What determines who wins more often? Player skill, Population, or Faction imbalance? - Page 4

Rahabib · 2013-02-26, 12:16 PM

From my time in Connery - population (zerg) then faction imbalance (map layout plays a big part) then player skill (theres so many people its hard to pin point skill in this game). I have never seen someone play and think - "wow" that guy is good. mostly its just luck of getting the drop on people.

Ghoest9 · 2013-02-26, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Assist

I'd love to know where these myths come from.

Ummm they probably come from people who actually try to play with the starter weapons.

Bocheezu · 2013-02-26, 02:45 PM

If we're talking about indoor battles over cap points, it really depends how many people are involved. A small-scale battle of 10v10 is really where player skill can shine and bases will be won or lost just based on skill.

On a larger scale, say 40v40, you can't selectively put together 40 elite killwhores vs. 40 complete terribads; both sides are going to be a mix of both, and in that case it comes down more to class composition, overall weapon choice, and focusing on removing spawn points. A platoon made up of HAs with some medics and engineers will beat an all-HA crew (biolabs are very strong for MAX and LA as well). In a biolab, a shotgun is usually a better choice than an LMG; so for equal skill, 40 guys with shotties will generally beat 40 guys with LMGs in a biolab.

The idea that this game is "fair" for a BR1 and that a veteran player only has a 20% advantage over him is laughable. Certain weapons are guaranteed upgrades for certain situations and if a BR1 tries to fight indoors against a guy with a shotgun, they are probably going to lose. Just simple things like medpacks and flak armor increase survivability significantly. So a higher-BR crew will destroy a lower-BR crew for equal skill.

I think faction weapons have very little to do with anything. Some are better than others (no other carbine compares to Solstice) but the overall effect is minimal.

Xaine · 2013-02-26, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Bocheezu

The idea that this game is "fair" for a BR1 and that a veteran player only has a 20% advantage over him is laughable. Certain weapons are guaranteed upgrades for certain situations and if a BR1 tries to fight indoors against a guy with a shotgun, they are probably going to lose.

Fine, but what happens when a new player with a LMG sees a vet with a shotgun at long range.

Or when they get the drop on someone and they don't get a chance to shoot.

This is not a game where someone with 'better gear' than you is going to beat you all the time. You can outplay them by making them fight on your terms.

Originally Posted by Bocheezu

I think faction weapons have very little to do with anything. Some are better than others (no other carbine compares to Solstice) but the overall effect is minimal.

As a main LA player who uses the Solstice constantly, I dislike it.

The TRAC-5 has better range and better ability to hip fire at close range.

Assist · 2013-02-26, 08:34 PM

So I guess the question is how can they better balance the population ? Since it seems most here agree that population is the deciding factor in the game. I think they don't want it to be, they'd prefer even fights, but the current method of just giving additional EXP for being underpopulated doesn't appear to be working.

I've thought about this quite a bit and I can't come up with a good reason to get people to transfers themselves to another faction. I think it's too dependent on player preference to be able to change it. I personally don't care which faction I play, but I know I wouldn't enjoy the game as much if my faction was the side consistently above 40% pop. It's similar to the Liberator I guess, I don't see how it's fun to sit in a Liberator farming to rank 100, and I don't see how it's fun to be just a small part of the massive zerg.

EVILPIG · 2013-02-26, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by Assist

So I guess the question is how can they better balance the population ? Since it seems most here agree that population is the deciding factor in the game. I think they don't want it to be, they'd prefer even fights, but the current method of just giving additional EXP for being underpopulated doesn't appear to be working.

I've thought about this quite a bit and I can't come up with a good reason to get people to transfers themselves to another faction. I think it's too dependent on player preference to be able to change it. I personally don't care which faction I play, but I know I wouldn't enjoy the game as much if my faction was the side consistently above 40% pop. It's similar to the Liberator I guess, I don't see how it's fun to sit in a Liberator farming to rank 100, and I don't see how it's fun to be just a small part of the massive zerg.

I have.. to.. say it..

If you want an even fight, go play CoD or BF. Sometimes fights are even. Some times you get steam rolled. Sometimes you do the steamrolling. That's the beauty of it. As a seperate issue, more players is always better, but beyond that, if we had 10 conts and could pop-lock 6 of them, you'd still have unbalanced fights in places and that is cool.

Either way, give them hell!

james · 2013-02-26, 09:51 PM

Its numbers. As it sits for the most part the bigger zerg wins. Its nothing something you can really fix though

Assist · 2013-02-26, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

I have.. to.. say it..

If you want an even fight, go play CoD or BF. Sometimes fights are even. Some times you get steam rolled. Sometimes you do the steamrolling. That's the beauty of it. As a seperate issue, more players is always better, but beyond that, if we had 10 conts and could pop-lock 6 of them, you'd still have unbalanced fights in places and that is cool.

Either way, give them hell!

The last three nights on Waterson the VS population on login and logout has been below 25%, except for today when the VS had 28% when I logged out.
I don't care about individual fights and I tried to express that in my earlier posts. You are right, more players is always better, except when one side has nearly double the number of players as the otherside at *every single fight*. The only option to 'win' then becomes to avoid the fights to play the game, which isn't a good option. Which is what we've done and we unfortunately have held 2 continents multiple times the past week because those continents are empty. We did get a new record today though, our VS pop on Indar got down to 6%, yet somehow the TR still had the highest pop on Indar and Amerish and were only 4% below us on Esamir. This is not a "I want a fair fight" population problem, this is a "there is no fair fight" population problem.