concept: Handicap mode

[mrk421]

First a little background discussion or a foreword if you will:

Spoiler

Fairly regularly on these forums we have new threads popping up, where the author suggests to change this or that mechanic or adjust something with the purpose of addressing some balance issue either they see in the game or which might even be universally recognised to exist. More often than not this is followed by a wall of posts pointing out how the proposed change would make a particular ship or entire ship class OP, or any other reasons why the suggestion could not work. Recently, when reading up on such topics, I've caught myself thinking: is it really the ship, or is it the person driving the ship that makes it OP or UP? Granted, there are certain ships which have far greater potential for amazing results than most others, but in the hands of the right captain and especially if in a division with ships that work in synergy, any ship can be OP.

 

This has led me to realise, that possibly the biggest factor affecting the flow of the battles is not so much the ships or game mechanics, but it's player skill. The reality is, that a lot of people play this game, and everyone has a different level of proficiency. Many of you may be thinking now, "I know where this is headed..." To you I say, THIS IS NOT A THREAD ABOUT SKILL BASED MM OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT. So please, do kindly read on . Of course there are other factors, and in certain situations those can play a prominent role, but let's focus on the skill disparity for now and see, if anything could possibly be done to help with that.

 

Let me also add, that widely different levels of player skill is not an issue unique to WoWs. Not by a long shot! Obviously, every MMO has it and needs to cope with it. And it's not even restricted to computer games... In fact, there is a game, that has been played competitively for over 100 years, that has a built-in mechanic which allows players of vastly different skill level to compete with each other on more-less equal terms. I'm talking of course about the game of Golf and the handicap system. This is where the inspiration for my proposal comes from.

So enough with the foreword and let's get down to business

Put very briefly, what I'm proposing is this: what if there was a system in-game - it could be either opt-in or automated somehow - which made the game slightly more forgiving for the not-so-good players at the expense of lowered credit and XP gains AND slightly more rewarding for the better players by improved accuracy, credit and XP gains.

That's it, that's the core concept. This is what I'd like us to discuss: would something like this help to improve the gaming experience of all players? And what would it take to make it work?

 

Of course I've had some time to think about those questions myself and some potential ways a system like this could be abused and how to counteract that etc. I probably couldn't think of everything but that's where this community comes in . I'll put my initial thoughts in spoilers so as to hopefully not prejudice anyone:

Spoiler

First of all, obviously, IMO a system like this, which would alter some of the game rules depending on player skill level would be immensely powerful for improving the gaming experience. First of all, because it would diminish the grief of good players when they get a lot of potatoes on their team, as those potatoes would survive a bit longer providing the aces more time to influence the game (it would be good for the potatoes too, as they would, you know, not die so quickly - something which I find is also very important for the learning process to be efficient). And secondly, it would somewhat diminish the need to balance the game around the average player.

 

One or more levels of "handicap"?

For start at least I think a simple on/off option would be the most straightforward. If it works well, more elaborate systems with multiple levels could be considered in the future.

 

Automatic or opt-in?

The way I see it, the benefit for an automatic system would be that if it were well-designed, it would all but eliminate any potential abuse scenarios. However, there could be situations where a player who normally plays without handicap, would like to opt-in - when starting to learn a new class of ships for example. Also, in certain situations players might want to opt-out earlier than they normally could - if someone is a very quick learner for example, or a seasoned player opening an account on a different server. With that in mind, personally I'd prefer an opt-out system, with checks/restrictions to eliminate abuse.

 

Basic rules:

- The default mode should be "handicap mode", which you could opt-out of after reaching certain account level/meting other criteria.

- The core game mechanics would be the same in either mode. That includes all the armour, damage, ballistics model etc. So if a shell hit the citadel of a ship it would do the same amount of damage whether the player who was hit has "handicap" mode on or off.

- The increased survivability in "handicap" mode would come indirectly in the form of reduced cooldown for the DCP, buffed rudder shift times and maybe with increased efficiency of the heal consumable/increased heal charges.

