+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: CA Strategy. Selfish or Atruism?

  1. #1
    Member ecsplos1v is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    70

    CA Strategy. Selfish or Atruism?

    I watched k1llsen play CA on this youtube video -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSEa382lqK8

    Thought I would write down my "interpretation" of his strategy. Yes it looks selfish doesn't it. I actually think that the altruism people chat about in the game is a bit of an illusion and you are really using your friends as cannon fodder. Is this a one-off or is there a selfish common attribute bias on all the top CA players?

    Yes it depends. 2v2 Thunderstruck isn't nuanced at all. Like in chess you are just trading off 50/50 and it's all very fair. What about 5v5 Campgrounds?

    There is an interesting continuum between self interest and altruism in CA.
    1. Minimize awareness of your position (invisibility) especially at beginning of round. Keep moving, camp in strongholds to avoid getting stuck in a bad situation
    2. Always favor advantageous asymmetric situations, i.e. kill enemy while they focus on your mates (cannon fodder concept)
    3. Almost always avoid potentially disadvantageous situations (all meeting on bridge) especially if there is the perception by others that you are weak because it will become a self fulfilling prophecy and tip in that direction (the opposite is true if you appear indestructible). I have noticed that many players ask to meet for purely selfish reasons, they actually are asking you to die for them.
    4. Avoid symmetric (1v1 trade-off situations) until later or when you know you can win. Trading off fairly is lazy and void of tactics on the more complicated maps
    5. Avoid dying at all score is a function of kd as well as dmg, therefore be very patient and defensive when low stack and focus on the most advantageous asymmetric situations or let your mates have a go. If you have a stubborn/belligerent attitude this can be hard.
    6. Rabbit in the headlights concept -- Enemy are more trackable for ~2-3 seconds coming through a door/corridor/pad/rj when they were unaware of your position, set these up. I have realised that his insane LG accuracy is often the element of surprise of forcing predictable movement i.e. when they are on rail platform on DM6 and you fly in. Being able to move fast around the map is a great way to minimize awareness of your position.
    7. Generally speaking enemys are always more hittable when they are unaware of your presence or preoccupied
    8. Always go in hard with LG with a potential fast switch to rail, don’t get caught on the 1800ms reload switch time
    9. Minimize uncertainty at mid/long range -- focus on instant dmg weapons like LG and RG. Rockets are more predictive, spammy and suppressive and critically take seconds to reach the target. At close range rockets are less uncertain and often advantageous although you have the dilemma of whether to run away or die doing maximum damage
    10. Tipping point concept, after some initial hard work and a score advantage the belief that you are a strong player will lead to others avoiding you or playing badly against you or both, this will soon become self fulfilling

    Discuss
    Last edited by ecsplos1v; 07-23-2013 at 09:06 AM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Lorfa is a jewel in the rough Lorfa is a jewel in the rough Lorfa is a jewel in the rough Lorfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Kepler-22b
    Posts
    8,655
    Quote Originally Posted by ecsplos1v View Post
    Thought I would write down my "interpretation" of his strategy.
    I think it's important to keep in mind that he may not be using a strategy really, he's just playing CA to practice aim/movement. He won't push to try and win the match unless he thinks he's in danger of losing and actually cares about the result.

    Yes it looks selfish doesn't it.
    The above is probably why. It seems like his teammates can handle things and he just needs to get some damage for a win. So he can focus on his goal of practice aim/movement.

    I actually think that the altruism people chat about in the game is a bit of an illusion and you are really using your friends as cannon fodder.
    Sentence makes no sense to me.

    Is this a one-off or is there a selfish common attribute bias on all the top CA players?
    No it's not all players. However there are plenty of cases where a strong player gets weaker players as a result of the shuffle, and these weaker players end up dying quickly since they have poor positioning/dodging leaving the strong player the last one alive, or making the strong player look as if they are playing selfishly.

    It takes some analysis to determine what's really going on; it's not something that can be determined superficially.

    Yes it depends. 2v2 Thunderstruck isn't nuanced at all. Like in chess you are just trading off 50/50 and it's all very fair. What about 5v5 Campgrounds?
    Not sure what you mean by nuanced. Obviously chess has much nuance.

    There is an interesting continuum between self interest and altruism in CA.
    Ok.

    Minimize awareness of your position (invisibility) especially at beginning of round.
    This is a good idea as long as it doesn't prevent you from helping your team. I always try to do this and I make great use of the walk key once I'm in position. The less information they have the less they have to work with in predicting shots.

