| 1 |
[q]that seem to assume that @TinySpider knows the answer and is stealthily arguing against it[/q]
|
1 |
[q]that seem to assume that @TinySpider knows the answer and is stealthily arguing against it[/q]
|
| 2 |
[q]How can some system claim to improve balance when no actual games have been balanced with it?[/q]
|
2 |
[q]How can some system claim to improve balance when no actual games have been balanced with it?[/q]
|
| 3 |
I'm not that good with words, so thank you for expressing this. I do not actually know the answer, I am just questioning how valid the conclusions are in OP given the single dataset available.
|
3 |
I'm not that good with words, so thank you for expressing this. I do not actually know the answer, I am just questioning how valid the conclusions are in OP given the single dataset available.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
|
|
| 5 |
\n
|
|
|
| 6 |
[q]This is pretty reasonable, although note the subtle shift from "good ZK game" to "ZK game with 50% win rate for each team"[/q]
|
|
|
| 7 |
I think this is a significant difference between 1v1 games and team games when it comes to match quality. In 1v1 games, a player increasing their rating will faces opponents around their own rating. The 1v1 player will only gain and lose rating relative to the difference between his rating and that of his opponent. If he faces a much stronger opponent that the system recognizes by much lower percent chance to win, he will gain a lot more rating for a victory and lose a lot less for a loss. The 1v1 player is never faced with a stronger opponent while simultaneously risking more rating than potentially gaining (excluding WHR history revisionism mechanics). A high rated 1v1 player facing a lower rated player is in a reversed situation, but he is the sole entity responsible for his performance so statistically he will win at these odds more often than not so the risk/reward is approximately equal.
|
|
|
| 8 |
\n
|
|
|
| 9 |
Now I don't actually play 1v1 games, but at no point is an element of unfairness introduced into a 1v1 game due to player being higher rated (aside from a voluntary handicap option).
|
|
|
| 10 |
\n
|
|
|
| 11 |
In a common team game situation, when 1 or more higher rated players are present in a room they will often end up on the same team with a much larger proportion of lower rated players than the opponent team, yet they will only have the same tools at their disposal as every other player in the same game (excluding meaningless personal control of an extra commander during odd playercount games).
|
|
|
| 12 |
\n
|
|
|
| 13 |
The situation will only get worse for high rated team players as they gain rating, receiving ever increasing proportion of lower rated players on their team, compared to their opponent. In terms of game quality from perception of the high rated player, winning becomes a penalty, losing becomes a reward. Since every won game moves the metagame further from mechanical gameplay and more into social engineering and people management, it stops being the game people started playing when they were lower rank.
|
|
|
Do 1v1 games improve multiplayer balance