- The consumables/upgrade slots available for each ship would be the same in both modes.

- Maybe a buff to turret traverse times in "handicap" mode could be considered, to help those players along a little bit, but definitely NOT reductions in main armament reload times or the like.

- Base reload times for other consumables should also be the same in both modes: "handicap" should only buff a players survivability potential and not their offensive capabilities*

- Shell dispersion in "handicap" mode should be the same as it is currently in the game, and it would be improved for those who opt-out

*with the possible exception of maybe turret traverse

 

The "economic" factors:

- In "handicap" mode, the credit and XP earnings should be significantly lowered compared to current values. In terms of credits, I think a reasonable limit would be that playing T7 would generally NOT be profitable, even if you run premium time.

- Credit and XP earnings of players who opt-out, should be the same as currently, or only very slightly buffed.

- The cut to credit and XP earnings should be a multiplier instead of a flat fee, so as NOT to make running premium time with "handicap" mode compulsory.

 

Countering potential abuse:

It's likely that many people would gladly suffer the economic/performance disadvantages if they found they could benefit their friends/teammates more by staying in "handicap" mode, so measures would have to be taken to eliminate such abuse

- Divisions should be disabled in "handicap" mode, OR at the very least, people who were in different modes should not be allowed to be in the same division (applies to dynamic divisions as well).

- Ranked battles as well as any competitive modes would be disabled in "handicap" mode.

- There should probably be a limit by winrate, either globally or better yet on a ship-by-ship basis, beyond which "handicap" mode was disabled automatically. Maybe around 53, 54, or 55 %?

 

Balancing concerns:

- Buffed accuracy could pose a real problem at lower tiers, where a lot of ships, especialy DDs, need to get close to do damage and rely on inaccurate guns on enemy ships to be able to do so. This would have to be looked into.

- I couldn't think of a lot of things that could be changed for CVs in therms of "handicap" mode on or off - which wouldn't be prone to being abused by good players. Maybe only an additional check that you would only be matched against CVs that are in the same mode as you. Along with a winrate check, that might be enough

- Should it be visible to other players whether a player has "handicap" mode on or off? I'm leaning towards "no", but I don't know. Maybe only to your teammates?

 

That's all I could think of for now. Now let's hear your thoughts.

Hopefully we can get a good and constructive discussion going.

[Mr_Tayto]

Very interesting idea. I'm interested in seeing a discussion on this. 

[Oppressor_]

No need to change core game mechanics (as it is simply too complicated), just implement divisions with 4 members, so better players will be able to influence the battle more. This will help their struggle against the potato storm.

Equal number of division players on both sides, so 33% quality / 66% potato  regular random team can carry better than a 25%/75%.

 

As for the potatoes "who play only for fun" I guess they would not mind it either. They already do not care if their team is winning, losing or struggling, as they refuse to learn, refuse the fact that they are the problem not the ship itself they drive.

 

In short, 4 man divisions would make good players even more effective, while will have almost no effect on regular potatoes.

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

34 minutes ago, Exohoritis said:

No need to change core game mechanics (as it is simply too complicated), just implement divisions with 4 members, so better players will be able to influence the battle more. This will help their struggle against the potato storm.

Equal number of division players on both sides, so 25% quality / 75% potato  regular random team can carry against a full 100% potato team.

 

As for the potatoes "who play only for fun" I guess they would not mind it either. They already do not care if their team is winning, losing or struggling, as they refuse to learn, refuse the fact that they are the problem not the ship itself they drive.

 

In short, 4 man divisions would make good players even more effective, while will have almost no effect on regular potatoes.

Which is why that should never be implemented as it will inevitably make all the average players leave the game when they realise that the enemy team has a 4 man purple headed stat whore division and their's is a 4 man rotten 'wez playz for fuuun!' potato one. You don't have to have too many of those kinds of battles before you lose interest in playing entirely.