    Keep moving, camp in strongholds to avoid getting stuck in a bad situation
    Keep moving + camping seem incompatible. Obviously there's a time to move quickly and a time to stay put. Do what's needed to maintain a positional advantage.

    Always favor advantageous asymmetric situations, i.e. kill enemy while they focus on your mates (cannon fodder concept)
    This is what's called "baiting" and it's not necessarily a good idea.

    Other than that I'm not sure what you're qualifying as an 'asymmetric situation'.

    Almost always avoid potentially disadvantageous situations
    Obviously.

    (all meeting on bridge) especially if there is the perception by others that you are weak because it will become a self fulfilling prophecy and tip in that direction (the opposite is true if you appear indestructible). I have noticed that many players ask to meet for purely selfish reasons, they actually are asking you to die for them.
    Well you can see where your teammates are (cg_drawFriend 1). If they aren't there then you might be overrun by the enemy. It's bad to blindly follow directions.

    Avoid symmetric (1v1 trade-off situations) until later or when you know you can win. Trading off fairly is lazy and void of tactics on the more complicated maps
    It depends. If you take out the team's strongest player it can really help the chances of your team winning the round. What you don't want to do is put resources (health/armor) where they aren't needed. If you spend a lot of health on a weak player then the stronger players can just mop you up.

    Avoid dying at all score is a function of kd as well as dmg, therefore be very patient and defensive when low stack and focus on the most advantageous asymmetric situations or let your mates have a go. If you have a stubborn/belligerent attitude this can be hard.
    Or easy, it depends on what you're stubborn about.

    The idea is to get the most damage while taking the least damage unless it is advantageous to do otherwise, like a kamikaze fight to weaken a strong member of the opposing team.

    Rabbit in the headlights concept -- Enemy are more trackable for ~2-3 seconds coming through a door/corridor/pad/rj when they were unaware of your position, set these up. I have realised that his insane LG accuracy is often the element of surprise of forcing predictable movement i.e. when they are on rail platform on DM6 and you fly in. Being able to move fast around the map is a great way to minimize awareness of your position.
    Yes but experienced players have a good feel for when they can be attacked in this manner. The stronger the player the better the awareness.

    Generally speaking enemys are always more hittable when they are unaware of your presence or preoccupied
    Yep.

    Always go in hard with LG with a potential fast switch to rail,
    Again it depends. The LG makes noise which can give your position away, and it also requires direct line of sight whereas the rocket can splash and block from out of sight.

    donít get caught on the 1800ms reload switch time
    It's 1500 ms to reload the rail and 400 ms (pmove_WeaponDropTime and pmove_WeaponRaiseTime are both 200 ms) to switch in the QL ruleset, so it would be 1900 ms, just 100 ms shy of two full seconds.

    That's why it's dangerous to rail close range against someone with another weapon selected as if you miss they'll have at least 1500 ms to hit you while you cannot hit back. In that time 100 % LG would do 525 HP, 30 % would be ~157 and 20 % would take 100 HP. Not a good situation!

    Minimize uncertainty at mid/long range -- focus on instant dmg weapons like LG and RG. Rockets are more predictive, spammy and suppressive and critically take seconds to reach the target. At close range rockets are less uncertain and often advantageous although you have the dilemma of whether to run away or die doing maximum damage
    This is like common sense though.

    Rockets are good close and mid range, but are harder to hit long range since they require a lot more prediction, and there's also a point at which the enemy player has time to decide where the rocket will hit and dodge accordingly.

    The rail is great long range but has problems in short range. The LG is great mid-range, ok at close range, and it simply cannot hit long range since it doesn't reach.

    Tipping point concept, after some initial hard work and a score advantage the belief that you are a strong player will lead to others avoiding you or playing badly against you or both, this will soon become self fulfilling
    Not necessarily, as it can lead others to target you, therefore reducing your performance since you are up against what is effectively stronger opposition.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Cat will become famous soon enough Cat will become famous soon enough Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,916
    My experience playing CA with k1llsen is that if he dies his team loses the round.

    And Lorfa, k1llsen plays CA a lot. I mean he plays it a ton. That pretty well indicates that he plays it for fun rather than for practice.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Lorfa is a jewel in the rough Lorfa is a jewel in the rough Lorfa is a jewel in the rough Lorfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Kepler-22b
    Posts
    8,655
    Practice can be fun :-)

  5. #5
    Member ecsplos1v is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    70
    Hey Hey! Thanks for the detailed reply Lorfa

    I won't get too bogged down because it occurred to me that I might not be saying anything insightful at all, or indeed it is all rather open to interpretation. Let's restrict the main two points of conversation to the self-fulfilling prophecy thing and the use of projectiles at mid-long range.

