| 1 |
He didn't want to play a fairly small game where one of his allies wasn't being a team player? You might be able to overlook that in a 15v15, but not at this scale.
|
1 |
He didn't want to play a fairly small game where one of his allies wasn't being a team player? You might be able to overlook that in a 15v15, but not at this scale.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
The one good thing was that @Omoiyari at least announced his intentions, so @esainane could at least cut his losses quickly.
|
3 |
The one good thing was that @Omoiyari at least announced his intentions, so @esainane could at least cut his losses quickly.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
I'd suggest that compromising lobsterpot balance is a smaller price to pay than you think. If you've got a large enough portion of the team playing in a way that is demonstrably likely to accomplish less than a take and hold expansion game (ramps, trollcomms, nuke/super rushes etc) then team balance has already been broken.
|
5 |
I'd suggest that compromising lobsterpot balance is a smaller price to pay than you think. If you've got a large enough portion of the team playing in a way that is demonstrably likely to accomplish less than a take and hold expansion game (ramps, trollcomms, nuke/super rushes etc) then team balance has already been broken.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
The reason to play a lobsterpot should be because it's a place you can easily get casual games where your skill or lack of it is unlikely to count for much. Anyone doing it to increase their rating is there for the wrong reason. If anything, it is having it elo enabled that defeats the point.
|
7 |
The reason to play a lobsterpot should be because it's a place you can easily get casual games where your skill or lack of it is unlikely to count for much. Anyone doing it to increase their rating is there for the wrong reason. If anything, it is having it elo enabled that defeats the point.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
I've
been
thinking
for
some
time
that
the
way
forward
is
to
remove
elo
from
lobsterpot
and
ideally
any
attempt
to
balance
the
room
by
elo.
This
reinforces
the
point
that
it
is
a
casual
room
where
actions
do
not
have
consequences
and
skill
shouldn't
matter
greatly
in
the
outcome.
Let
it
be
a
place
where
anything
goes
but
let
it
also
be
a
place
that
like-minded
individuals
can
ditch
freely
to
play
a
game
more
to
their
liking.
|
9 |
I've
been
thinking
for
some
time
that
the
way
forward
is
to
remove
elo
from
lobsterpot
and
ideally
any
attempt
to
balance
the
room
by
elo.
This
reinforces
the
point
that
it
is
a
casual
room
where
actions
do
not
have
consequences
and
skill
shouldn't
matter
greatly
in
the
outcome.
Let
it
be
a
place
where
anything
goes
[b]but
let
it
also
be
a
place
that
like-minded
individuals
can
ditch
freely
to
play
a
game
more
to
their
liking[/b].
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
Why is it that the competitive team player (call us the tryhard community if you like) should routinely be expected to carry someone who doesn't share that motivation? We're penalised if we do try to carry because we'll probably fail since the team is playing a man down most of the game.
|
11 |
Why is it that the competitive team player (call us the tryhard community if you like) should routinely be expected to carry someone who doesn't share that motivation? We're penalised if we do try to carry because we'll probably fail since the team is playing a man down most of the game.
|
| 12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
| 13 |
However, we're also multiply penalised if we decide we're not going to bother and resign. Firstly the team goes on to lose anyway and we suffer whatever prestige impact we feel from losing some WHR. Secondly even if we do resign, we probably won't even get the sort of game we want to play anyway. Thirdly if we make a habit of it we may even be reported for breaching the code of conduct never mind that a "do what I want" player is similarly in breach. It's simply harder for a moderator to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the "do what I want" player's behaviour was worse than legitimately bad judgement.
|
13 |
However, we're also multiply penalised if we decide we're not going to bother and resign. Firstly the team goes on to lose anyway and we suffer whatever prestige impact we feel from losing some WHR. Secondly even if we do resign, we probably won't even get the sort of game we want to play anyway. Thirdly if we make a habit of it we may even be reported for breaching the code of conduct never mind that a "do what I want" player is similarly in breach. It's simply harder for a moderator to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the "do what I want" player's behaviour was worse than legitimately bad judgement.
|
| 14 |
\n
|
14 |
\n
|
| 15 |
The other day, I saw a fairly well populated Zero-Wars room running alongside a well-populated lobsterpot. That gives me hope that where the incentives are sufficient, one room culture can be broken.
|
15 |
The other day, I saw a fairly well populated Zero-Wars room running alongside a well-populated lobsterpot. That gives me hope that where the incentives are sufficient, one room culture can be broken.
|
| 16 |
\n
|
16 |
\n
|
| 17 |
No-elo lobsterpot means we would have a completely casual sandbox room running alongside (hopefully) a competitive teams room, 1v1 matchmaker and say, Zero-Wars. This is 4 completely different experiences (vs the 3 at best we have now with one of those being quite unsatisfying for a portion of the community) which between them provide space for "tryharders" to do their thing and "do as they wants" to do their thing without one set of players regularly sabotaging the other (whether by accident or design).
|
17 |
No-elo lobsterpot means we would have a completely casual sandbox room running alongside (hopefully) a competitive teams room, 1v1 matchmaker and say, Zero-Wars. This is 4 completely different experiences (vs the 3 at best we have now with one of those being quite unsatisfying for a portion of the community) which between them provide space for "tryharders" to do their thing and "do as they wants" to do their thing without one set of players regularly sabotaging the other (whether by accident or design).
|
| 18 |
\n
|
18 |
\n
|
| 19 |
With a UI addition like a first page "quick battle" button that directs people straight to the sandbox, those who don't really know what they're doing can be diverted away from swimming with the tryhard sharks in their competitive room. This would mean the competitive room should only be entered by conscious choice. That in turn has the advantage that if complaints are received about someone's play in the competitive room, a moderator can more easily judge whether there was intent to breach community standards.
|
19 |
With a UI addition like a first page "quick battle" button that directs people straight to the sandbox, those who don't really know what they're doing can be diverted away from swimming with the tryhard sharks in their competitive room. This would mean the competitive room should only be entered by conscious choice. That in turn has the advantage that if complaints are received about someone's play in the competitive room, a moderator can more easily judge whether there was intent to breach community standards.
|
| 20 |
\n
|
20 |
\n
|
| 21 |
Zero-K ends up with a more balanced social contract and hopefully less forum and in game rage as a result. That sounds like a significant prize.
|
21 |
Zero-K ends up with a more balanced social contract and hopefully less forum and in game rage as a result. That sounds like a significant prize.
|
B842734 9 on Iced Coffee v4.3 (Multiplayer)