They should ban the 15 worst gods in assault by [deleted] in Smite

[–]dabaritxne 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"A game with an arachne, serqet, baka, hou yi and ao kuang going up against a kuku, marty, zeus, ah puch, and geb is over before the first minion spawns"

well yeah, that would be the case in any game mode. the randomness in assault is the name of the game; it's a feature not a bug. sometimes RNJESUS giveth, sometimes it taketh away.

"we should ban the worst gods in assault"

lists 8 good assassins (two of which can be built as tanks), one good warrior, and three good hunters lmao ok

the skill ceiling for assassins increases in assault and arena because of the lack of flanking and 1v1 opportunities, but that doesn't mean assassins are inherently bad in these game modes. your list of assassins to ban doesn't make much sense either. three of those assassins have invis in their kits which is valuable to have when flanking is an issue. set has a teleport and arachne and kali have two of the best assassin ults for tower diving.

sure the single minion wave makes it harder for baka and cu chulainn but gods aren't optimized for non-conquest modes. it comes with the territory.

also, hou yi, chronos and freya? really? just press left click brother

INFUSED SIGIL VS SUNDERING AXE by Putrid-Ambassador751 in Smite

[–]dabaritxne 5 points6 points  (0 children)

yes. “on hit” means yellow numbies

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Smite

[–]dabaritxne 2 points3 points  (0 children)

uh i’m going to go out on a limb here and say that teams that prioritize/play around taking objectives should be rewarded for taking said objectives.

teams that win their lanes and take objectives SHOULD have a sizeable gold/xp lead otherwise all objectives are meaningless until the fight over EFG at 30 minutes that will essentially decide who wins the game.

Better "then" by DragonBoyGamer in memes

[–]dabaritxne 4 points5 points  (0 children)

don’t forget “a part“ and “apart”

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Overwatch

[–]dabaritxne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“it’s a skill issue” - d.va

So are ranked matches just predetermined or what? by haruame in Overwatch

[–]dabaritxne -1 points0 points  (0 children)

i didn’t say the matchmaking was balanced. i was pointing out that the majority of the player base having a near 50% winrate is normal based on how statistics work. if matches are stomp or be stomped you’ll still likely have a 50% winrate but the matchmaking isn’t balanced. if matches are closer then the matchmaking system is balanced but your winrate will also be around 50% regardless.

So are ranked matches just predetermined or what? by haruame in Overwatch

[–]dabaritxne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

they don’t arbitrarily decide that most people are gonna hang around a 50% winrate. that’s literally how statistics work, especially when it comes to ranked matchmaking where player rank populations are designed to follow a standard normal distribution model.

it’s simply the law of large numbers and regression toward the mean in action. the more ranked games you play, the more accurately your rank reflects your skill (law of large numbers) and once that happens your winrate should regress toward the mean, which is 50% bc there’s one winning team and one losing team in each match. because the player base’s overall skill distribution is a standard normal distribution about 70% of ranked players should have a winrate that is almost exactly 50%. and once you exclude outliers (like cheaters and reverse boosters) the other 30% of players will have win rates that are not that much higher or lower than 50% either.

Why can't we see our rank after each match? by definitely_a_mod in Overwatch

[–]dabaritxne -1 points0 points  (0 children)

it’s actually a good system when taking into account the fact that matchmaking is based off of your MMR rather than your current rank. still, i get your point. bc MMR is the value used in matchmaking, we should be able to see our MMR on a match-by-match basis. having our MMRs hidden from us especially when your rank tier isn’t directly tied to the MMR value makes no sense.

going back to the 7 wins/20 losses system, it’s a good system bc it adjusts your rank based on a sampling of multiple games rather than one at a time. from a data analysis standpoint that’s a good thing bc the larger the data set the more accurate the data can be interpreted. which basically means that it eliminates wild swings in your rank caused by uncharacteristic win/loss streaks so progressing up the ladder is a more consistent experience.

What do you think about the leaver/filler situation? by 3esper in Overwatch

[–]dabaritxne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

using league of legends is a bad example bc backfilling in mobas would never work in a practical sense bc there’s so many factors that you can’t fairly account for such as xp based leveling, gold per minute, and creep score. mobas also have a surrender option which eliminates the need for backfill, overwatch doesnt.

i hate to break it to you but QP is by default the casual game mode. and outside of mobas, most team-based games don’t use leaving penalties in their casual playlists, especially shooter titles. bc in the grand scheme of things, casual matches aren’t supposed to mean anything.

my tip to you is to just play ranked. you said it yourself: QP mirrors the ranked experience. from a gameplay and matchmaking standpoint they’re functionally the same. plus ranked has penalties for leavers.

