• PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, your solution seems to be to lower the skill ceiling to the level of the lowest player. That doesn’t fix it either. In the example you gave, we don’t change basketball to account for LeBroun James playing against toddlers. Are you saying we should? Anything like that completely changes the game into something different.

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      … in low-tier matches.

      My off-the-cuff proposal was to make low-tier matches play like low-tier matches. A non-event for anyone who belongs there. But for some reason everyone just ignores the part where we’re talking about smurfs entering games with noobs, and insists I must ‘hate competition.’

      • PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Any system like that implemented would inherantly either A) change the game fundamentally, B) Still cause smurfs to ruin games, or C) prevent the (relatively) good players from being rewarded for playing well.

        Fundamentally, either you change the game very substantially in which case smurfs don’t know how to play, but then you alienate the low tier players who do want to play the same game and encourage people to smurf to try this new gamemode, you make less significant changes but still add a pretty hard skill ceiling, but that prevent good low-tier players from snowballing or being rewarded for playing well, or you make only minor changes in which case the smurf will still take over the game. Theres no in-between. If skill dictates the game, then the person with most skill (the smurf) will win. If skill does not dictate the game, then you lose the fair, balanced competitve aspect that is the draw of these games. That is the case no matter how good the players are. Low tier or not, you don’t just want to be handed a win. You can’t have a game that both is dictated by skill, but also make sure that those with skill are pulled in line with everyone else.

        • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Are you unfamiliar with the concept of “less?”

          Like, there’s not a whole separate game being proposed here. Some numbers, for some people, in some matches, will just be… less. How to play works exactly the same. It is the same game. And this only needs to affect the people who are already kicking ass.

          Their contribution will still be critical to their team’s victory. It just won’t be enough to single-handedly decide the outcome for all nine other players. It will be… less. They can still be the greatest contributor. They can get in-game recognition for every clever decision and make their brain squirt the happy chemicals. They just don’t get as much per-action as the guy who’s figuring out what DoT stands for.

          This isn’t high witchcraft, or some kind of paradox. It’s grading on a curve. It’s “handicapping.” A boring and typical adjustment in actual sports, even at higher levels.

          And again, it only has to work in the dirt leagues, because the goal is keeping assholes bored. If you play super duper good, and get bumped to a higher rank, and play with other people of that rank… none of this applies. Nothing is different. High-level play between high-ranked players would remain as sweaty as you can imagine. If someone pops enough adderall to see through time, and completely ruins a ranked lobby full of gold players, who gives a shit?