 795648 detail

sort
Kingstad 5 years ago I didnt think MM games this unbalanced would occur +0 / -0
aeonios 5 years ago I keep saying it should be limited to one rank difference. :\| +0 / -0
raaar 5 years ago (edited 5 years ago) maybe each player could have a lobby option: - avoid extremelly uneven matches? (warning: will likely result in longer waiting times) It could be disabled by default. The threshold could be chance of victory < 15% or something like that. +1 / -0
aeonios 5 years ago So basically, you want to hide newbs' only option for not getting one-sidedly bashed in some off-by-default option god knows where? Also 15% seems like a pretty useless cutoff point since that's still an overwhelming chance of loss. Anything below 25% is basically hopeless. +0 / -0
raaar 5 years ago ok then, enable the protection by default....I don't have a strong oppinion on this. +0 / -0
GoogleFrog 5 years ago A game that is actually at 20% isn't hopeless. I considered making a queue type with a much larger bound that creates handicap games based on the rank difference. The fair games ladder could then afford to only make closer matches. The big question is what sort of handicap would be appropriate (and also how to make infra do it). +2 / -0
aeonios 5 years ago (edited 5 years ago) B796241 2 on Ravaged_v2 A real game where one player has a 15% chance of winning. ATOSTIC would have had to fall asleep in his chair to have lost. The other guy spent the whole game stuck in the corner. At no point during the game do you get the impression that Rhade had any chance of winning. I'm not even sure that 25% is reasonable. I mean 33% is 2 to 1 odds against you, so 25% is like fighting vs 3 players at your own skill level. 2 to 1 might be worth at least trying, but 3 to 1 or worse is pretty much resignable. +0 / -0
GoogleFrog 5 years ago 25% is nothing like fighting 3 players of your level! +0 / -0
Aquanim 5 years ago http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/790132 +0 / -0
UltraGodzilla 5 years ago Rank threshold difference should be at 2 imo not 1 +0 / -0
aeonios 5 years ago Aquanim sure, after he played 14 straight games in a tournament which was late at night for his time zone. In no way does that contradict "the stronger player would have to fall asleep in his chair for the weaker player to win", seeing how that's pretty much literally what happened. +0 / -0
Aquanim 5 years ago (edited 5 years ago) I think the number you are looking for is five, not fourteen. I grant that he was tired but 1% is a way smaller number than 15% or 25% as well. Those excuses also don't really apply to http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/790139 (9% to win). Nor did they apply in http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/758342 (8% to win). These games are not hopeless. They are sometimes won. The alternatives are generally not "play an imbalanced game or play a balanced game", they are "play an imbalanced game or don't play at all". +0 / -0
manero 5 years ago Thank goodness you won! :) +0 / -0
aeonios 5 years ago If a player is strong enough that they might win a seriously imbalanced game, then they're probably advanced enough to find the setting to turn off imbalanced match screening. +0 / -0
katastrophe 5 years ago mind you whr is not representing skill. it represents your win-statistics. rewdrfe2 for example is way better then their rank shows. +1 / -0

Title:	MM 8248: 1v1, Rank Singularity
Host:	Nobody
Game version:	Zero-K v1.7.11.3
Engine version:	104.0.1-1435-g79d77ca
Battle ID:	795648
Started:	5 years ago
Duration:	13 minutes
Players:	2
Bots:	False
Mission:	False
Rating:	Competitive