- General
-
Bugs
The "rich stay rich" balancing in football
Here's the way balancing in football works without matchmaking groups (if balancing is what it can be called and not the opposite): for every ranked player in the grey team there's a higher ranked player in the brown team. So the sorting goes like this: 1st+3rd+5th+7th vs. 2nd+4th+6th+8th. Let's make an example. One gold, two silvers, two bronzes and three non ranked enter the match. The sorting will be: 1 gold + 1 silver + 1 bronze + 1 non ranked vs. 1 silver + 1 bronze + 2 non ranked. I've been on both ends of this since I'm ranked high but Virtuoso goes on a binge and sets up camp in the game. I don't want to be on either end of this, I just want balanced games. I propose 1st+4th+5th+8th vs. 2nd+3rd+6th+7th.
Customer support service by UserEcho
And to add to that, I don't know why football gets treated as an afterthought when it's the only persistently popular mode next to arena.
I agree to some extent, but the only way there would be decent balancing is when there are lots of good players, which won't happen unless there is a massive userbase increase. The biggest thing holding that back, is when we get lots of players, the game starts to lag. People hate lag more than anything else. An unplayable game is something that will make people quit a game. There is a huge amount that needs doing on Wilds.io, development is way too slow. This game has lots of potential but I believe it will never be fulfilled. Rez lacks the vision/coding abilities to make it happen.
Perfect is the enemy of good. Balancing could be improved, big user base or not.
EDIT: And I don't get the "some extent" remark. The complaint is pretty straightforward. Balancing is bad. You're the one who benefits the most from it, being the top ranked player ensures you always get a better team, but fun games are more of a priority to grinding up useless points.
I say some extent because it's very hard to have balance in any teams, especially when I am playing. I am just too experienced at sports. Really you should be asking me to be banned instead ;-)
Even against a very strong team, I can still win easily provided there is no afk or total noobs. You wouldn't expect this match to be 3-0 with TMK stacking the teams, right?
You went out of your way and got screenshot happy so you could prove yourself like this is about you and your skill and not something that affects everyone who plays the mode. The 3:0 one would have sufficed, from that I can deduce that it was 2:0 at some point, you didn't have to spam the thread with it. Those three you were with might not have been a handicap for all I know. It's about average outcomes and experience, not about you. What aren't you getting about that? The hell are you on about?
"I'm so good and can always win so there's no point in improving the balancing that affects everyone and not just me and balancing is gonna be off anyway so there's no difference in how bad it is".
If you're so damn good then what's your objection to improving the balancing? And why are you even informing me on your skills like it's something I wouldn't know about firsthand. When you start getting cocky then it turns into some petty contest. You and I both know where we stand when we go toe to toe (you're not that much of an unstoppable force and it's easy to claim you only lose due to afks when it's either that or being on a stacked team for you). With the amount of time you dedicate to it I'd expect you to be better. Go ahead and get to your 10k pointless points, make it 20k for all I care. The "rich stay rich" was about balancing that stacks the odds in favor of rank instead of using rank as a basis for balancing. You interpreted this being about you so are now needlessly subverting an apparent problem of bad balancing and once again it gets no attention and doesn't get addressed. So when I go for a few games during your eternal sessions I can expect most of the games to not to be fun cause they will be with one semi good guy and two stooges on my team. Just like poor Tony gets when he plays against me and then he rages in the message board. The 4 or 5 serviceable players could be spread out more evenly and it would more often result in less frustrating games for everyone. When the "balancing" was about as bad as it could get and all the highest ranked players were on one side and Taw was still around, him and I would group together just to have interesting games. But no one else is interested in that. I was the only one making posts about it until it got restored to this cause anything is better than that. Literally. In terms of balancing that was the worst possible setup and it went on for so long cause everyone was just grinding points against scrubs, occasionally ending up as the fifth man out. I guess that's what it takes for most guys to have fun, just "owning" without a challenge. Take a step back and see how the game could be better instead of being fine with the way it is cause you're not adversely affected. And then you talk the big talk about being a good dev. Go ahead and make a better football game, I might play it.
Fair point, it will affect a variety of scenarios. I know what you mean about grouping, I grouped with hohoho to take down the 4 players that grouped. If will see if I can find time to code a game, but I must work on my PhD. To be honest I will probably even have to give up wilds for a while to focus on my PhD.
Nice of you to get the point. You saw what happened yesterday when Sava joined for a single game. It was you, me, and Jumper, who are arguably all better players from Sava and either Tony or moise who were on the other side. So the supposed match of the titans as Tony had called it lasted for a whopping one minute. At least when I'm on the other side I make you work for it.
And yeah, if that PhD is a thing it's not gonna get finished with procrastination.
Sava isn't good though, he got those points using stacking against noobs. I've done quite well with procrastination so far!