Bring back palladium

quote: Its the usual, what did u expect in lobpot?

call me idealistic, but in a "team" game, i would expect "team" effort, not singleplayer behaviour.

quote: call me idealistic, but in a "team" game, i would expect "team" effort, not singleplayer behaviour.

If you play (random) Match Maker Team games, you'd understand team only means that violence is illegal against half of the tards.

Especially "team" games where credits and experience rewards come from personal performance. The "good" player meta involves in noticing when to play for the win bonus, and when to maximize damage/capture/personal objectives at expense of others on the team.

As for bad play, remember half of humanity is below average~~

Sounds like a great widget malric but getting players to use it, particularly bad ones, will be the struggle.

I've already said it enought times by now but again these frustrations come from decent, invested players having to play with anything from complete beginners to people who still think newton ramps are hIlArIoUs. And these frustrations won't go away unless that changes.

Snowlob

doing a big (reasonable) project alone is fine. noticing others about it is neat.

not checking that there are more people which do the same is not.

singus might be reasonable, but somewhere in this weight class is the fine line between playing teamgame vs singleplayer, as you are taking a time off the game till your project kicks in.

4 singus at the same time from different people are not contributing to the team.

detri from start is definately not contributing.

see my point?

Brown rank players are not good and must be doing something quite wrong to get that rank, regardless of whether they are at front or rear. If they are at front, they are likely heavily feeding metal, taking reclaim or conduct inexplicable actions that mess up specializing teammates thinking they can rely on the brown's army (moving AA cover away at very bad times, bad use of artillery, screening units, defensive riots and so on).

The problem with north team is that two silver players rush singu. Now Singu is on average a 2000 elo play, but not when there is two players doing it. The other problem is top players on low ground is both doing lances, which pays for itself slowly resulting in lost ground, and unit mass is provided by golds that is not doing it efficiently, with poor attrition and synergy. High ranked player on the hill does snitches, which is again a late starting strategy. Finally the lance specialist is doing solo forward high ground fact that get sniped early resulting in lost map control and horrible eco.

Sometimes teams just are poorly composed with regard to strategy relative to the other team, and this does not only apply to excessive rear investment. You see games where a team of hard-pushers gets stalled out on 55% territory against porc/terraform spammers and lose due to lack of energy investment, lose attrition to striders, lack of antinuke or slower super.

Teams really loses hard not because bad players are bad because they are always bad, but mid-high ranking players choosing a bad strategy for a situation. There are a lot of players that are good in a particular style, and a team composed of multiple players with the wrong style for the situation is asking for bad losses.

Two good porcer on the north team or no-accumulation "rally-intensive high skill micro" player could have stalled for eco and heavier units to kick in, but they didn't have such players.

quote: Brown rank players exist because they're in the top 60% of players. Even if everyone was at your level, there'd still be brown players. It is percentile based, not points based.

While true in the extreme case everybody will have very similar skill, if we check now the numbers, there seem to be a rather large spread of the actual "score". So I think in the current situation the brown color tells something about the difference in winning chances (not sure is only skill, can be also focus, wish to win, time spent playing, etc.), even if this is not true in all possible situations.

It would be interesting to know how does the ladder range (minimum score versus maximum score) evolved over time, but doubt we have that data. Now is ~700 to ~3400

If you look at the ranks of people who haven't played in a long time, they are almost all the black rank, the worst in the game, even though some of them were probably the best of their time. Why is that? Is it because people got better over time, or just because we have more people now so there is a wider range?

TinySpider when did this turn into personal offence? Ever heard of the term "outecoed"?

shin_getter I do not agree with you there. My current opinion is that 3 Owls can decide a game! Same as a red lvl 20 can decide a game! It often takes only 1 stunt to tip the scales into a irreversible downwards spiral #!resignable.

I now understand the utility of GoogleFrog's "fractally wrong" expression...