Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   
Title: MM 2232: 1v1 Narrow, Rank Supergiant
Host: Nobody
Game version: Zero-K v1.9.9.1
Engine version: 104.0.1-1544-ge1f249f
Started: 2 years ago
Duration: 9 minutes
Players: 2
Bots: False
Mission: False
Watch Replay Now
Manual download

Team 1
Chance of victory: 92.8%

NZrankDouble_Helix_DNA
Team 2
Chance of victory: 7.2%

DErankSchickelmooser
Spectators

Show winners



Preview
Filter:    Player:  
sort
Oh this is just unbalanced. How is this 'narrow'? 90.9% chance to win is not 'narrow' in any reasonable sense of the word. A narrow chance for DErankSchickelmooser to win perhaps.

When one side is expected to lose 9/10 times it might be time to give a handicap to the winning side/buff the weak side.
+0 / -0


2 years ago
In any competitive game you can expect to meet opponents that are weaker than you, at your level and stronger than you. All three match up types are important to the journey of becoming a better player.

Facing a weaker opponent? Try out a less conventional or tested play; if it works or not, it teaches you useful information to bring to other matchups.

Facing an equal opponent? Play your best, all out.

Facing a stronger opponent? Focus on the ways that your stronger opponent makes your life miserable, watch the replay, and try to replicate those plays against other people.

You don't develop as a player just fighting equals.
+4 / -0
2 years ago
Yes, that makes sense.

But the main point is that fighting opponents in MM who are much better than you/worse than you should not be seen as a 'fair match', at the very least, for this low level of play.
This would be akin to games simply refusing to match higher ranked players to lower ranked players. Of course, ZK is too small for that, which is why we have a 'wide' MM bracket.

The point is that the definition of 'wide' MM should be widened so extremely slanted games where one side has 91.8% chance to win is a handicap game, rather than a normal game.
Its the idea that if fairness in MM is crucial to a good MM experience (no matching red dwarfs to Godde for example), then perhaps we should look about making extremely unbalanced games handicap.

At the very least, for this low level of play. The last thing newbs want to face is someone who will beat them for the entirety of their ZK session on a given day, with it counting as a 'fair' match.
+1 / -0
I saw your match against DErankSchickelmooser. It didn't seem like much to me. He certainly had to expand first and play more aggressively. But in your post, at least from what is perceived by your words, (I hope unintentionally), you appear superb and somehow ridicule your opponent, not making him seem at your level.
If that were the case, it would be very serious. It is absurd that a MODERATOR does not intervene and ban a player who expresses such disdain towards another.
This hurts ZK.
And if you combine this post with the other from GBrankMrTumnus, the situation becomes even more grim.
Fairplay is fundamental in every game. This does not bring players closer to MM. Five years ago GBrankPRO_Dregs entered this game.
Maybe at the time I would have won in 1vs1 against him, and the predict would have given me 99% win, now the percentages would be reversed.
Predict is bullshit, which often discourages gamers.
It's not the chess world championship, it's a pc war game. There would be a need for more present Moderators in turn to monitor situations like these.
+2 / -1
There's no gloating or mockery from NZrankDouble_Helix_DNA in this thread that I can see, if anything the perception is more for the other side (historically people are far more likely to be put off when they are the ones matched with opponents +400 than -400).

The question is given there are two matchmaking bands (wide and narrow), does a game that is predicted as 90-10% match player's expectations of being a narrow, close match? Or should this pairing only occur in wide since the MM system will normally give you a handicap for this kind of gap? Or where the boundary between the two bands be? These questions seemed pretty reasonable to me and do not imply disdain towards anybody, ratings exist for the sake of the matchmaker, not for our egos.

(The algorithm is of course not an oracle and ranking systems only have an accuracy around 55%-60% at best. The prediction may be very wrong for a single game (people behave very randomly and have good and bad days and maps), but will hold some truth statistically over all games. If your WHR is completely wrong vs your level of play, it will correct pretty quickly, the ladder rating may lag, but WHR jumps up fast.)
+3 / -0
USranknop
2 years ago
Maybe a triviality, but I've noticed the chance of victory we see on this screen is not the same as the chance pre-game. It reflects the matchup prediction after the outcome of the match has been applied to ranks. Pre-game it might have been less than 90/10, for whatever that's worth.
+5 / -0
Wtf Manero?

Are you actually reading my post?

First you call for modaction against me on another thread, and then here, especially with the misinformation.

I am asking why is '90%' chance to win fair by the matchmaker. It would be preferable if it was not seen as 'fair', and for the weaker side to be buffed, the stronger side to be nerfed, or the game to not count for elo.

Would you vs SErankGodde be a fair match? No! Is this a fair match? No! Should it be seen as a fair match? I argue that no!
How
Hard
Is
That
To
Understand?!
Lay off mate, this is the same stuff that GBrankMrTumnus is dealing with.
Especially with the calls for modaction over something like this
+0 / -0

2 years ago
It may be that the automatic translation has lost the sense of what you said in the post and I have misunderstood your post as it says USrankLegomenon and yourself.
There is no doubt that he would have a 99.99% chance against me he enjoyed
+1 / -0
The game was no higher than 88% when it started. At the time of posting it is now 95.7%. It looks like, at the time, you were underrated or your opponent was overrated. Rank updates fairly quickly so there isn't much more to do about this. I'll boost the threshold to 12.5% as my strategy is to make small tweaks until the complaints balance out.
+2 / -0