[AkosJaccik]

4 minutes ago, G01ngToxicCommand0 said:

Which is why that should never be implemented as it will inevitably make all the average players leave(...)

 

This. By extending this logic, we could implement divisions with 5, then 6 etc... participants.

And hey! We just invented "clan battles".

 

Random is random. The problem less in the system and more in the complete lack of in-client and non-skippable tutorial.

[Oppressor_]

9 minutes ago, AkosJaccik said:

 

This. By extending this logic, we could implement divisions with 5, then 6 etc... participants.

And hey! We just invented "clan battles".

 

Random is random. The problem less in the system and more in the complete lack of in-client and non-skippable tutorial.

No need to extend it to 5-6, I never meant to extend randoms to CB. Thats a separate topic.

 

Randoms are not that random either. 33%-25%=8% quality difference just could sustain a much more bearable average battle atmosphere for better players. (More flexibility to carry)

Have to put emphasis on "me playz for funz" category that will not bother about anything as they do not bother now.

Landslide 12-0 kill or 1000-0pts battles happen even now, and the avalanche takes good players with it as well. Those 20k dmg battles are not good for anybody. 

 

I just want to protect the  average / above average population from the Z-apocalypse. Continue with ideas about the OP, ignore my rant plz. ;)

[Cosseria]

The proposition is well thought-out, but it seems to me an overly complex solution and it gives advantages to poor players, which I consider unfair. Mandatory tutorial missions are the way to go for me too.

Besides, bear in mind that any kind of potato control is going against WG's interest.

[Juanx]

It already exists, its called coop, go look it up.

[Live85]

Last time I checked, I wasn't playing a golf game.

What makes a player bad is easy to synthesize: lack of knowledge about the game mechanics, the role of different ship classes, and finally positioning and map awareness. What we need is a complete set of tutorials for players that log in for the first time. World of Warplanes had a nice tutorial system that gave rewards for completing it unless I'm wrong. We need something like that, since players will play it for the rewards if they're clearly shown. A very good one for completing all the scenarios could be a tier II premium ship. I'd go with a cruiser. That would allow WG to showcase all the game mechanics like spotting, smoke, angling, damage saturation, damage over time, concealment cooldown, ship roles and even map awareness to new players, drastically increasing their understanding of the game while making more or less sure that the players will go through it because of the free ship. That very premium ship would also give them the chance to show the benefits of premium ships for commander retraining to the new players, maybe slightly increasing premium ship sales as well.

This wouldn't fix the issue with players rushing through the tiers (or straight ahead buying high tier premium ships) but it would certainly improve the situation. Look at how many threads you see every month or hack accusations ingame just because of damage saturation for example.

[mrk421]

"The proposal is too complicated" - I'm sorry, what? If that's referring to the example I gave (in the spoilers), that would probably literally just take changing a few lines in a couple of .xml-tables, real complicated stuff.

 

As for the proposal itself, I think it was fairly straightforward: instead of buffing/nerfing certain ships or ship classes, consider making some allowances for the worse players so that they would have a slightly easier time. BTW, I specifically mentioned, that core game mechanics should remain exactly the same for all players.

Frankly I have a hard time understanding the hate towards bad players. Comments like, "bad players should stick to coop" and the like - which, btw, I think (I don't really play coop, so, you know...) coop teaches some really bad habits which will probably make you a worse player for PvP. I seriously doubt any unicum player would have a problem with giving some advantages to worse players. Ultimately skill is still the king and regardless of any advantages they'd still mop the floor with bad players. And if they had a problem with that, then it's they who have a problem...

 

Finally, I agree with the need for tutorials, but unfortunately, TUTORIALS ARE NO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE REAL THING.

[mrk421]

2 hours ago, Exohoritis said:

No need to change core game mechanics (as it is simply too complicated), just implement divisions with 4 members, so better players will be able to influence the battle more.

So your counter-proposal is to buff good players instead of bad players. How very capitalistic of you Except, a good capitalist will do very well in any environment without needing any buffs!

