Should Scramblers get a buff?

[OutwittersFan422]

@Szei

I see what you are saying and simply put I disagree. I respect what you are saying and again in theory I understand what you are trying to achieve but I think you are not looking at the entire picture.

First as for the tennis analogy, I suppose my comparisons werent clear. It was more that Federer was Adorables and Nadal was Feedback for example and if Nadal(Feedback) performs far better than average on clay then its not fair for Federer to say I dont want to play on clay thus negating the advantage that each race has in certain cases.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. The races are not perfectly balanced. I think as a whole it is clear that A are the best for reasons that need not be delved into here. That said there are a series of maps that Feedback are not only competitive but are arguably better than Adorables. Same for all the races (Veggies less so MAYBE but thus far my numbers are not yet complete with them so Ill reserve judgement).

I think working out a system that better distributes games equally among maps and turns would be a great start because all 4 races break down pretty predictably along the original 8 maps for a rather uniform set of reasons. Beyond that I still say that randomly assigning race would also better this problem because again it negates all of these issues entirely. And yes i know that doing that would essentially violate the implicit purchase contract with all previous buyers and cant/wont happen but im just saying.

The point is that each team in every game or sport is built a certain way. They are built to facilitate their strengths and to diminish and hide their weaknesses. Baseball teams with a really big field are built more to operate with hit and runs and less so on power hitting home run balls whereas parks like the Yankees have are built with teams that can hit the ball out 1-9. This is a reality of any competitive challenge. With football (american football for those non americans) until recently when a big part of defense was legislated out of the game, teams that played in cold weather towns were built heavily to run the football whereas teams that played in warmer weather or in domes were more geared towards the pass attack and able to take advantage of fast surfaces. But all that being said I simply dont think its fair for a home run hitting team to say that we don't want to play any teams on fields that are harder to hit home runs on simply because thats not the way we are built. If thats the case just play friendly games and stay out of the competitive league all together. The league itself should be tailored to find who is truly the best at the game and I think in the truest sense of the word best, it means mastering all teams all maps all turns everything. And there is only one way to do that.

I think looking at teams and teams alone yes you can make the argument that one team is better than the other. That is true no argument here. But when you take into account the different qualities of the sets of maps balance becomes less of an issue. Between the variables of race, turn, map, # of spawns, # of wits i think its pretty much level playing field. If every single map was as big as Thorn Gully for example then yes Id say things need fixing. But when you add in maps like Glitch where the small size and proximity to the spawn point Feedback becomes highly effective.

The matchup system essentially tries to drive everything towards 50%. So in theory if you are winning at 50% and are matched perfectly eliminating your 3 worst maps thereby artificially upping your win % to lets say 60% flies in the face of true competition. As I said there is a place for that and its friendlies.

I dont know I suppose the point is moot since all development has been ended and i now realize ive written a short book here. But thats just my two cents