    Psychology thing first:

    That when people start to believe player X is really good it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and player X plays better and better

    You made a good point that his mates were competent and it's almost impossible to normalize away the skill-interaction between teams in these discussions (you and I have had one recently about Bayesian ranking).

    A simple statement to sum this self-fulfilling concept up is that "players on team A are letting player X on team B play even better simply because they believe he is better than them". Then belief turns into reality.

    Most players are already subconsciously aware of this phenomenon, and they refer to it as "not loosing your mentality" because others will sniff out your fear/anger and will try to reinforce it.

    A simple extreme example is we join a tier 2 server and dominate hard. We build a perception that we are invincible. Then people see us at the beginning of the round and run away as fast as they can from us completely jeopardizing their position and chances against even the other people in the server. Diminished position against the other players is still worth more to them than getting slaughtered by us.

    It's worth postulating that your ability as a player is a function of your opponent(s). Clearly you will play your best against people much worse than you. You might actually play the worst against people the same level to you (because you aspire to beat them and get pissed off, then lose). In a lot of other sports I have observed that you tend to play well against people massively better than you because you have nothing to lose and the pressure is on them, this doesn't appear to be the case in quake although might still easily happen.

    No it's not all players. However there are plenty of cases where a strong player gets weaker players as a result of the shuffle, and these weaker players end up dying quickly since they have poor positioning/dodging leaving the strong player the last one alive, or making the strong player look as if they are playing selfishly.
    It's good that you said this. This is what most people believe and what I would like to challenge. Imagine a thought experiment where you had 4v4 on Campgrounds. Imagine that 1 player on each team was weaker and the other 3 strong, this is mirrored on the other team. Now after 4-5 rounds lets secretly swap the weaker players with strong ones exactly the same as the other 3 on each team. My prediction is that they will continue to perform badly because the others continue to "believe" they are weak and victimize them. This is why when you are in games that are highly tactical (i.e. not just trading off damage in pairs), a small difference in ability or perception thereof can lead to large differences in outcome. I think its a nice idea to develop.

    You said something interesting on this:

    Not necessarily, as it can lead others to target you, therefore reducing your performance since you are up against what is effectively stronger opposition
    In my experience people actually go after the weaker players first (for selfish reasons) because they want the asymmetric damage situation it affords them. Target a stronger player and you take it on pure trust that your mates will help you defeat him. There is almost no room for trust as you can see from the behavior of the strong CA players. Perhaps this changes in situations where teams are more likely to trust each other (competitive games).

    You said this sentence makes no sense -- "I actually think that the altruism people chat about in the game is a bit of an illusion and you are really using your friends as cannon fodder. "

    Here I mean that often times people will say "meet at the bridge so we can help each other". This appears altruistic but the people who say this tend to be the person with the bottom score who is being victimized or the person with the top score who wants a nice target nest (using their mates as cannon fodder) to distract the enemy creating a completely asymmetric damage situation for him to attack from afar.

    On the use of use of mid-long projectiles when rail/lg would hit.

    Let's touch on this. We all agree Quake is a numbers game. So every time you do anything whether it's a rocket jump or firing a rail, there is a simple probability of success. So it's reasonable to assume that the best players select behaviors with high probabilities of success, that's how they win consistently.

    So again I'm not even sure if this is an insightful comment but I was saying that this killsen guy doesn't roll the dice very much at all. He is not spamming rockets, indeed why even use a projectile weapon at all. When you use projectiles you are not even operating in the now anymore, you are operating in the future. As we all know anything that happens in the future becomes exponentially more unpredictable with each millisecond that passes. So why fire a mid range rocket when you could rail or lg. Why gamble on a hit in the future if you can much more certainly do damage now. Why gamble that they might not hit you first? Even close range rails for example, that is rolling the dice. A lot of players do that. It's the stubborn attitude I referred to. I'm probably gonna die so let's try to do one big hit now. That's irrational (stubborn). Top class players would know that probability wise it's best to escape from the situation and live to fight another day (second). An apparent lack of spam or suppression because positional invisibility is more important.