 

@Exohoritis Btw, saying:

2 hours ago, Exohoritis said:

As for the potatoes "who play only for fun" I guess they would not mind it either. They already do not care if their team is winning, losing or struggling,

and then in the same sentence:

2 hours ago, Exohoritis said:

as they refuse to learn, refuse the fact that they are the problem not the ship itself they drive.

which to me implies that they do care if their team wins (they just refuse to accept that they're to blame). Which one is it? Cause those two claims seem to be contradictory...

[MacFergus]

19 minutes ago, mrk421 said:

"The proposal is too complicated" - I'm sorry, what? If that's referring to the example I gave (in the spoilers), that would probably literally just take changing a few lines in a couple of .xml-tables, real complicated stuff.

 

As for the proposal itself, I think it was fairly straightforward: instead of buffing/nerfing certain ships or ship classes, consider making some allowances for the worse players so that they would have a slightly easier time. BTW, I specifically mentioned, that core game mechanics should remain exactly the same for all players.

Frankly I have a hard time understanding the hate towards bad players. Comments like, "bad players should stick to coop" and the like - which, btw, I think (I don't really play coop, so, you know...) coop teaches some really bad habits which will probably make you a worse player for PvP. I seriously doubt any unicum player would have a problem with giving some advantages to worse players. Ultimately skill is still the king and regardless of any advantages they'd still mop the floor with bad players. And if they had a problem with that, then it's they who have a problem...

 

Finally, I agree with the need for tutorials, but unfortunately, TUTORIALS ARE NO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE REAL THING.

 

IF WG wont allow Skill based MM why on earth would they go for an idea like this I admire your tendency for fair play but it would never work due to  people stats obsession

[Seinta]

I'm sorry but we don't need handicaps in a PVP game.

They should do a damn tutorial to teach the absolute basics of the game and make PvE Scenarios available for all tiers. Co-op mode gets boring after the first battle.

 

If RN BBs are something to look at, I would say we should stop dumbing down the game.

[Brutal_120]

6 hours ago, mrk421 said:

which made the game slightly more forgiving for the not-so-good players at the expense of lowered credit and XP gains AND slightly more rewarding for the better players by improved accuracy, credit and XP gains.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

First of all, obviously, IMO a system like this, which would alter some of the game rules depending on player skill level would be immensely powerful for improving the gaming experience. First of all, because it would diminish the grief of good players when they get a lot of potatoes on their team, as those potatoes would survive a bit longer providing the aces more time to influence the game (it would be good for the potatoes too, as they would, you know, not die so quickly - something which I find is also very important for the learning process to be efficient). And secondly, it would somewhat diminish the need to balance the game around the average player.

 

One or more levels of "handicap"?

For start at least I think a simple on/off option would be the most straightforward. If it works well, more elaborate systems with multiple levels could be considered in the future.

 

Automatic or opt-in?

The way I see it, the benefit for an automatic system would be that if it were well-designed, it would all but eliminate any potential abuse scenarios. However, there could be situations where a player who normally plays without handicap, would like to opt-in - when starting to learn a new class of ships for example. Also, in certain situations players might want to opt-out earlier than they normally could - if someone is a very quick learner for example, or a seasoned player opening an account on a different server. With that in mind, personally I'd prefer an opt-out system, with checks/restrictions to eliminate abuse.

 

Basic rules:

- The default mode should be "handicap mode", which you could opt-out of after reaching certain account level/meting other criteria.

- The core game mechanics would be the same in either mode. That includes all the armour, damage, ballistics model etc. So if a shell hit the citadel of a ship it would do the same amount of damage whether the player who was hit has "handicap" mode on or off.

- The increased survivability in "handicap" mode would come indirectly in the form of reduced cooldown for the DCP, buffed rudder shift times and maybe with increased efficiency of the heal consumable/increased heal charges.

- The consumables/upgrade slots available for each ship would be the same in both modes.

