Hecaton

Members
  • Content count

    540
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    542d 16h 38m 25s

Community Reputation

219 Excellent

About Hecaton

  • Rank
    Wired

ITS

  • ITS PIN Y2401
  1. Symbiomates are probably my least favorite thing about Infinity, here's hoping kaeltar get a price bump or something.
  2. No. The amount by which a larger pop faction is penalized is exactly counterbalanced by the amount they benefit under the system, assuming equal win/loss ratios. If you don't think Infinity is a game that relies heavily on skill... are you blowing smoke or do you actually have that little faith in the design team? Well they're a third party. Not being a warcor myself, I dunno if you guys sign anything formal agreeing not to say anything negative about CB's affiliates. I'd agree being overly negative on CB would be in bad form. That's up to him, though. Ariadna, the entire faction, including civilians, is what, 10 million people? It makes no sense they would be the most numerous faction in *any* warzone in the setting (actually it's kind of a stretch to see them mattering at all in the grand scheme of things, but that's another story). Player pop count is not meant to be a substitute for in-setting faction pop count, doing so is immersion breaking and... wrong. Would you play a game of soccer if every team got to bring in all their subs, so the team with who brought the most bodies to the game won? Well, any game has a winner, unless it's a tie. So that winner will be motivated to report their game. It's not a matter of players only reporting "excellent" battles. A player would play those games for the same reason they'd play any other - to have fun, and because they appreciate the challenge. Some people might duck games, or purposely play games against inexperienced players, but that was already happening in Wotan, as you just mentioned, so w/e. In order to create a system that compensates for player count in a more than 2-faction system, we need to find a way to make games zero sum in terms of the faction scoring system, as I outlined.
  3. The reason it seems like I'm more concerned than other people is because everyone else who was put off by the campaign left. One of the warcors local to my area stopped participating in disgust, and has certainly told people in the playgroup what he thinks about BoW (spoilers: it's not nice) and it looks like at least some of the stink has rubbed off on CB. You can adjust the math so it doesn't have negative numbers, or whatever, but the point is that if factions don't *lose* something by losing... there's nothing to stop the most numerous factions, by irl player count, from steamrollering everyone. That's immersion-breaking and unfun for everyone else. And I think better players should be rewarded, if we're viewing the campaign as a semi-competitive enterprise. You misunderstand. Whether or not the loser reports a loss, their faction still gets dinged when the winner reports the win vs. that faction. Relying on players to do a "loss" writeup to penalize their faction points would not practicably work, I agree.
  4. I just want a Samaritan that isn't a goddam chore to maneuver around the table.
  5. You're gonna need more evidence than that, considering a win%-style system is definitely one in which the size of a faction does not matter. And higher variance of smaller-pop factions isn't enough - considering that they have an equal chance of varying towards loss or victory.
  6. I want to be right, without the quotes. Not every criticism is valid.
  7. The system I proposed *isn't* unfair to big factions. It doesn't mean smaller factions will do better; they might also do far worse. It's just a fact of statistics that small sample sizes tend to have more variance, and thus you'd see more "wacky" behavior in the smaller player count factions - though not by much. Well, you clearly think that larger player count factions should have an inherent advantage, which I think discourages those in smaller player count factions from participating at all. My idea doesn't grant the smaller factions a higher win rate or anything; that would be the case if their playerbase was actually more elite, however. Without actually knowing the system you're using I still have no way of knowing if you're blowing smoke. It doesn't and it shouldn't, because it privileges the players of the larger factions and makes it so the actions of the less-populous factions don't matter. If the campaign had an interesting, reactive storyline there might be other things to care about.
  8. Well clearly the current situation is tolerable to you, with the size of certain factions all but ensuring victory, so I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to critique. You are right that there would be more variance in smaller factions, however.
  9. Clearly you don't understand the mathematics of what I explained. It's not a matter of "big factions can afford to lose more" it's more a matter of "big factions *will* lose more" because they'll be involved in more games. If people are content to give the numerically superior factions an eternal advantage in these kind of events, there's no point in participating if you're not one of them. Same problem that first-past-the-post voting has. The current system has to be changed to create something that's worthwhile to participate in, on a 'who will win' level, for people other than the biggest factions. If the narrative was interesting and highly reactive it wouldn't matter as much, as there'd be more to do than just move numbers on a scoreboard.
  10. You're fundamentally misunderstanding the math of the situation, and note that I clarified that points would be independent of whether or not the batrep was linked (the whole linking system needs to be examined anyway). In the example you gave, Tohaa have a 50% win rate, PanO have 100%, and CA have 0%. Assuming 3 points per battle and an even starting point, you'd have Pan0 at 15 points, Tohaa at 0, and CA at -15. Considering their dominant performance so far... I imagine that PanO is very justified in being ahead. Even though Tohaa has twice the number of games posted in this example (and presumably players), they're behind in points. So you're wrong about it exacerbating faction number disparities; in fact, it erases them. The system has other problems, none is perfect, but faction size isn't one of them.
  11. I think there's a miscommunication here - I'm talking about a situation where you gain points for your faction when you post wins, *and* the loser loses points. And the point gain/loss is independent of whether or not the loser reported. Mathematically, it actually puts differently-sized factions on an equal footing, since while the factions with over 9000 members can post over 9000 games in a week, if they win half of them, they're moved the score exactly zilch.
  12. The alternative is to move to a system based around win% rather than points scored. Or, to put it another way, someone beating you in a zone means your faction loses points there. That way there's more incentive to actually play the faction you're trying to defeat.
  13. The issue is that the Tohaa have durability priced cheaper than any other faction on their symbio armor units, so they have no need for the durability that a TAG would in theory provide.
  14. Links grant 5 orders, though, so give you a lot more for what you pay for than a TAG.
  15. Noninteraction is the real name of the game, not "Infinity."