ViciousMalicious wrote:Why are you even asking feedback here? I bet half the people posting don't play ranked.
ViciousMalicious wrote:Lookout nerf is retarded, this is a social deduction game. Can't deduct shit when a role is nerfed like this.
GreekGodSudura wrote: Proportional winrates are for morons who demand participation trophies. Go home.
5/15 for all.
DFrenchBoi wrote:GreekGodSudura wrote: Proportional winrates are for morons who demand participation trophies. Go home.
5/15 for all.
What are you talking about? A proportional win rate makes each faction member have to play well or they're going to lose. Giving 1 person an equal chance of winning as 13 people (NE is excluded since their win conditions are different) is simply ridiculous. Also, developers, PLEASE take note about how much people have played the game when you look at suggestions. There is a clear trend of more experienced players opposing these buffs, and those with less experience supporting them. That in itself should tell you something.
HAWAIIANpikachu wrote:(Town's majority + Mafia's info vs NK literally being a minority with practically no info).
Brilliand wrote: Proportional winrates are thus sort of absurd, but the proportional mindset does make sense if you hedge it a bit. I'm fond of the idea of pushing the Town, Mafia and NK winrates toward 50%, 33% and 17%, respectively, as that has a nice mathematical relationship with proportional winrates, while not putting any one faction over 50%.
Brilliand wrote:HAWAIIANpikachu wrote:(Town's majority + Mafia's info vs NK literally being a minority with practically no info).
Nutty idea: Can we fix this by giving the NK even more info than the Mafia?
(Nah probably not.)
Brilliand wrote:ViciousMalicious wrote:Why are you even asking feedback here? I bet half the people posting don't play ranked.
This is where the people who spend all day arguing about the balance of various roles are.
Arguing with other interested people helps you gets a sense of what kind of change the game actually needs. Throwing your weight around by pointing out that you have more points than the other guy does not.
Brilliand wrote:ViciousMalicious wrote:Lookout nerf is retarded, this is a social deduction game. Can't deduct shit when a role is nerfed like this.
Social deduction ≠ mechanical deduction
I think you forgot the "social" part.
ydnnek wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but the discussion of "the win-rates for each faction" should depend on a few assumptions. For example, assume that a "normal" player whose skill is neither above-average nor below-average has a long-run average ELO gain of zero (this player seems to not be special at all, and never seems to neither decrease nor decrese their ran) then if we allow their win-rate to be 50% (provided ELO gains are tweaked to be a flat and equal increase/decrease), then setting (among an infinite number of choices) the winrate for NK to be 10%, mafia to be 16%, and town to be 74% then this will satisfy the "normal player" assumption.
(Here's something I just typed up quickly for the above argument. I assumed for ease of argument that the chances of rolling NK is 2/15 instead of 1/15: https://www.overleaf.com/read/vzsvzfcdcjnh).
I can't see why you can choose between a flat winrate for each faction or a proportional winrate for each faction without first assuming something on the ELO increases/decreases.
Brilliand wrote:ydnnek wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but the discussion of "the win-rates for each faction" should depend on a few assumptions. For example, assume that a "normal" player whose skill is neither above-average nor below-average has a long-run average ELO gain of zero (this player seems to not be special at all, and never seems to neither decrease nor decrese their ran) then if we allow their win-rate to be 50% (provided ELO gains are tweaked to be a flat and equal increase/decrease), then setting (among an infinite number of choices) the winrate for NK to be 10%, mafia to be 16%, and town to be 74% then this will satisfy the "normal player" assumption.
(Here's something I just typed up quickly for the above argument. I assumed for ease of argument that the chances of rolling NK is 2/15 instead of 1/15: https://www.overleaf.com/read/vzsvzfcdcjnh).
I can't see why you can choose between a flat winrate for each faction or a proportional winrate for each faction without first assuming something on the ELO increases/decreases.
I don't think it's necessary to intertwine the winrate discussion with the ELO discussion, in fact I'd prefer not to.
I'd rather balance the winrates to something that feels "fair" regardless of ELO, and also (in parallel) set up the ELO system in such a way that it will give appropriate amounts of ELO regardless of what the winrates are. Setting things up that way is more robust than using a "flat an equal" ELO gain/loss, and trying to set the winrates to values that don't cause the ELO system to be broken.
ydnnek wrote:But for the purpose of ELO rank, I do think that the amount should be adjusted for these "fair" winrates, so that a "normal" player deserves a rank which doesn't deviate from the default (to avoid any ELO inflation/deflation). I understand this is probably quite difficult though, and unrealistic.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests