How did you think you answered my question when your entire follow-up post to mine was backhanded insults regarding my example? Some of which was funnily ironic considering my gaming history over the last 15 years.
I agree, variables such as people not dedicating themselves to the game, etc. cannot be taken into consideration by neither your nor my system. But that’s why there is a kick system. If someone is afk, or actively sabotaging the game, the team can always kick them.
We aren’t talking about afk people or sabotaging people. We’re talking about people who just don’t care much yet still play a lot. I know you didn’t mean this but it reads like you would be OK with kicking people who aren’t playing up to your standards.
And I’m not stupid. I know that my proposal has it’s flaws and would likely frustrate a lot of newcomers, which is why it will never be implemented as SD and Nexon cannot afford to scare potential customers away. The only way this system might work would be in an already finished, funded and lucrative game with a majority of veteran players. But then again, the amount of newcomers would be so little that it really wouldn’t matter if one or two inexperienced players would join a regular game.
What system are you talking about here? Are you talking about simply balancing entirely based off of time played? And you believe that it would never be implemented because it would frustrate new players? How exactly did you come to that conclusion?
I just don’t understand why you would like to get rid of all skill based indexing for matchmaking, which is a foundation for every single competitive game that has MM (including the star examples of CS:GO, LoL and Dota2) and replace it with…time played? Also, we’re just talking about pubs here where people go to just play and not worry/care. Seriously, I don’t get it and we’ll just have to not agree on this topic.
I do agree that things will be better in the future even if the playerbase is small. I’ve played Quake 3 for a decade and a half against mostly the same veterans over and over online and on LAN and it’s definitely a more stable and consistent experience.
Yeah, you don’t get me at all. first my reply didn’t contain a single insult towards you. I didn’t want to nor need to attack you or insult you to get my point across. But I’m not required to know each and everyone’s past gaming experience and I’m entitled to doubt anyone’s allegations, including your allegations about your “performance”. Don’t get all touchy feely about people mentioning you when you use it as an argument yourself. Expect scrutiny if you expose yourself.
And here were my replies, condensate, yet the global idea is still there.
Now I’m going to assume that you’ve been reading my posts just half way or randomly picking up stuff, but most likely not thoroughly. Because you’ve repeatedly wrote I want games to be balanced according to time played, yet I never advocated that. Also you somehow understood that I don’t want skill based balancing and that is wrong.
Here is a breakdown of what I think.
-The current biggest “thing” affecting balance is lack of knowledge regarding maps, objectives and mercs.
-Trying to balance games with both experienced and unexperienced players with varying skill levels, favours teams in which a skilled experienced player is matched with many unexperienced players versus a team of experienced medium skilled players.
-Separating both populations of experienced and unexperienced players is the system I am referring to and that I see never being implemented
-In such a system, the only consideration to have in balancing would be a skill based balancing which would then work much better than it currently does.
In the end, inexperience biases the current skill balancing system and separating both populations would imo help the matchmaking improve considerably.
[quote=“Lumi;93462”]Yeah, you don’t get me at all. first my reply didn’t contain a single insult towards you. I didn’t want to nor need to attack you or insult you to get my point across. But I’m not required to know each and everyone’s past gaming experience and I’m entitled to doubt anyone’s allegations, including your allegations about your “performance”. Don’t get all touchy feely about people mentioning you when you use it as an argument yourself. Expect scrutiny if you expose yourself.
And here were my replies, condensate, yet the global idea is still there.
Now I’m going to assume that you’ve been reading my posts just half way or randomly picking up stuff, but most likely not thoroughly. Because you’ve repeatedly wrote I want games to be balanced according to time played, yet I never advocated that. Also you somehow understood that I don’t want skill based balancing and that is wrong.
Here is a breakdown of what I think.
-The current biggest “thing” affecting balance is lack of knowledge regarding maps, objectives and mercs.
-Trying to balance games with both experienced and unexperienced players with varying skill levels, favours teams in which a skilled experienced player is matched with many unexperienced players versus a team of experienced medium skilled players.
