Should Scramblers get a buff?

[terenceshiu2005]

(06-10-2013 02:08 PM)blckace Wrote:  Wild guess Terance is Scramble baby

(06-10-2013 11:02 PM)Cor13:4 Wrote:  Ha, watching ScramblerBaby, it must be Terence. The last Peekaboo game, the play style is exactly like his other games.

hmm... good guess!

[[PETA] Cor13:4]

I like the "make 4 HP soldiers efficiently and amass so many wits that they can't beat me strategy" (MFHPSEAASMWTTCBMS). Has anybody ever done the same though against you and did the mass attack first? How did it go? So far, doing that has worked great for me against Adorables, but I've never had someone mirror it against me.

BTW, this makes me afraid to start new games, I could be matched against you...maybe I should wait until you move past where you can match against me =)

[terenceshiu2005]

I don't think I can beat a high level scallywags like you with my feedback

---

I am still a baby, not kid.

[[PETA] Cor13:4]

Aha, so that's why Bombshell BB changed names to Bombshell Kid. Well, now we know what names to look for when we see an up and coming Veggie player.

Maybe "Seed" and then "Sapling"?

[terenceshiu2005]

lol, good suggestion!

---

(06-10-2013 08:30 AM)blckace Wrote:  They should get a buff. It's one of the reasons I stopped playing, Feedback can't compete in the top 10 otherwise, my ranking plateau was due to team limitation not skill. But as we all know feedback is never gonna get buffed.

Winning a game with Feedback against Adorables on Thorn Gulley requires nothing short of a miracle.

I agree. My alt feedback account doesn't have a game on TG so far. No idea how to deal with adorable in this large map.

[phineas94]

(06-10-2013 11:37 PM)Cor13:4 Wrote:  I'm in the camp that thinks that pretty much any buff to scramblers would make them OPed (except maybe lowering the cost, but that makes the game lose some of its elegant game design).

I do like Szei's suggestion though of allowing a player to ban a few maps (maybe just 1 or 2). This would allow feedback to ban certain maps which are clearly unfavorable to them.

The only bad side is that certain maps (Reaper, anyone?) would never get played, but if that's what ends up happening, that probably indicates that those maps are broken or not fun anyways, right?

I feel the threat of a scrambler popping out of a spawn is great enough. I wouldn't be able to sleep if it was made even easier.

The board veto idea is nice, has anyone said "but rather difficult to implement" yet? As an alternative perhaps giving P2 knowledge of the race and map they'll be up against when starting a game may help (with FTA as well?) but I'm sure it would be difficult to implement. There, someone's said it.

[Szei]

(06-10-2013 11:37 PM)Cor13:4 Wrote:  I do like Szei's suggestion though of allowing a player to ban a few maps (maybe just 1 or 2). This would allow feedback to ban certain maps which are clearly unfavorable to them.

The only bad side is that certain maps (Reaper, anyone?) would never get played, but if that's what ends up happening, that probably indicates that those maps are broken or not fun anyways, right?

You're right that Reaper would probably be vetoed by all teams except Adorables and would get played the least. But, as you later stated, that's not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I perceive this as beneficial for weeding out poorly balanced maps. Blizzard does this with Starcraft 2 and the veto system. By seeing which maps are vetoed the most, they can decide which maps to replace each season.

[Mag!cGuy]

Dunno what's wrong with reaper, I love it even when I don't play adorable

[OutwittersFan422]

I think banning maps would be a bad idea. In theory I understand what you are trying to achieve but in practice not only do i not think that it would work but I also think it just isnt a good door to open. Should Federer be able to avoid playing Nadal on Clay?

Essentially what would happen is that people would simply ban maps that they werent as successful on. I entirely understand that certain maps are "less fun" due to the differences between races and in particular race vs race battles on certain maps (SvS on P).

I am about 1000 games into an experiment I am doing and the numbers clearly show that each race has maps that they preform far above the average rate on than they do on others. So if I look at my numbers and decide ok Im going to go on a run with Feedback for example I look at my list. I see which maps Feedback perform poorly on and I simply eliminate those with my vetoes. Then when I switch to Scally I switch my vetoes accordingly. Its an artificial way to prop up win % no different than P1 quitting when a certain map pops up.

What should happen is this:

League play is only available to players who own all races. When selecting a league game you are randomly assigned a map and a race and the opponent is randomly assigned a race as well. Then use whatever the current formula for points based on the ranking systems for W/L and skew them slightly to reflect what the OML statistics say each race's performance against another on a given map.

So for example, P1 starts 3 league games and P1 is currently #10 and gets randomly matched with 3 P2s.

Random Game Assignments:
Game 1: P1F(#10) v P2S(#5) on P
Game 2: P1S(#10) v P2V(#15) on G
Game 3: P1F(#10) v P2A(#1) on R

Game 1 P1 beats P2 so the current OML formula for ranking points is assigned to P1 for the win and P2 for the loss BUT OML then looks at its records and sees that Scallywags vs Feedback on Peakaboo favors Scallywags 72% of the time then the ranking points awarded should be skewed to reflect that. In this case a Feedback beat a Scally on P so the points the get should be bumped up to reflect that.

Similar with Games 2 and 3. In game 3 for example if OML records show that A outperforms F at a rate of 85% on this map then if Feedback wins as #10 and beats #1 in a matchup that should favor P2 85% of the time then the ranking points awarded should be magnified to reflect that.

Ultimately this would make the rankings more accurately reflect who truly is the best player (probably many if not all of the same people). This would also essentially make the minutia of balancing teams have a significantly smaller impact on the game. The goal would still be to balance but as players would both benefit and fall victim to whatever imbalances do exist no matter how small it really wouldn't matter. What would really take shape in the rankings is true skill would trump racial inequalities and imbalances.

Then for all else let people who want to play specific stuff do friendlies, where they can pick and choose as they like.

[Mag!cGuy]

I disagree acam. if you pay to have teams, you must be able to choose the race you're playing. Forcing you to play a random team even though you don't like it is contrary to "fun" playing a game. It's as if, on starcraft, you couldn't chose your race: this has no point! But a "random" option would be fun

And I also disagree to the veto. I already find it quite unfair on starcraft (again), cuz if you are a no-skilled cheeser you just veto the 4 spawns map and make a cannon rush being sure where your opponent is, if you aren't comfortable on a map you veto it, well.. It's the easy solution that doesn't make you practice or go further your limits but just helps you to have more wins.