EPT
BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.com/ - Page 41
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
MeSaber
Sweden1234 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 556753
126 Posts
On January 11 2022 10:56 Jealous wrote: You are always using this thread as a personal pulpit to complain about others' behavior when it doesn't break the rules (or, in the case of killing 1 Drone before leaving, inconsequentially so). When will you learn that your feelings don't matter and that whining here repeatedly achieves nothing if it's not against the rules? Reading your posts is tiring af. The creator watched the replays and made his determination, stop crying and wasting more of their time. Reading my posts is tiring af to you? Well, maybe you should learn, that your feelings don't matter. ......... Oh, wait. | ||
|
Jealous
10096 Posts
On January 12 2022 20:56 IAMTHEONEO wrote: Reading my posts is tiring af to you? Well, maybe you should learn, that your feelings don't matter. ......... Oh, wait. The point is not about me, I of course don't matter in this equation. The nature of your posts is tiring, period, regardless of who is reading them, which means it is probably tiring for DEAD RETARD to have to open the thread (that he did not create, btw) to read about the free service he provides and hear incessant and irrelevant whining, wasting time responding to people whose complaints are a waste of time in the first place. My evidence for this is that he has stopped humoring most of these pointless posts. Just trying to save everyone some time here. | ||
|
vfsjhvfsjh
92 Posts
| ||
|
Rosettenzerrung
17 Posts
3x3 Big Game Hunters match played on 2022-01-12 23:15 It was not the first time. Now it is enough. | ||
|
Deleted User 556753
126 Posts
On January 13 2022 01:32 Jealous wrote: The point is not about me, I of course don't matter in this equation. The nature of your posts is tiring, period, regardless of who is reading them, which means it is probably tiring for DEAD RETARD to have to open the thread (that he did not create, btw) to read about the free service he provides and hear incessant and irrelevant whining, wasting time responding to people whose complaints are a waste of time in the first place. My evidence for this is that he has stopped humoring most of these pointless posts. Just trying to save everyone some time here. funny you mention "saving everyone some time" exactly this would happen if a bunch of players would be banned, who fuck up guys regularly, like that guy mentioned some posts above. When more and more people start to leave the game when they end up in a team with those people, this says a lot, doesn't it? Would serve everyone in the end to have this jerks out, that's all. | ||
|
D3AD-R3TARD
Poland288 Posts
On January 13 2022 07:27 Rosettenzerrung wrote: I have to report massive unmannered speaking by KoronaKing: 3x3 Big Game Hunters match played on 2022-01-12 23:15 It was not the first time. Now it is enough. Banned. In regard to discussion about who should get banned. People talking shit in those games are so common that banning them would basically stop the league. The threshold for bad manners ban is met with repeated vulgar messages to other players. This happened in this game as KoronaKing named other player c*nt twice. There are no bans for abusing the 3/5 minute. I might punish this in the future, but it would be about losing MMR points. The point of banning people is to get rid of people who make this games unplayable or try to cheat the system. I think it's impossible to force people to be kind to each other. EDIT I've been asked to change unit limits to extended. What is your take on this? Poll: Would you like extended unit limits? Yes (13) No (8) 21 total votes Your vote: Would you like extended unit limits? | ||
Chosi
Germany1300 Posts
Edit: I think the way you phrased the poll might be misleading as the "unit limit" (200) will not increase. It's the amount of stuff possible on the screen. It's 99% just the fix for valks not firing, not sure it does anything else that you would notice in a regular 3v3. | ||
|
Jealous
10096 Posts
On January 20 2022 18:30 Chosi wrote: There is no downside to increasing the limit that I am aware of, it's a bug fix that had an option to it. Or can someone educate me on why we would not choose to enable this fix? Edit: I think the way you phrased the poll might be misleading as the "unit limit" (200) will not increase. It's the amount of stuff possible on the screen. It's 99% just the fix for valks not firing, not sure it does anything else that you would notice in a regular 3v3. Probably the same reason that classic BGH is used over any modernized variant: people want to play the game exactly as it was 20 years ago, not making some units more or less viable. | ||
