Stop putting fixers on one team, but not the other

Why is this still happening so much? Can this be fixed?

 

1. To create a larger variety of matchups. Different team compositions requires different strategy, its a positive that the game doesnt attempt to create the same matchup every game.
2. Because it doesn't affect balance between teams -- This has been a topic several times; devs has given us data & there is hardly correlation between amount of fixers pr team and odds of winning. (Apart from 3+ Fixers, where it becomes slightly unfavoured for the fixers).

 

Good for the devs, now look through your battle logs and tell me that there's not fixers healing between 12-15k damage some matches, and 3 of your teammates have gotten 5k damage or less. How can you say theres no advantage, when it takes away three of your teammates damage?? Now low level fixer, with low level equipment, sure. But over 3k infamy without a fixer is not fun. Teammates will run into a torpedo, and damage others from not paying attention, or speeders who run in, get rekt and limp around with 200 hp with no fast way to get it back. Clear advantage 90% of the time if you have a competent fixer, with decent level equipment.

 

Sometimes I heal for 50k & sometimes a speeder decides to kill me and I heal for 2k
---
I actually did try to look through my battle log & did statistics for my past 250 games... The findings? Almost exact 50% winrate for [1Fix vs 0 Fix], [2Fix vs 0 Fix], [2Fix vs 1 Fix]. Long story short: Distribution of fixers between teams is not why you lose (or win). And while 250 games is a tiny sample, the gamewide numbers are roughly familiar (if you trust the people with access to that data, and I see no reason for why you shouldnt in this case).

Some good advice if you struggle against fixer heavy teams:
- Attack! The team with the lowest healing output needs to recognize their role as the aggresor, if you sit back and exchange shots you will die a slow and painful death.
- Focusfire! If your team works together & shots at the same target it doesn't matter how many fixers are healing it.. Burst damage is alot more potent than burst healing.

 

I disagree with this. It’s not just about numbers, it’s about strategy.

If the fixer team defends properly, then it’s an almost unwinnable game. I’ve had games where I’ve done sooo much damage, but unless you can get at the fixer, it’s all for nothing.

It often ends up being a lose/lose situation, where if you attack it’s a high risk suicide run, and if you don’t attack you just lose by default.

I think fixer vs non fixer games are significantly unbalanced.

 

Spoken by someone who has played many tough games, thank you! That's what I was saying, at least give players an option to have a fixer on their team if they want. If we could go 5 on 5 fleeted, you know there would be a fixer. In MMO's and deathmatch where it's not always instant kill, having a healer/fixer easily means a better chance to win, dependent on a few factors; teammates competency goes a long way too.

 

@Miika Can give you a larger sample side. I'm sorry but its not a matter of opinion, there are hard facts displaying a near 50% win chance despite how Fixers are destributed between teams. (With the exception that 3-4 Fixers together is bad for the Fixers).

I agree that different team compositions require different strategies, and I'm sure that some players are better at dealing with some situations than other ones. The individual experience can surely differ, but there is no data evidence that supports the need for reducing gameplay variance (which enforcing even Fixer destribution would be). Id recommend focusing on how you (meant as a general term, not a personal reference) approach these games, rather than blaming the matchmaker for a potential loss.

 

I agree with Kitterini, also with Mika.
The only thing that I would like to add to this discussion is that there should be a limit for the number of fixers on each side.

Sometimes, the combination of selecting players to roll a team can lead to an overpowered and unfair - almost impossible - match. Such combination like:

5k player
4k player
3.3k + 3.2k + 3.0k fixers

That’s enough, although you might have more “aggressive power”, to most of the times lead to a slow and painful loss.

 

We are talking about different things.

You’re talking about an average of lots of games, where people made mistakes.

I’m talking about the optimal strategy for both teams with ‘perfect play’.

Let me give you an analogy. You’re probably familiar with the game ‘Connect Four’. It’s a fun little game for two players, and seems fairly well balanced. Players take it in turns, and the best player will usually win. If you were to look at the results of thousands of random games, you would likely see each player (first or second) winning about 50% of the time.

From that analysis, you might conclude that Connect Four is a fair and balanced game... but you’d be wrong.

Connect Four is a solved game. Every possible game has been played out by computers, and It has been ‘proven’ that if the first player plays perfectly (no mistakes), then he will always win. It doesn’t matter if the second player also plays perfectly, in this case, his best won’t be good enough. If player 1 makes the right sequence of moves, then he will always always win. Player 2 can only win if player 1 makes a mistake (which of course, human players make lots of).

Taking this idea back to games with fixer vs no fixer in B.B. I believe that if both teams play as close to optimal as possible, then the fixer team will have an advantage, and the no-fixer team will be dependant on them making a mistake.

That doesn’t mean the no-fixer team can’t win, nor does it mean they are less likely to win. However, what it does mean is that the no-fixer team could play an almost perfect game, and still lose, if the fixer team played equally well.