    Not sure what you mean by nuanced. Obviously chess has much nuance.
    I think this is actually quite debatable! But not a debate I am interested in having haha
    Last edited by ecsplos1v; 07-24-2013 at 10:20 AM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member mi will become famous soon enough
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by ecsplos1v
    A simple statement to sum this self-fulfilling concept up is that "players on team A are letting player X on team B play even better simply because they believe he is better than them". Then belief turns into reality.
    That's not true, usually it's the opposite. Players on team A focus player X so he dies fast and doesn't score much. Very effective strategy if player X was carrying team B

    Quote Originally Posted by ecsplos1v View Post
    I watched k1llsen play CA on this youtube video -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSEa382lqK8
    That vid is over 1 year old, check out k1llsen vs zsx on campgrounds from yesterday:
    http://pl.twitch.tv/zootlive/b/434745031?t=91m13s
    .

  7. #7
    Member ecsplos1v is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    70
    Hi mi, thanks for the perspective. Great vid too I am watching now.

    Would like to sample more opinion on this though.

    I have a weird intuition that the continuum/spectrum of actual skill seems to be shallower in range compared to the differences in ranking or performance in practice so how do we explain the "inflation". I think psychology and perception strongly influences things.

    There is some random element to popularity on facebook or twitter for example, and when someone is popular enough or has enough influence, it becomes self fulfilling because of social proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof) and other things.

    Thought experiment -- is there an initial random element to the best guys being at the top and it becomes self-fulfilling, or do you guys believe if we took a secret clone of k1llsen and gave him a random alias he would rise up and be ranked roughly the same? I have a feeling not but an interesting thought ehh

  8. #8
    Senior Member Lorfa is a jewel in the rough Lorfa is a jewel in the rough Lorfa is a jewel in the rough Lorfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Kepler-22b
    Posts
    8,655
    Quote Originally Posted by ecsplos1v View Post
    A simple statement to sum this self-fulfilling concept up is that "players on team A are letting player X on team B play even better simply because they believe he is better than them". Then belief turns into reality.
    I'm not convinced. Strong players can and do get targeted, so they aren't really being allowed to play stronger consciously or unconsciously.

    Most players are already subconsciously aware of this phenomenon, and they refer to it as "not loosing your mentality" because others will sniff out your fear/anger and will try to reinforce it.
    I know of a common psychological phenomenon where a player has a low game self-esteem and they apparently unconsciously manage to sabotage their game performance against someone who they perceive as a stronger player. It's just one type of player though of which there are many, I wouldn't call it the norm.

    A simple extreme example is we join a tier 2 server and dominate hard. We build a perception that we are invincible.
    I don't. I actually don't consider myself to be playing well by my results but instead by what happens in-game, barring rare circumstances in which I'm managing a win against someone I know to be a very strong player, or knocking someone out of a tournament.

    Then people see us at the beginning of the round and run away as fast as they can from us completely jeopardizing their position and chances against even the other people in the server. Diminished position against the other players is still worth more to them than getting slaughtered by us.
    I'm not convinced of this either. For example a lot of these tier 3/tier 2 players play with very little awareness. Some of them are using various substances (lol), and are listening to music when they play and so aren't even receptive to thoughts like "oh there's that guy who plays well and I'll alter my behavior because of this information", consciously or unconsciously. I have seen players do the same thing over and over again making them easy to predict and attack. If they were psychologically affected by my presence it would seem that they would be inclined to behave differently.

    It's worth postulating that your ability as a player is a function of your opponent(s).
    It's a matter of perspective. Is the universe large, or are people small, both or none. It's just whatever is the most useful model for the subject at hand.

    Clearly you will play your best against people much worse than you. You might actually play the worst against people the same level to you (because you aspire to beat them and get pissed off, then lose). In a lot of other sports I have observed that you tend to play well against people massively better than you because you have nothing to lose and the pressure is on them, this doesn't appear to be the case in quake although might still easily happen.
    There's no trend for human behavior here. Some players play better when they are under pressure, some play worse.

    It's good that you said this. This is what most people believe and what I would like to challenge. Imagine a thought experiment where you had 4v4 on Campgrounds. Imagine that 1 player on each team was weaker and the other 3 strong, this is mirrored on the other team. Now after 4-5 rounds lets secretly swap the weaker players with strong ones exactly the same as the other 3 on each team. My prediction is that they will continue to perform badly because the others continue to "believe" they are weak and victimize them.
    I predict the opposite. That when the players are swapped the new players' scoring and performance will increase.

    I mean by what mechanism would it happen otherwise? The new strong player will have superior aim/movement/awareness/situation handling. How is he going to perform badly? Do his opponents see him as weak and aim better against him? How can they when he has superior dodging? Do they target him? What about teammates? Do they try and bait him?

    I get it that psychology plays a role in even QL CA, but it's not _that_ strong. A 20 % greater weapon accuracy, better positioning, fast movement, and awareness are going to contribute much more. It's in cases where the skill difference is closer that psychological factors can have a decisive effect since the gap isn't as far to cross.