- Maybe a buff to turret traverse times in "handicap" mode could be considered, to help those players along a little bit, but definitely NOT reductions in main armament reload times or the like.

- Base reload times for other consumables should also be the same in both modes: "handicap" should only buff a players survivability potential and not their offensive capabilities*

- Shell dispersion in "handicap" mode should be the same as it is currently in the game, and it would be improved for those who opt-out

*with the possible exception of maybe turret traverse

 

The "economic" factors:

- In "handicap" mode, the credit and XP earnings should be significantly lowered compared to current values. In terms of credits, I think a reasonable limit would be that playing T7 would generally NOT be profitable, even if you run premium time.

- Credit and XP earnings of players who opt-out, should be the same as currently, or only very slightly buffed.

- The cut to credit and XP earnings should be a multiplier instead of a flat fee, so as NOT to make running premium time with "handicap" mode compulsory.

 

Countering potential abuse:

It's likely that many people would gladly suffer the economic/performance disadvantages if they found they could benefit their friends/teammates more by staying in "handicap" mode, so measures would have to be taken to eliminate such abuse

- Divisions should be disabled in "handicap" mode, OR at the very least, people who were in different modes should not be allowed to be in the same division (applies to dynamic divisions as well).

- Ranked battles as well as any competitive modes would be disabled in "handicap" mode.

- There should probably be a limit by winrate, either globally or better yet on a ship-by-ship basis, beyond which "handicap" mode was disabled automatically. Maybe around 53, 54, or 55 %?

 

Balancing concerns:

- Buffed accuracy could pose a real problem at lower tiers, where a lot of ships, especialy DDs, need to get close to do damage and rely on inaccurate guns on enemy ships to be able to do so. This would have to be looked into.

- I couldn't think of a lot of things that could be changed for CVs in therms of "handicap" mode on or off - which wouldn't be prone to being abused by good players. Maybe only an additional check that you would only be matched against CVs that are in the same mode as you. Along with a winrate check, that might be enough

- Should it be visible to other players whether a player has "handicap" mode on or off? I'm leaning towards "no", but I don't know. Maybe only to your teammates?

 

That's all I could think of for now. Now let's hear your thoughts.

 

Just what a "shoot um up" game needs, more rewards and Improved accuracy for the better players,

so if you not playing WOWS, your playing Golf, and your wife/partner?, wiping your Balls and getting your Tee ready? Doh!

 

[Runegrem]

3 hours ago, mrk421 said:

Finally, I agree with the need for tutorials, but unfortunately, TUTORIALS ARE NO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE REAL THING.

 

What's this "real thing" you're talking about? Based on your suggestion I'd assume you basically mean that it's about giving some training wheels to the newbies. While it could help them survive longer and thus give them longer time to learn I don't think this is a good idea. It teaches players to handle their ships differently than they would without those small advantages.

 

Also, yes, tutorials should be added. They help.

[philjd]

Actually, i think that you have the problem backwards. The issue with mixing 'good' players with those with less skill does not come from the players with the lesser skills, but usually from the frustrations of those better players (barring the odd one who gets his (her) jollies from farming baddies).

And while sports may be a worthwhile comparison, a lot more competitive associations traveled down the league system, with the handicap system being a rarity.

 

But a worthwhile discussion topic as a league system seems to be off the cards.

[RamirezKurita]

I could see something like this working by changing the tier matchmaking for players and appropriately altering credit and XP gain by allowing players to select a difficulty when entering the queue.

 

For example, a player could choose to get a 50% XP and credit bonus in exchange for never being top tier as long as they continue to choose "hard mode". Similarly, a player could opt to sacrifice 50% XP and credits to ensure they are never being bottom tier by selecting "easy mode". Once the +2/-2 MM begins ad the mid-upper tiers, options for "very hard" and "very easy" could become available where a player could opt to always be bottom tier (+2/0 MM) but get double credit/XP gain by selecting "very hard" or to sacrifice 75% of credits and XP to ensure they always top tier (0/-2 MM) by selecting "very easy".