-Separating both populations of experienced and unexperienced players is the system I am referring to and that I see never being implemented
-In such a system, the only consideration to have in balancing would be a skill based balancing which would then work much better than it currently does.
In the end, inexperience biases the current skill balancing system and separating both populations would imo help the matchmaking improve considerably. [/quote]
Being condescending and making assumptions, over and over, is the same thing. I’m sure you are quite aware of this and trying to undermine my points with mild mannered skepticism and making personal assumptions that point at me being a potential liar and trying to draw away from the topic at hand. I have not been doing the same towards you so I would like you to extend me the same courtesy please. Back to the topic.
Because you’ve repeatedly wrote I want games to be balanced according to time played, yet I never advocated that.
Yet that is exactly what you’re saying. You want to separate people based on time played and rank them accordingly for each setup. Which is already doing with max level 5 servers which are the equivalent of the bunny slopes in DB and I don’t believe people learn to play the game when you’re surrounded by others who also don’t know how to play. You learn to play by example.
if you do get kills at that rate you also get more XP and you’ll leave that low player pool faster. It’s as simple as that.
Do you understand how long it takes to go from 1-10 or 10-20? I acknowledged this and I was quite clear in my response.
furthermore, in the current situation the game sucks for everyone when unbalanced, in the separated iteration only games in which the rare “prodigies” like you are in would be unbalanced.
This says absolutely nothing about a solution or a breakdown of the issues and is one of the examples of what was discussed above.
The current biggest “thing” affecting balance is lack of knowledge regarding maps, objectives and mercs.
Game knowledge is important. But a person with 30 hours of game knowledge isn’t at a huge disadvantage to a person with 400 hours of game knowledge. At some point your game knowledge becomes a non-issue and it then simply becomes an issue of personal skill that absolutely is not guaranteed to increase over time as people have limits.
-Trying to balance games with both experienced and unexperienced players with varying skill levels, favours teams in which a skilled experienced player is matched with many unexperienced players versus a team of experienced medium skilled players.
This can happen. But not always. However, if you balance based on time played or use that as a major determining factor for team balancing you will end up with players who can’t quite carry their weight against players who are much much better than the amount of time they have played shows due to past histories of being quite good/very adaptive in games. This is a point you keep ignoring when trying to advocate your proposal and why I keep bringing it up. You act as if there is nothing severely and fundamentally wrong with using a balance system that incorporates time played as a major component. It doesn’t scale well, it’s not representative of actual skill, and it might or might not be an indicator of players who have actually know more than somebody who has played less time but studied more.
Separating both populations of experienced and unexperienced players is the system I am referring to and that I see never being implemented
Max level 5 servers. Min level 10 servers. You and I might or might not agree with them but they exist and can’t be ignored. I would personally raid them to max level 7 or 8 to give people a choice if they want to stay in the lower end and keep playing or potentially swim with more sharks.
-In such a system, the only consideration to have in balancing would be a skill based balancing which would then work much better than it currently does.
So you want the lower levels to be separate and use a skill based balance system. Then you want to use a skill based balance system for the higher level players and keeping both pools segregated. Is this correct? If so, how is this not going on right now (max level 5/min level 10) and how would it not present the same issues?
I want a system that uses more factors to generate a potential skill rating. Including merc usage, skill with mercs based on criteria from each merc and factor in a players current skill rating with their current set of mercs, their overall skill rating and that of their teammates. It would also factor in likelyhood of playing a medic or an engineer that goes for objectives. Tons and tons of variables could and should be used for skill.
However, that would be extremely complex and potentially not viable depending on the type of hardware that is constantly keeping up with all of those stats and calculations for each player that plays Dirty Bomb. That’s what I want. It has little to do with time played and everything to do with accuracy in measure actual potential performance and usage and splitting people up based on that.
