Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   
Map: BlackStar
 BlackStar
Title: [A] Free For All
Host: Nobody
Game version: Zero-K v1.9.4.3
Engine version: 104.0.1-1544-ge1f249f
Battle ID: 1124245
Started: 3 years ago
Duration: 51 minutes
Players: 5
Bots: False
Mission: False
Rating: Casual
Watch Replay Now
Manual download

Team 1
Chance of victory: 89.8%

GBrankdyth68
Team 2
Chance of victory: 1.1%

CArankRedEagle_P1
Team 3
Chance of victory: 0.1%

DErankbhaktivedanta
Team 4
Chance of victory: 4.5%

CArankGalamesh
Team 5
Chance of victory: 4.5%

PLrankRafalpluk
Spectators
LUrankAdminAnir
GBrankSab
unknownrankbinko
USrankstrikeshadow
unknownrankMmmmM

Show winners



Preview
Filter:    Player:  
sort


GBrankdyth68
3 years ago
*looks at post-game victory chance*
"Highest ranked player" is a pretty thin excuse methinks.
+0 / -0


SErankPLT_Godde
3 years ago
Feeling like removing !predict yet?
>_>
<_<
+6 / -0


EErankAdminAnarchid
3 years ago
(edited 3 years ago)
!predict used as some kind of an argument feels quite manipulative tbh. Maybe it just needs time for people to grow adjusted to this.
+0 / -0
FRrankmalric
3 years ago
I would rather go for independent FFA ladder (was it using casual now?). I think it would make for more interesting games, as if a player constantly manages "to convince" others to attack the highest rank he will become himself high rank so he would need to adjust strategy...
+3 / -0


SErankPLT_Godde
3 years ago
Wouldn't growing adjusted to !predict mean that players use it to target the highest rated player at the start of the game all the time?
Like I can say that I think DeinFreund and izirayd are better FFA players than me but they can just throw !predict back at me. :P
+0 / -0

DErankbhaktivedanta
3 years ago
quote:
@Godde: Wouldn't growing adjusted to !predict mean that players use it to target the highest rated player at the start of the game all the time?
Like I can say that I think DeinFreund and izirayd are better FFA players than me but they can just throw !predict back at me. :P


I doubt that any1 would have to resort to !predict in your case.
The only solution I can think of would be anonymous mode where colours are synced so that people can identify each other's via them.

Now:
Lob1 to others: "Don't attack me you fools, use !predict: Godde has a 99.9% chance to win while mine is... uh... "NaN"!!

Anonymous mode:
Mr. Pink: "Let's make peace, Mr Orange, I know that Mr Brown is in fact Godde, look how gracefully he orb-walks his com while dodging those Ronins!"
+2 / -0

CArankGalamesh
3 years ago
I fixed it.


+4 / -0


GBrankdyth68
3 years ago
> Feeling like removing !predict yet?

My odds of victory were only very slightly higher than RedEagle's
+0 / -0
CArankRedEagle_P1
3 years ago
Dyth, you teamed up on Galamesh with bhaktivedanta, then me and bhaktivedanta teamed on you. It's normal FFA. I won that fair-and-square. The game before this on this map everyone teamed on me, I was almost wiped but I came back: http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/1124182

+1 / -1

CArankGalamesh
3 years ago
Just so we're clear, I see no foul play in this game. Or at least I have no evidence of any. It's just that to Godde's point, and by the nature of RTS games, 2 players of reasonable skill can usually overwhelm just about any single player of any skill.

If !predict points the finger at someone, it doesn't really matter how good they are assuming reasonable spread in player skill. You'll just get eliminated as soon as the game starts no matter who you are.

If my neighbors gang on me either by accident or just because they don't like my face... then, I mean whatever. FFAs be FFAs. But if players !predict every game and always gang on highest %, I can't think of a way to ever survive that. At that point it's not FFA, it's all v 1 until he's gone and then a FFA.

In most other games I have played, usually somebody gets ganged on at some point. Again, FFAs be FFAs. But, usually, it's because there is a claim that a player has far more territory/eco/army than any other one player and is currently a threat, in this game specifically.
+1 / -0

CArankGalamesh
3 years ago
quote:
Dyth, you teamed up on Galamesh with bhaktivedanta, then me and bhaktivedanta teamed on you. It's normal FFA. I won that fair-and-square. The game before this on this map everyone teamed on me, I was almost wiped but I came back: http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/1124182


That's a huge exaggeration. You lost a mex or two in mid and got attacked by one player while you were already holding 2 start locations.

You're comparing that to a game in which I have nothing but my start as two players simultaneously push into my territory. I wouldn't even say that you got teamed on that game. Bloa took your start by himself.
+0 / -0


GBrankdyth68
3 years ago
quote:
Dyth, you teamed up on Galamesh with bhaktivedanta, then me and bhaktivedanta teamed on you. It's normal FFA.

CArankGalamesh had, what, 10 times our victory chance? While me and you had about a 30% difference?
That's pretty different.
+0 / -0

DErankbhaktivedanta
3 years ago
quote:
Dyth, you teamed up on Galamesh with bhaktivedanta, then me and bhaktivedanta teamed on you. It's normal FFA.


I believe short-term alliances are not only legitimate but at the very core of ffa, but that is debatable and mostly depends on what people expect from ffa (see foruum thread).
The problem with even temporary alliances is that less-skilled lobs such as myself often misestimate the gain they themselves get out of the alliance versus what their ally gains. They also will miss the right moment to backstab and stick to alliances for too long.
This leads to suboptimal game outcomes, where people appear to be suicide-bombing another player only to be eaten by their former "ally".
I can absolutely understand that better players feel frustrated losing games in such a way. On the other hand any consistent rule to prohibit such behaviour would likely make ffa uninteresting for many by obliging everyone to deal blows equally in all directions.
An easier to define rule would be to sanction meta-gaming.
+1 / -0
CArankRedEagle_P1
3 years ago
When you join in teaming and then complain about teaming... anyway. I really don't want to continue using this forum, too much drama.
+1 / -0


GBrankdyth68
3 years ago
quote:
The problem with even temporary alliances is that less-skilled lobs such as myself often misestimate the gain they themselves get out of the alliance versus what their ally gains.

I think I'm starting to agree with the admins that the existence of voice chat makes these "temporary alliances" start up easier and be harder to break and people not really mind the person they're cooperating with winning (and so backstab much less, with the other person also able to be confident in the lack of backstabbing).
In my experience in FFA it is incredibly rare for two out of three equally powerful players with reasonably similar ELOs to gang up on a third.
+0 / -0

CArankGalamesh
3 years ago
quote:
In my experience in FFA it is incredibly rare for two out of three equally powerful players with reasonably similar ELOs to gang up on a third.


Totally. I would wager that's because those 3 players each want the win, as opposed to a group that wants a specific outcome that is one of them wins, no matter who.
+2 / -1
CArankRedEagle_P1
3 years ago
In this game all the team-ups where via in game chat and not voice, based on necessity and it ended badly for all those who did not participate in those alliances.

You got out played, nothing more, nothing less.
+1 / -0