 

It would shut up those who complain every time about the matchmaker putting them into games when they aren't top tier, while also giving those of us who don't mind being bottom tier the chance to progress faster at the cost of greater difficulty.

[ghostbuster_]

4 hours ago, mrk421 said:

"The proposal is too complicated" - I'm sorry, what? If that's referring to the example I gave (in the spoilers), that would probably literally just take changing a few lines in a couple of .xml-tables, real complicated stuff.

 

As for the proposal itself, I think it was fairly straightforward: instead of buffing/nerfing certain ships or ship classes, consider making some allowances for the worse players so that they would have a slightly easier time. BTW, I specifically mentioned, that core game mechanics should remain exactly the same for all players.

Frankly I have a hard time understanding the hate towards bad players. Comments like, "bad players should stick to coop" and the like - which, btw, I think (I don't really play coop, so, you know...) coop teaches some really bad habits which will probably make you a worse player for PvP. I seriously doubt any unicum player would have a problem with giving some advantages to worse players. Ultimately skill is still the king and regardless of any advantages they'd still mop the floor with bad players. And if they had a problem with that, then it's they who have a problem...

 

Finally, I agree with the need for tutorials, but unfortunately, TUTORIALS ARE NO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE REAL THING.

So basicly you are saying that a potato is gonna be able to sail broadside and i wont be able to punish him just because he is a potato and he has the noob-protection? How about no? First of all, those potatoes has to learn what is wrong and what is right. If you dont let them be punished because of their mistakes, they are never gonna learn and gonna stay as a potato forever. Second, its just frustrating for good players. 

They need to try to get better. They need to try to improve. Not beg for noob protection on forums.

 

There are already so many ships which have that kind of noob-protrction. (This should be also changed). We dont need more.

[MacFergus]

1 hour ago, ghostbuster_ said:

So basicly you are saying that a potato is gonna be able to sail broadside and i wont be able to punish him just because he is a potato and he has the noob-protection? How about no? First of all, those potatoes has to learn what is wrong and what is right. If you dont let them be punished because of their mistakes, they are never gonna learn and gonna stay as a potato forever. Second, its just frustrating for good players. 

They need to try to get better. They need to try to improve. Not beg for noob protection on forums.

 

There are already so many ships which have that kind of noob-protrction. (This should be also changed). We dont need more.

 

Noob protection in tier 4 with Orion's and Imp Nik's scrubs in divisions yes they get lots of protection there  I'm surprised Greenpeace haven't involved themselves there are that many Seals 

[22cm]

The solution is much more simple: just remove the bonus for team victory, because this is not really a team mode, but random mode. Team mode is team batles or clan battles.

Players should be rewarded for what they do, not for what their team does.

[captainhaddock_2015]

Isn't handicap mode just playing random battles at the weekend when all the potatoes come out to play?

[Deckeru_Maiku]

8 hours ago, mrk421 said:

Hopefully we can get a good and constructive discussion going.

 

No discussion needed.

No "Handicap Mode" needed. MM does that already by randomly assigning potatoes to the teams. That's enough handicap already.

[mrk421]

6 hours ago, MacFergus said:

IF WG wont allow Skill based MM why on earth would they go for an idea like this I admire your tendency for fair play but it would never work due to  people stats obsession

Errm, perhaps because unlike skill based MM, what I'm proposing would not significantly affect the stats of those stats obsessed people.

 

3 hours ago, Brutal_120 said:

Just what a "shoot um up" game needs, more rewards and Improved accuracy for the better players,

so if you not playing WOWS, your playing Golf, and your wife/partner?, wiping your Balls and getting your Tee ready? Doh!

 

How I spend my time in or outside of this game is hardly relevant to the discussion here..

Judging by your stats it seems more likely you're an alt account rather than a completely new player (or just just get a lot of hand-holding), which probably makes it less relevant to ask what you think would be useful to help with the learning curve of new players.

