Agreed, what's the point of building the core combat system on rock/paper/scissors, if it's not going to follow those simple rules?

I've been beating this dead horse for a year now. I have seen MSE address the issue. It's buried so deep I can't find it so I'm paraphrasing what their reply was: must be latency, works as intended, no attention needed.

BS

When they were talking smack about you being toxic I thought they were full of crap. But, damn they were right about you.

I have "2 hours" to submit to your demands? Give me a fucking break dude. You turn every thread you get into into a fight instead of allowing it to be a discussion about the OP.

I agree with OP. Don't be pedantic, he/she has a valid point. World building is one thing, but this is not fun, it's insulting and demotivating.

TL:DR Whatever the equation that's driving the MMR system, while good in theory, isn't having the intended result. Imbalanced teams and matchups have always been a part of the experience.

I'll admit that I don't fully understand how MMR works. I basically use MMR and difficulty score interchangeably. Now, when I say "high" I'm speaking relatively, in the context of new players.

When you've got somebody who still thinks that destroying the extractors in Short Fused is how to win, I'd say 50 is high. Not to mention how 50 is about the point where a single ad can 2 shot a full stat wardog from across the map with a shotgun.

I'm also forming this in the context of the complaint I'm seeing here most often. That complaint being; vets saddled with a team of mostly low to no tiers at a difficulty too high for them to meaningfully contribute. Give or take a god tier antag.

I'll take your word that 40-50 is the average MMR. And we know that the purpose of mmr is to guage performance in order to modulate challenge. If most of the newbies that people in this range get paired with don't have a grasp of the mechanics, I'd say that MMR isn't accurately assessing player proficiency.

Otherwise experienced players wouldn't be getting sorted into the same league as people who think that punching Kuzman is a winning move. While the dwindling player base is a strong theory, I don't think that's the reason. Long before these bad patches we still had to deal with absurdly imbalanced matchups.

Well put. For a while the common reaction to criticism here and on the subreddit was, "don't like it, don't play it". But what people didn't seem to grasp is this is a "games as service" game competing in a saturated market.  A model driven by regular cash infusions from invested consumers. By commiting to this "take it or leave it" roadmap strategy they are condemning the venture to fail.

Just...wow, MSE. If this isn't self sabatoge then I really feel bad for you all. You legit thought de-incentivizing players was going to save this game? Not, you know, addressing player feedback and fixing your broken updates. Congrats you played your self.

RIP. In 4-6 months there is a 5% chance this might get fixed. They say they are basing thier updates on community feedback while the refuse to acknowledge said feedback. Then they say their changes aren't nessessarily predicated on perceived faults. Then when confronted about a specific fault, they say they are going to do something at some point, but not anything related to the discussion.

It's the same story everytime; if it's not an outright glitch, they just say "they're going to be changes" and just do thier own thing regardless. Between the devs responses and half the community complaining about people being turned off, this is just destined to go nowhere.

With all due respect... At what point did the community ask for the aleph system to be overhauled? No one was complaining about that aspect. Not even in relation to existing complaints.

I'm just saying that it is hard to believe that these updates are, in fact, based on community feedback. If it was about the feedback, there would be acknowledgement of the overwhelming negative feedback regarding this most recent update.