|
kurrrak
Poland105 Posts
| ||
|
Chosi
Germany1300 Posts
On January 20 2022 22:29 Jealous wrote: Probably the same reason that classic BGH is used over any modernized variant: people want to play the game exactly as it was 20 years ago, not making some units more or less viable. I see it like this: with the bug in, you will have people surprised that the unit they build does not work as intended thinking "Shit!". Not a great experience. On the other hand I have a hard time imaging someone thinking "man, those valks should not be able to fire, that's unfair!" | ||
|
Jealous
10096 Posts
On January 21 2022 04:21 kurrrak wrote: I don't receive friend notifications from few of the bots. Does it have to do something with type of servers they are on? You have to be connected through the Europe gateway in your launcher. On January 21 2022 05:24 Chosi wrote: I see it like this: with the bug in, you will have people surprised that the unit they build does not work as intended thinking "Shit!". Not a great experience. On the other hand I have a hard time imaging someone thinking "man, those valks should not be able to fire, that's unfair!" It's quite easy to imagine the latter when you consider that people may go for certain units/compositions precisely because the Valkyrie is not an option. Either way, regardless of what we can imagine or not, the underlying principle is the same as in my post above IMO. It's not like there is a wealth of new players playing, it's mostly the same people who have played 20 years ago, and if they were playing casual Fastest/BGH games back then, that is what they've come to expect. I believe it makes sense not to alienate the stalwart fans more so than it does to cater to the newcomers who will be frustrated about Valkyries not firing. TLDR play the game exactly as it was 20 years ago, because that's what people like and want. | ||
|
Chosi
Germany1300 Posts
| ||
|
Jealous
10096 Posts
On January 21 2022 06:55 Chosi wrote: As long as you ask Protoss and Zerg players only. I will turn 41 this year and played since release. I am too slow for 1o1 and I was quite happy when I stumbled over this bot (I opened this thread) because it made 3v3 viable and fun. And I being a terran player, which is already limiting in this game mode, it feels silly to remove one of my units from the game for the feeling of nostalgia to the others. And I would still make the case that nobody would complain. Just set it to extended limit for a random day and see if you get a single complaint. I'll bet money you won't. That's the thing though, it isn't removing one of your units from the game, it's enabling an option to put it in in the specific way which you are imagining (late game, mass amounts of them). In small numbers, they still work. In the early/mid-game, they still work. They have never worked as you have proposed until recently, on the StarCraft scale, so to say that they are being "removed" is a pretty bogus argument. You're proposing to fundamentally change an aspect of the game, that was not only never an issue for you in the past 24 years (otherwise you would have noticed it/known about it), but is also the way that everyone who *does* know about them is used to playing them. And furthermore, the way that the Valkyries work now is known to still allow for the gameplay that everyone who is playing 3v3 BGH in 2022 is fond of; that is not so clear if we make the change. What if it just simply invalidates Zerg air entirely, for example? I don't know the answer, but maybe you can host your own 3v3s and try it out? Didn't see any complaints about the sprite limit in 3v3 BGH for the 625 days in between you creating the thread and you posting the complaint either. We both know that that would be a pretty poor test of whether or not it was worth doing. Either way, I think the poll speaks for itself. I was just trying to illustrate what others who voted may be thinking. I do think that a TL poll may not be that great of a metric, but with such a decentralized community (3v3 BGHMMRbot community), this is the best indicator we have. | ||
|
Deleted User 556753
126 Posts
| ||
|
badbeatpete
25 Posts
The "keep it exactly as it was 24 years ago" argument doesn't really make much sense in the context of custom hotkeys, widescreen, faster turnrate etc. Like if Blizz fixed the dragoon hold position bug would people really object? I've personally never encountered the map max limit in a 3v3 that I can remember. Whether it is changed to extended or not is probably pretty insignificant. On the other hand, why not have a poll for the 3/5 minute rule, which does actually matter (and is pretty unpopular judging from comments in this thread). | ||
|
Jealous
10096 Posts
