@Szakalot said:
i dont see how that makes sense. there will always be disparities between the two teams, and individual skill level.
I would argue that by sheer numbers its actually a lot easier for a newbie to find someone at exactly their skill level. assuming of course skill is quantifiable, like in our %acc example
And the disparities between the two teams will be determine the outcome of the match more than the augments will. If the augments were good enough to determine the outcome then you should be able to perform and recreate the following experiment:
Two non-pro teams of similar skill play each other. In any given set of 3 games, Team A wins 2 out of 3 sometimes, and Team B wins other times. Then you give Team A only default cards, using mercs and primary weapon of choice, while Team B retains bronze or better cards. In any given set of 3 games, Team B will always win 2 out of 3.
If you attempted this experiment, I’m more than confident that it would instead go like this:
Team A would win some 2 out of 3 sets, Team B would win some 2 out of 3 sets.
Doesn’t matter who has the augments or not. If everyone is using their primary of choice, they will just trade sets with no reliable way to pin the reason for winning solely on the augments.
That’s a GOOD thing. SD has said from the start that merc augments are there for fun and for an extra level of play without making teams rely on them. What they didn’t want was players without cards getting dominated by players with cards, and I say they’ve succeeded in that endeavor. If augments were that good, the meta would revolve around them… and it doesn’t. The meta is far more dependent upon the mercs you choose, their primary weapon, and their secondary abilities.