DevReply Fixer balance in match ups

Because the question is not about what random circus act tends to occur on a daily basis, it’s about who actually has the strategic advantage.

It’s not true that it ‘can’t happen’, sometimes players will just happen to play the right strategy (or close to it), and if that strategy is ‘actually’ really powerful, then it won’t matter how well the other team plays.

If you happen to be on the other team, then you will notice that nothing you do seems to work. And that’s why players end up coming here and saying “hey, I don’t think this matchup is fair”.

 

A) Are you seriously proposing 97 games from one player to be a legitimate sample size? Because ... lol. [Personal attacks removed]
B) "If the matches were unfair ENOUGH". Do you understand the difference between a 50/50 win rate and saying that the matches are not "too" unfair? One implies that a tolerable level of inequity has been decided upon, the other implies there's no inequity at all.

 

And where did you read that?

Here, use this

Or this

Not that relevant but you can also use this

Or to find the origin of this one, I guess it is the more complete

 

I guess they do that because it is easier to blame matchmaking than themselves but that's just my opinion, I have no data about it

 

(1) Clear paraphrase of "if the matches were unfair enough".
(2) This does not imply that all matches are fair. Read it again.
(3) O v 2 case. Not relevant- why did you quote this?
(4) INSTEAD of using global data. Instead of using global data- which could clearly put the matter to rest- he chose to find some other more isolated data. Why go to that extra trouble since the global data could make the case perfectly if it agreed to what the dev wanted to portray? There's no legitimate reason. But hey just "don't concentrate on unfairness".
(5) Again we see this pattern of avoiding global data and narrowing the set. Why focus on MK 5 for example? Why not define "small"? Why is it so difficult to simply respond to player concerns with the actual global 0 v 1 win rate? Protip- when someone is working that hard not to give you a straight answer, it's because they don't want you to have the straight answer.

 

A) And you just choose to ignore the entire quote because these two words fit on your point of view.
B) oh you are just trolling, nevermind

 

Lol you are literally cutting and pasting small pieces of dev quotes and criticizing me for supposedly ignoring the whole quote? [Personal attacks removed]

 

Hey here's an idea since you're reading the thread:

Tell us what the global win % of 0 fixer vs 1 fixer is, and settle it.

Too complicated?

 

Yeah, bro, whatever you say, I'm not going discuss with such a superior mind as yours

 

That is a fair question. Tell you all the truth, I've been on teams where I had a fixer and the other team didn't and I lost. I actually wish sometimes that I didn't have a fixer, instead I wish I had more fire power on my team.

@Miika maybe if you could show these individuals the statistics that you've been mentioning to the community so that they can visually see it. I believe that will give them more of a reason to believe that it is fair. To be honest, I would love to be the middleman and be on both sides. I believe that the matches are fair but I wouldlove to be on the community side to actually see the statistics. I understand that you are a developer and "should" be a reliable source, however just stating something without the physical proof is hard to trust 100%

 

I'd say if a matchup is lost 75% of the time, then maybe some changes should be made to prevent those matchups from ever happening just in the sense to eliminate noncompetitive (and therefore less fun) games (I doubt there are any such matchups though haha). It really doesn't matter all too much though because it all balances out, sometimes you get matched in favor and sometimes the opposite.
It would really only matter in this case for the fixer, who would have the advantage with being vs no fixer, but seeing as everything is already balanced in the current situations, eliminating fixer vs no fixer matchups would probably require a buff to fixer in general.

 

So much "SALT" from the poeple who play fixer

The fact that mk5 fixers climb the ladder to nightmare fastest is proof that they affect game play in lower leagues.
The teamplay of nightmares league is completely different from ace,and much better to say.Everyone advising OP on how his team should play has ever played in ace-2?.Do you expect teamplay in that league to defeat fixer? LOL

Fixer clearly benifit the team over the non-Fixer team.That is a fact.If any of you watch baywatch tournament,Pro players always select one fixer.And the teams without fixers have terribly lost.Even in game where team-play ouccurs in optimum level,they need fixers.

Are fixer OP? No...
Does not having fixer is a big issue? No...

But there is a lot of stress on non-fixer team and lot of team play demanded,compared to a team with fixers.So,the presence of fixer is undeniable compared to other boats, especially in lower leagues Where teamplay is a rare sight

 

5% is usually considered statistically significant. Seems like a sensible place to start.

I don’t actually care that much if it is fair or not though. I’d just like to know if the perceived advantage is apparent in their data.

So what’s the real answer?