On January 21 2022 18:38 badbeatpete wrote: Maybe some of the ones who voted no can give an explanation? Otherwise Chosi is probably right that they misunderstood and thought it was refering to the 200 supply cap. Gave multiple, but I'm guessing you're referring to other people. The wording is a bit awkward but contextually I don't think it can be confused for any other issue. It's a pretty weak scapegoat for the results. The "keep it exactly as it was 24 years ago" argument doesn't really make much sense in the context of custom hotkeys, widescreen, faster turnrate etc. Like if Blizz fixed the dragoon hold position bug would people really object? Hotkeys, widescreen, and faster turnrate do not affect what units are viable. This does. Not analogous situations. I've personally never encountered the map max limit in a 3v3 that I can remember. Whether it is changed to extended or not is probably pretty insignificant. On the other hand, why not have a poll for the 3/5 minute rule, which does actually matter (and is pretty unpopular judging from comments in this thread). 3/5 minute rule was discussed ad nauseam throughout the thread and the host made their stance clear, and I think their stance makes a lot of sense. The rule is there to make sure that the ratings of players are as accurate as possible, which is better achieved when making an allowance for immediate deaths of a noob ally (and thus allowing cowardly players to leave before then to protect their precious points) than it would by penalizing strong players for it. Given the immense skill disparity and the A D E teams that one frequently sees when there is a strong player in the mix, I feel that it's the lesser of the two evils. I feel like a lot of people don't understand the point of the MMR system the way that it is being implemented, conceptually. As in, it seems that a lot of people view it as you would a 1v1 ladder, where the goal is to get as high as possible in the ladder, and that the ladder is structured around that. I believe that the primary focus is getting accurate measurements for people and using that to make balanced teams. In that context, I believe that rules like these make sense. Not counting games that are shitty (rank E noob teammate got rushed and can't do shit), games that are too short for similar reasons, and unfortunately also not counting games where some cowardly asshole leaves because he doesn't like starting positions, is worse for people trying to rank up and grind games, but better for the overall MMR ecosystem because it reduces variance introduced by the naturally chaotic nature of 3v3 BGH and the presence of absolute trash players who have no interest in improving/playing with their teammates/etc. If higher rank lobbies were still a thing and would get populated, I think there it would make sense to revoke that rule to some extent, but as long as people are forced to play with E/F trash players, then it doesn't make sense to penalize A/B/C rank players for the fact that their allies are garbage (and, keep in mind, those allies are automatically assigned to them). The A/B/C rank player didn't have a chance to have any input into the outcome of the game, so their skill is not being reflected by the outcome. I believe that is the logic and I think it is sound. | ||
|
badbeatpete
25 Posts
On January 22 2022 00:00 Jealous wrote: The wording is a bit awkward but contextually I don't think it can be confused for any other issue. It's a pretty weak scapegoat for the results. Its an issue that comes up so infrequently in a game with 6 or less players that it wouldn't surprise me if many people were not aware of it. In public games I often see extended units disabled and when I ask the host why they disabled it, they talk about the 200 supply cap. Similar thing for turnrate. Often you'll see public game hosts set it to 24 and not know why their 3v3/4v4 lags so much. Hotkeys, widescreen, and faster turnrate do not affect what units are viable. This does. Not analogous situations. Really? Microing mutas or vultures in turnrate 8 is just as viable as in turnrate 24? The reason I think people voting against the change misunderstood it is because arguing in favor of keeping something that was only implemented to prevent games from lagging to an unplayable state on pentium cpus is frankly kind of absurd in 2022. Maybe people do see it the way you do, but it would be surprising to me given all the other QoL improvements/fixes to the game that remastered introduced and are nearly universally accepted. 