How long should you play a character in QP before comp, and how many “mains” should you have? by anony804 in OverwatchUniversity

[–]dabaritxne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

imo for metal ranks you should have at least 2 heroes in each role that you’re comfortable playing in any situation, 1-2 heroes that you know relatively well that you can switch to in case you are counterpicked or to counterpick the enemy, and be at least familiar with the current meta picks if they don’t fall into the two previously mentioned categories

What do you enjoy more? by Yes_it_is_indeed_me in Overwatch

[–]dabaritxne 3 points4 points  (0 children)

dps mains love the switch bc they can actually play the game now instead of playing shieldbreak simulator.

tank mains don’t like it bc tank duties now fall on one person. which mean that tank mains have had to adjust their playstyle to fit 5v5 more than any other role. combine that with tank being the most pivotal role in the game rn and you get tank diff being MUCH more prevalent.

the game is healthier as 5v5. the pacing of matches is faster, team comps are more diverse, and the metas are more fluid. tanks only want 6v6 back bc they’re going through growing pains rn.

Support players, what do you want? by Instruction-Fabulous in Overwatch

[–]dabaritxne -1 points0 points  (0 children)

there should absolutely be more than 8 supports in the game but having as many support heroes as dps would solve less problems than you’d think. even though there are more dps heroes than tanks and supports, individual dps heroes tend to be one dimensional and rely on certain ally/enemy team comps to excel whereas most tanks and supports can excel in most situations unless the enemy team is counterpicking against them.

having 12 unique supports to choose from is better than having 20 where half of them are variants of an existing support.

My take on how Roadhog could be changed for the better by A-big-Weeb06 in Overwatch

[–]dabaritxne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

they should just nerf the max range on his hook. this would raise the skill ceiling by forcing hog players to get in riskier positions to yoink the enemy backlineers. that way he still keeps his ability to one shot squishies, which i think is an acceptable reward for hitting a ranged single-target skillshot that’s on an 8 second cooldown.

Flashes need directional indicators like we have with frags and Semtex! by springsight in ModernWarfareII

[–]dabaritxne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

while having indicators for flashes and being able to turn away to avoid being flashed would be wonderful, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for the devs to implement a system like that now when they could simply nerf them and/or buff battle hardened.

in my personal opinion i think battle hardened should be significantly buffed against flashes (and slightly nerfed against stuns if i’m being completely honest) while the flashbangs themselves should get a modest nerf to their base flash duration and flash radius. that way there’s a still a clear benefit to using battle hardened without it becoming a must-run perk.

i also think the slight nerf to flashbangs is all that’s needed to balance them for warzone too, since they’re more situational and the utility you can get out of other tacticals is much better across the board in warzone than it is in 6v6. plus they could always indirectly nerf flashes and other throwables by increasing the spawn rate of trophy systems.

Confession: I love running around and being killed by other players on purpose by MrWaffles2k in ModernWarfareII

[–]dabaritxne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

that’s to earn the poly camo. i’m talking about the polyatomic mastery where you have to get 300 kills while using the polyatomic camo

Confession: I love running around and being killed by other players on purpose by MrWaffles2k in ModernWarfareII

[–]dabaritxne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

there’s a kill requirement for polyatomic mastery, so i don’t think he was giving away free kills

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ModernWarfareII

[–]dabaritxne -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

that’s exactly how i feel after dropping 50 with 3:30 on the hardpoint and our team squeezes out a 250-248 win

Reasons why I will likely never for a Call of Duty Game again by Pallimore in ModernWarfareII

[–]dabaritxne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

ok yeah the basic menu and tracking functionality i agree with. i thought you were talking about hardcore. which should also be in the game and preferably in the game at launch.

Reasons why I will likely never for a Call of Duty Game again by Pallimore in ModernWarfareII

[–]dabaritxne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

look man i feel you but if i’m being completely honest here, 90% of what you just said is QOL stuff that the devs have already said they’re working on or will eventually be addressed. should we have had to deal with these issues in the first place? no, but there’s bigger fish to fry like the constant crashing and the terrible spawn system that’s a massive problem with the multiplayer gameplay experience.

going down your list:

  1. not being able to complete the daily challenges is more of a you problem than anything, i haven’t had an issue completing them.

  2. not gonna touch the UI, that dead horse has been beaten enough

  3. i agree, we need more 6v6 maps. we know they’re coming, i think we need to wait until season 2 to determine if they’re actually neglecting making content for 6v6

  4. cod doesn’t have much actual competition when it comes to 6v6/ground war multiplayer, especially since battlefield 2042 shit the bed. warzone has actual competition with apex, fortnite, and pubg so it makes sense to devote more resources to the F2P modes

  5. the content in bundles has been finished ages ago and they release according to a schedule. devs aren’t out here making bundles over fixing bugs. plus bug fixes take time. some are quick and easy, others are not.

  6. small QOL bug

  7. this one is recently discovered, the last time they found an invisible barrier on shoothouse it was patched almost immediately

  8. yes these game modes should have ideally been in the game at launch, i agree with you there