quote:
give new players more metal, and give pro players less metal
high skill players should be nerfed vs low skill players |
This must be the source of all the downvotes. It definately makes me want to downvote it, considering that these things aren't cast as a joke. Those ideas are stupid.
You've probably heard about people complaining about the balancer, and people like Firepluck saying, "Loosing is ok because that means I get better teammates in the future." Droping rank means that the higher skilled players end up on your team. I guess that's an incentive to lose games in teams, but it's silly and doesn't sit as 'just' to me. The balancer exists to sort teams for a reason. Your rank exists for the balancer to adequately judge your relative skill. It splits the high skill players between the 2 teams and it splits the low skill players between the 2 teams. If you are high skill you have fewer high skill alies than if you were low skill. That's how it works.
As your skill increases, you get lower skilled allies. That's 'just' and balances the games. Actually changing the game itself baised on the skill rating of players--- that's bullshit. That's 'unjust.' I don't understand how you could feel any different.
Being a good player means you would no longer play the game, because the game would be designed to be stacked against you, literally. Saying that the downvotes silence dissenting opinions and pointing to this is utterly foolish. This is not a dissenting opinion, it is a worthless opinion, worthless for zero-k. It can be a good idea in a different context, like an entirely different game where that idea is the selling point, and most stratagy is devised around the idea that when you do good you get punished. But not zero-k, where the strategy comes from territory, resource spots, and most importantly units interacting with eachother and terrain.