3/5 minute rule was discussed ad nauseam throughout the thread and the host made their stance clear, and I think their stance makes a lot of sense. The rule is there to make sure that the ratings of players are as accurate as possible, which is better achieved when making an allowance for immediate deaths of a noob ally (and thus allowing cowardly players to leave before then to protect their precious points) than it would by penalizing strong players for it. Given the immense skill disparity and the A D E teams that one frequently sees when there is a strong player in the mix, I feel that it's the lesser of the two evils. Exploiting the rule leads to less accurate MMR ratings because all it does is negate the result of what would otherwise be completely valid games in any other context. The argument just boils down to "I don't think I can win a 2v3 so this shouldn't count". The truth is that strong players often can win those games while mediocre ones can't. That should be reflected in their MMR. I feel like a lot of people don't understand the point of the MMR system the way that it is being implemented, conceptually. As in, it seems that a lot of people view it as you would a 1v1 ladder, where the goal is to get as high as possible in the ladder, and that the ladder is structured around that. I believe that the primary focus is getting accurate measurements for people and using that to make balanced teams. In that context, I believe that rules like these make sense. Not counting games that are shitty (rank E noob teammate got rushed and can't do shit), games that are too short for similar reasons, and unfortunately also not counting games where some cowardly asshole leaves because he doesn't like starting positions, is worse for people trying to rank up and grind games, but better for the overall MMR ecosystem because it reduces variance introduced by the naturally chaotic nature of 3v3 BGH and the presence of absolute trash players who have no interest in improving/playing with their teammates/etc. If the goal was really to minimize variance, you would include all valid games, not remove certain ones. All this does is introduce bias in the form of MMR inflation for those who actively exploit its existence in addition to making an entire subset of strategies unviable. The more people are aware of it and abuse it, the worse the effect will be. If higher rank lobbies were still a thing and would get populated, I think there it would make sense to revoke that rule to some extent, but as long as people are forced to play with E/F trash players, then it doesn't make sense to penalize A/B/C rank players for the fact that their allies are garbage (and, keep in mind, those allies are automatically assigned to them). The A/B/C rank player didn't have a chance to have any input into the outcome of the game, so their skill is not being reflected by the outcome. I believe that is the logic and I think it is sound. How exactly do they not have input in the outcome of such games? If you aren't capable of winning a 2v3 where you lost a weak player early then you simply aren't worthy of a high MMR. You are just as bad as the person leaving because their cannon rush failed if you leave because your ally died to a cannon rush. If you are a high MMR player, having low MMR allies that play like low MMR allies (like you know, dying to rushes) is part of the deal. You aren't being punished by having your MMR reflect your actual ability to win these games. If you think it is, then the ladder isn't for you. I know we're probably never going to see eye to eye on this issue. However, the host has shown he is receptive to community feedback and others have also complained about this rule which is why I requested a poll for this one. If the majority vote to keep it then I'll happily never bring it up again. | ||
|
kurrrak
Poland105 Posts
On January 21 2022 05:29 Jealous wrote: You have to be connected through the Europe gateway in your launcher. The problem is that I am. Now it is OK though, maybe some random server problems. | ||
|
pebble444
Italy2495 Posts
On January 21 2022 18:38 badbeatpete wrote: Maybe some of the ones who voted no can give an explanation? Otherwise Chosi is probably right that they misunderstood and thought it was refering to the 200 supply cap. The "keep it exactly as it was 24 years ago" argument doesn't really make much sense in the context of custom hotkeys, widescreen, faster turnrate etc. Like if Blizz fixed the dragoon hold position bug would people really object? I've personally never encountered the map max limit in a 3v3 that I can remember. Whether it is changed to extended or not is probably pretty insignificant. On the other hand, why not have a poll for the 3/5 minute rule, which does actually matter (and is pretty unpopular judging from comments in this thread). Yeah I am one of the ones that voted no. And I understood the question completely, at least for me, there where no misunderstandings. | ||
| ||
