DevReply Fixer balance in match ups

It’s really a problem in the matchmaking. Please fix it !!
In this configuration, it’s 2/10 chances to win. For me it’s too unfair

 

Yep, it's absolutely not 2/10. As a fixer, I sometimes feel like it's actually 8/10, because an enemy team with 5 DPS ships often tears my team apart. Luckily, devs have the actual numbers and don't have to rely on our biased minds.

 

@Miika You posted stats to debunk this last time around. Guessing stats has remained roughly the same?
---
In short - There is no truth behind your claim. 0 Fixer team Vs 1 Fixer team is a 50/50 matchup. If you lose 80% then you need to reevaluate how you approach those situations, cause the average player does far better.

 

From an older thread:

 

Sometimes I shred teams with fixers, sometimes they shred me.

 

In earlier leagues I thrived on those matches, I found it funny how easy they were. Now everytime I'm the only fixer i dread them - It's the strangest of phenomenons for me - None of my team want to stay together let alone keep near me. It's a total free for all and we get battered.

I'm like, okay that dude chasing their whole team clearly is in need so imma go heal him... oh yup well shit happens when you play piggy in the middle.. Hey that guy is getting hammered let me go over there and oh nope... he literally smooched that torpedo.... Hmm nope he already dead.. let me go sail across the ocean for that guy and...... f*** it. /camp.

 

I’m pretty sure that having a Fixer versus no Fixer is quite a big advantage. I haven’t read anything from the Devs that contradicts that, only that they believe it’s within thier threshold of being ‘winnable’.

The problem is thier reasoning is based on statistics from games, where there are quite a lot of variables that aren’t controlled for. Just because a Fixer team loses, doesn’t mean they didn’t have an advantage. Maybe they ‘should’ have won, but some idiot suicided etc...

When you analyse strategic components within a game, you would usually do it in the context of what is called ‘perfect play’, which means both teams play perfectly without any mistakes.

For example, in the game Connect Four, the first player always wins (with perfect play). Even if the second player also plays perfectly and makes no mistakes, he will still ultimately lose.

I think this is also true with Fixer teams. They have time on thier side, and are able to repair damage, and force a mistake. IMO with perfect play, the Fixer team will likely ‘always’ win.

Which is why, when a Fixer team does play well, they can often feel unbeatable.

 

Stats tends to beat feelings It might very well be that your personal experience is that 1 Fixer beats 0 Fixer, but for the combined playerbase its simply not the case (at the very least it wasnt at the time of the thread quoted above).

The Miika quote wasnt the interesting one, he gave actual win %-ages for various fixer destributions. All of them were shockingly close to 50/50. Not until you get 3+ Fixers on one side does it have a traceable effect, and the effect is negative for the side with the 3+ Fixers.

 

Well I think you’re misrepresenting what I said. I don’t ‘feel’ that player 1 always wins at Connect Four, it’s a proven fact. However if you were to look at stats from thousands of ‘imperfect’ games of Connect Four, you would likely also see a roughly 50:50 distribution.

My point is that stats from random imperfect games, aren’t necessarily the best way to analyse a game of strategy.

Also, don’t be too quick to dismiss ‘feelings’. Human intuition is extremely adept at spotting patterns, and solving problems. Chess grandmasters play intuitively, and that is how chess theory developed, and that intuition is still able to match powerful computers.

So I’d actually argue the the feelings/intuitions of expert players are ‘in fact’ better than random stats taken from random uncontrolled games.

 

I think the best way to examine it would be to play it out, repeatedly, with the same teams, on the same map, so that they’re actually able to perfect these strategies together, and develop counter strategies. Then we could make a better assessment over whether they actually work, or if they’re dependant on the other team making a mistake.

On different maps where the Fixer is easier/harder to defend, the results might be different.

 

Not true. But yeah it's not 2/10 either.

 

So you are saying that one person perception based only in his personal experience can provide better analisys than other people with every possible data available to them? I'd say "aristotelian spontaneous generation" was concepted by a guy who was known as a hell of a thinker and it is terribly wrong

 

This isn't true. Well, it is true as far as "statistics beat feelings" but you dont have any actual statistics. You're reading words incorrectly and jumping to wrong conclusions.

[Personal attacks removed]

 

They don’t have ‘every possible data’ all they’ve got is data from random games, with players who aren’t able to communicate, practice or strategise together. You can’t draw any conclusions about which strategy is most effective from games where it’s almost impossible for the players to execute that strategy properly.

So yes, speculation, by experienced players, on who ‘should’ have the advantage, probably is more valuable.

 

[Personal attacks removed]

Isn't it the way the game occurs? Why do you think a controlled sample with unrealistic scenario that can not happen on our daily basis would provide more realistic information?

 

And the people with the data said it's not "too" unfair. Clear implication being it's somewhat unfair, and certainly not straight up even otherwise it would be worded as such.

 

Hey here is ur answers.