2010-11-18, 17:26:06
xXBehinderungXx Wrote:1. Leavers: The 80% system is totally useless, because with 80% of 10 Players, an average of 2 people can leave each game , and its often the case....
2. Tinkers: They kill every game. First its either an EXTREAMLY BIG DISSADVANTAGE or a very very very small advantage to have one of them in your team. (2 or more explain itself.... ) . They feed, they get every fkin creep, they nerf other player, they are lern resistant. (many tinkers buy 3 longrange weapons before they even THINK about getting a frikin hull.... even if the rest of the team nerves them to buy the hull, they refuse...)
3. Team Balances: Its a frikin Joke how imbalanced nearly 4 out or 5 games are. ( my last games all lasted for just 40 minutes, 1 hour+ games a extremly rare ) The problem is imo, that weak people play less games and never get to their real ELO, so the team with the 1500 people that are really bad , but just play lets say 10 games in their whole bt life, imbalance the games very hard. People that play more often have their estimated ELO, but newbys dont have that.
Ad 1: At first: It is 85%. The problem here is to find the thin line between providing an anti-motive for frequent leavers and still give people the chance to play league with not 100% stable connections and when they do have to leave once in a while due to non-game circumstances. I’m not sure if 85% is perfect, but I find it reasonable. It would be interesting to see the statistics of the average leaver per game, but I feel like it is not too high to get interesting games (1-2 leavers in a game do not necessarily destroy games, even though they might do so sometimes).
Ad 2: You seem to be very biased against tinker players. I do think they learn, I am in the opinion that they can give a team a real advantage and I don’t agree that they kill every game. Also I was in beta 17xx points tinker without “getting a frikin hull” in about 90% of my games.
(You could argue I’m also biased towards tinker in a positive way, which is probably true.)
Ad 3: So I reconstruct your argument as this:
1) People with few games are close to 1500 and not close to their real elo.
2) Game balance treats those as if their real elo was 1500.
3) People with less game in general have a real elo below 1500.
Conclusion:
4) The team with more players with ~1500 and few games is at a disadvantage.
Do I get your argument?
The basic rebuttal is quite simple: (3) is just not true. A player with 0 games and 1500 elo has not a determined real elo whatsoever. He could be bad, but he could be a smurf of some top 3 player, who wants to snipe another top player with his low elo. You are not justified to claim that those 1500 elo 0 game guys are “newbys”. As soon as we treat them as having a worse real elo for the balance function we get a better grasp of some of the new players (the part who is really bad), but as well we seriously underrate other 0 game players (the good players and therefore also smurfs) a lot more than we do right now. We need to have a balance within this circumstances and the only good way of keeping all possibilities of being super-pro or being a bad player included is by treating them as being of “average” elo, which is (neglecting the stat % factors) 1500.