It still wouldn’t be perfect as there are tons of flaws that can’t be accounted for but it’s about the best that can be done. LoL has similar flaws but how they resolved it is the community knows and has been trained to make sure that they always have certain roles and positions filled. DB does not. That’s something that could maybe be helped with some training or through community interaction. Not sure how to fix that tbh.
I’m really getting tired at reading your replies, because you just keep ignoring what I write. You reply besides my point repeatedly and I’m past the point where I have the strength to expose to you my point of view for the 10th time. If you didn’t get it by now, you probably wont at all.
Now I would also have many more opinions on the kind of character you are, but I don’t want to be insulting nor any of the other things you accuse me of, with what I can only admit as being well studied rhetoric to make me look bad and you look good. I gave you more respect than I feel you’ve shown me, but that’s on me for thinking that you’d deserve it.
Now regarding this:
[quote=“Amerika;93590”][So you want the lower levels to be separate and use a skill based balance system. Then you want to use a skill based balance system for the higher level players and keeping both pools segregated. Is this correct? If so, how is this not going on right now (max level 5/min level 10) and how would it not present the same issues?
[/quote]
Right now there is nothing that forces players under level 5 to stay out of regular servers, and min level 10 are rarely populated and when they are, they’re full, but in the rare instances I managed to enter in one, I didn’t experience all the lack of experience based frustration from regular pubs.
Not agreeing with you isn’t the same thing as ignoring you. You didn’t actually state your view in what you quoted and you ignored my rather lengthy response to it (twice now). You accuse me of skimming or not reading your responses yet I’ve replied to them in detail and I’ve asked questions when I’ve had questions because things don’t add up or make sense so I ask for clarification. And you use that against me to claim I don’t “understand” you. I’ve also done it without trying to devalue what you are saying through snarky comments or exaggeration (10th time huh?).
You refuse to comment on the very obvious negatives of what you propose and comment on the system I have proposed and it’s pluses and minuses. This is where we differ. I am willing to break things down with both positives and negatives to come to a conclusion. You have, thus far, not been able to do this from my perspective.
Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I am not respecting your opinion. Just that I don’t agree with it and I’ve stated my logic and reasoning and given multiple examples.
So yeah, I do believe we are at an impasse here from my perspective and this topic is at it’s end. I’ve stated what I want and what I don’t want and you have done your absolute best at doing the same (see what I did there?).
People act like this game is horrendously complicated to learn, NOT play, LEARN.
Learning how to do something implies you are willing to play to get better, not play for purely the sake of fun. This game is hard to play, because this is not your typical arcade shooter where one man is steam rolling over the rest. Even the best players are nothing without a good team to carry them.
So I’ll throw some things at you that you absolutely need to learn to get good at Dirty Bomb
Hipfire vs Aiming down sights, when do you hipfire, and when do you aim with your sights, and where of course. Big factor there.
Gibbing, understanding when to knife, when to use your gun, who can gib with their abilities, etc
Reload cancelling and how to do it
Merc roles, Medics Revive, Engineers focus on planting bombs, leave the damage dealing to the Assault classes, etc, know your place and do it.
Know how to cover angles, how to push, how to hold
Use your mic, and learn the differences between good and bad comms.
Understand flanking and prediction, where you think an enemy will go to push or hold an area, and what would be the easiest way to get the drop on them.
Trick jumping, gotta know how to do these and all of the possible places.
Your aim, is your sens good? Is it too high? Can you reliably track a target the size of a lightbulb or streetlight? Can you reliably twitch or flick your mouse and do a perfect 180 or 90 turn every time?
If these things are not true, then you have something to work on, and no amount of team balancing or shuffling will ever fix this. It is impossible to attach numbers to true player skill or knowledge, as the number is based on performance, and it’s not always consistent. What if the player is in a bad mood? A new mouse? Has performance problems on his/her PC? Is playing without a mic or sound?
There’s no way to account for this stuff. But you CAN account for yourself, if you are actually trying to win instead of screwing around then that’s all that matters. But blaming your losses on your team or balance when you know you could do better, is just making excuses, and that’s something I don’t personally believe anymore.