 

3 hours ago, Runegrem said:

What's this "real thing" you're talking about? Based on your suggestion I'd assume you basically mean that it's about giving some training wheels to the newbies. While it could help them survive longer and thus give them longer time to learn I don't think this is a good idea. It teaches players to handle their ships differently than they would without those small advantages.

 

Also, yes, tutorials should be added. They help.

Exactly! The "real thing" is playing random battles with other players. If you wanna use the term "training wheels", sure, I'm cool with that. And yes, essentially that is the basic idea and how exactly it would be implemented is not important at this point. Continuing on that analogy of training wheels I don't see how that could be a problem. Lots of kids learn to ride a bike with the help of training wheels. Does that mean they don't learn to ride without them or ride weirdly for the rest of their lives? I don't think so... I'd say that any minute spent in the battle teaches more than 10 minutes watching a Youtube video on the game or a live stream -> if we can extend the lifespan of the poor players by even 1-2 minutes, I think that would go a long way towards ultimately improving their skill (and much more quickly than they otherwise would to boot).

3 hours ago, RamirezKurita said:

snip

You sir, and @22cm are so far the only ones seem to have at least somewhat gotten the message of my OP, so kudos to you. It's not about how it's done exactly, but the general idea of easing the learning curve of the bad player to allow them to improve.

 

3 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

So basicly you are saying that a potato is gonna be able to sail broadside and i wont be able to punish him just because he is a potato and he has the noob-protection?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Obviously.

Dude, please go away and don't come back to this thread again. I want to believe you're just trolling, because if you were being serious, that would imply your IQ is actually lower than your win rate and I'd like to think better of you.

[ghostbuster_]

31 minutes ago, mrk421 said:

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Obviously.

Dude, please go away and don't come back to this thread again. I want to believe you're just trolling, because if you were being serious, that would imply your IQ is actually lower than your win rate and I'd like to think better of you.

 Im sorry but you are not gonna get something like this. This game is already easy. Seriously, if we maked a monkey play this game long enough, even it would perform not that bad.this game is that easy. Why would you even want to make it easier? People just need to try little bit harder to get better. They should try to learn what to do in certain situations. Not behave like window-licking id.iots. 

Besides if you dont want to get steamrolled by better players, feel free to play coop. Or you could just leave the game and never come back again. 

[mrk421]

20 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

 Im sorry but you are not gonna get something like this. This game is already easy. Seriously, if we maked a monkey play this game long enough, even it would perform not that bad.this game is that easy. Why would you even want to make it easier? People just need to try little bit harder to get better. They should try to learn what to do in certain situations. Not behave like window-licking id.iots. 

Besides if you dont want to get steamrolled by better players, feel free to play coop. Or you could just leave the game and never come back again. 

First of all, I didn't make this post for my own benefit. I'm already performing well above the average player and actively trying to improve my game. And I am able to get better regardless of any changes the developers make, even if they make the balance far worse than currently.

 

It's possible my logic is flawed. Do you mind pointing it out for me? Just look at this quote and say where I got it wrong if you'd be so kind. It's from the same post you quoted, just slightly above your quote, but it seems you didn't read that part:

55 minutes ago, mrk421 said:

Exactly! The "real thing" is playing random battles with other players. If you wanna use the term "training wheels", sure, I'm cool with that. And yes, essentially that is the basic idea and how exactly it would be implemented is not important at this point. Continuing on that analogy of training wheels I don't see how that could be a problem. Lots of kids learn to ride a bike with the help of training wheels. Does that mean they don't learn to ride without them or ride weirdly for the rest of their lives? I don't think so... I'd say that any minute spent in the battle teaches more than 10 minutes watching a Youtube video on the game or a live stream -> if we can extend the lifespan of the poor players by even 1-2 minutes, I think that would go a long way towards ultimately improving their skill (and much more quickly than they otherwise would to boot).