Topic
4v4 is Broken
|
Edited by Spirit on 27/05/12 15:42 (BST)
A series of random events can also be considered a discrete function, which looks like this Thats not random.
Now can you see how you've misunderstood? |
|
Edited by RuuNa on 27/05/12 16:27 (BST)
a function Yeh, those two you posted now are functions. The other one was a relation as it violated the definition by assigning not only two x two one y, which is valid, but also two y to one x, which is invalid. And no, a relation is not just a rewritten function, there are a few more rules to that. But I think I'm out of this, you hardly summed up what we were talking about - then the quotewar emerges all over again. I'm not a fan of reading "quote, answer, quote, answer, quote, answer" texts and mostly just pass them, so yeah. |
I agree it is annoying. Rest assured that all that is happening is I systematically refute each of his arguments followed by him ignoring what I say. I'm sorry that it is a lot to read, but he talks a lot of nonsense so it takes a lot of rebuttals. |
|
So,the conclusion is....what,4on4 broken or not?
|
Statistically it cannot be proven to be broken. Playing it, can "feel" like it is broken, although its all player delusion based on not liking to be whooped by a vastly superior team, who are not actually superior, as they are inferior but had better communication and a battle plan. So the conclusion.... Its not broken statistically but if you play it as random you will think it is. But remember; statistics never lie... |
Man, why you comment if you got no brain... There's a problem with playing as random in 4v4 Solution: Don't play it...
How is playing 1v1 going to fix 4v4 random?
Obviously the real skill is 1v1 but guess what...? That is not related in any way to this thread. |
My point is blizzard made the game so it is balanced around 1v1. 4v4 is none of their concerns, if you can't accept that, just try to make the best out of it by playing with a team yourself before you queue (random or arranged team). If you would make seperate leagues for RT or AT you would end up with really long queues, especially in the high masters bracket. So yeah.. solution(as you call it) would be to not play on your own, since I see no way how this can be fixed. You simply can't please everyone. |
Well thanks for that. Blizzard already confirmed that the reason to put randoms versus arranged was to reduce the queue time for arranged teams. However it does mean that random versus random is quite rare, and that's what all the randoms want to play. A simple check box to only pick other randoms would sort it out for the randoms. I'd happily queue for an extra few minutes to not waste 20 minutes versus an arranged team. The only losers would be the arranged teams queueing slightly longer, but as they are having their fun to the detriment of random players that would be acceptable. One set of players should not have a bad experience to improve the experience for another set, this was the mistake with the concept of 4v4 matchmaking. The way the system is currently allows for ATs and PATs to abuse the system, knowing they can use it to get free wins, but I would suggest that winning is not so great if you steamroll the opposition, surely the real arranged teams want to play evenly matched arranged teams too. Admittedly noob stomping is fun for the stompers but its just them arsing around for kicks. They shouldn't be able to do that while destroying the fun for randoms. |
|
Edited by Spirit on 28/05/12 20:52 (BST)
Wait, I'm confused? Your first post shows you understand that thinking it is broken is a delusion, but your second post seems to indicate you think its broken! Well which is it? There's a problem with playing as random in 4v4 Thats not what he is saying. He is saying if you'd like to understand why saying AT wins more than RT then just play AT for a bit... you'll soon change your mind. The solution he is saying is basically: "learn that you are wrong". You learn by actually doing it, not making assumptions to suit your theory when you have no experience of what you're talking about. ('you' is impersonal in this context).
No you're wrong, the ones who would be queuing longer would be the RT since the top skilled RT players would not have any other players around their skill without AT. At the bottom end of the ladder there are vastly more players available so the same issue does not occur.
Dude, I don't understand what is going on here. We've just been through 6 whole pages of showing how there is NO evidence of RT, AT or PAT abusing anything and there is plenty of evidence of no abuse. I thought you were on board with this! And now you post this? The bottom line: Statistics clearly show that neither AT, RT or PAT is favoured against any combination of the others. If their MMR is similar (and they won't meet if it is not) then they have a 50% chance in every match. Now will everyone please calm down and stop the whining. |
|
Yeah I know, stats prove its all even.
Still the best games I ever play are random versus random. The worst games are random versus arranged. Like you say, that's the system, suck it up or go join the jones' and get a few mates to team up and enjoy the perceived advantage. |
Still the best games I ever play are random versus random. Well, there might be something in that. It wouldn't affect win rates but we might find that AT wins most often when they have a specific plan that crushes their opponents. Thus, losing to an AT might well be (on average) a less fun experience then losing to an RT. Its conjecture, but being crushed produces a memorable negative event. Whereas losing to an RT where you enjoyed the match wouldn't. Thus a relatively small number of crushing defeats from AT might be responsible for making many RT players feel like something isn't fair. I'm quite sure many players have a different experience though and I have no data. Not even sure what kind of data would support this as its a subjective emotion we're talking about! |
|
Why are win rates and this 50% stuff being brought into this? The stats provided by battle.net give no indication of how well one team did against another beyond who actually won. You could replace all the stats with flip coin charts and they would provide the same information. This means any argument suggesting 50% win rates means things are working fine and fairly are well off the mark.
For example: MMR works perfect, if you face a slightly stronger opposition, you lose, you then face slightly weaker and win, sometimes you will lose to the weaker, sometimes you will win against the slightly stronger, 50% win rate achieved. MMR not working, you face very strong opponent, you lose, you face very weak opponent you win, a few closer matchups thrown in by luck of the draw, 50% win rate achieved. Both of these examples are classed as working fine if you only take into account win/loss ratio, but the second example provides no learning experience or fun. bear in mind also that unarranged teams are weighted with situationally bad players, the undesirables who wouldn't be able to stay in an arranged team, this can be down to several things: poor connection (lagging, disconnecting) poor hardware/slow fps (lagging, disconnecting) poor experience (not played vs hard ai/hard campaign or done any challenges) poor teamworking (doesnt block properly, fast expands to too many team expansion points) doesn't know about scouting drunk high afk leaving on purpose. Giving the arranged teams a higher MMR score does not counter balance all the bad points listed above. |
|
4v4 isn't and will never be, balanced. As others have said it's not possible. It's for fun.
That said, if you have played hundreds of games, and are still in Bronze, you must be doing something very wrong. I am not a good player yet I got into high Gold very quickly whilst playing random. |