    This is why when you are in games that are highly tactical (i.e. not just trading off damage in pairs), a small difference in ability or perception thereof can lead to large differences in outcome. I think its a nice idea to develop.
    Assuming this is true, and that a good enough definition of what constitutes "tactical" can be arrived at, I don't see what it has to do with psychology. Better ability = more damage = more wins.

    In my experience people actually go after the weaker players first (for selfish reasons) because they want the asymmetric damage situation it affords them. Target a stronger player and you take it on pure trust that your mates will help you defeat him. There is almost no room for trust as you can see from the behavior of the strong CA players. Perhaps this changes in situations where teams are more likely to trust each other (competitive games).
    I see both scenarios all the time in pubs and in competition.

    You said this sentence makes no sense -- "I actually think that the altruism people chat about in the game is a bit of an illusion and you are really using your friends as cannon fodder. "

    Here I mean that often times people will say "meet at the bridge so we can help each other". This appears altruistic but the people who say this tend to be the person with the bottom score who is being victimized or the person with the top score who wants a nice target nest (using their mates as cannon fodder) to distract the enemy creating a completely asymmetric damage situation for him to attack from afar.
    Imo, their motivations are usually:

    A. They are getting double or tripled in one or more rounds and want this to stop by having teammates meet up, which they think they can foster by saying something in team chat.

    B. The team is losing and they think that meeting up somewhere is a potential solution.

    C. They just want to bark orders.

    D. They think it's a good thing to say because they've heard others say it.

    Obviously C is a purely selfish motivation, and D is likely to be as well although it is less clear.

    With A and B it is a tough call whether these are selfish or altruistic motivations. They cannot win if their team doesn't win too, are they motivated by their own winnings/performance or by wanting the team to win? If they just want to make max damage, then I suppose having the team meet somewhere could be more conducive to that and therefore would render it a selfish motivation.

    On the use of use of mid-long projectiles when rail/lg would hit.

    Let's touch on this. We all agree Quake is a numbers game. So every time you do anything whether it's a rocket jump or firing a rail, there is a simple probability of success. So it's reasonable to assume that the best players select behaviors with high probabilities of success, that's how they win consistently.
    Ok.

    So again I'm not even sure if this is an insightful comment but I was saying that this killsen guy doesn't roll the dice very much at all.
    I suppose this is a fair assessment. You could also check out a rapha duel and see even less risky behavior, albeit with increased rocket use!

    He is not spamming rockets, indeed why even use a projectile weapon at all. When you use projectiles you are not even operating in the now anymore, you are operating in the future. As we all know anything that happens in the future becomes exponentially more unpredictable with each millisecond that passes. So why fire a mid range rocket when you could rail or lg.
    Because prediction is required with the rail and LG as well, and sometimes the same lack of certainty falls within the realm of uncertainty for a rocket hitting. Also a direct rocket hit does a lot of damage and can push the player away making them easier to hit with other weapons. Also rockets do not require direct line of sight.

    Why gamble on a hit in the future if you can much more certainly do damage now. Why gamble that they might not hit you first? Even close range rails for example, that is rolling the dice. A lot of players do that. It's the stubborn attitude I referred to. I'm probably gonna die so let's try to do one big hit now. That's irrational (stubborn). Top class players would know that probability wise it's best to escape from the situation and live to fight another day (second). An apparent lack of spam or suppression because positional invisibility is more important.
    Being stubborn towards changing good behaviors is good, being stubborn towards changing bad behaviors is bad.

    If k1llsen wanted to be particularly risk free (and rather +backy) he would rely less on the LG actually since then he has to be in close contact with the enemy where he can be hit. With long range rails/rockets/grenades he could attack from afar and have time to run away if the enemy approaches.

    I think this is actually quite debatable! But not a debate I am interested in having haha
    I don't see what's debatable about it. Chess has enormous depth.

  9. #9
    Member ecsplos1v is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    70
    Thanks for the long reply. Seems that none of my psychology concepts are getting traction with you. That's a shame because I think I have observed them in the "wild". They are a bit controversial which is why I raised them. But nevertheless to sum up:

    (my main point of interest is this) You think that the perception of a player's skill won't have a deleterious effect on the others in practice (you cited the tier3 people on drugs anecdote). I don't agree. I think games are like the weather and can be highly chaotic in practice on any tier depending on start parameters. I think the outcomes have the capability to tip in one direction or another with equal players. A slightly weaker or different starting position can lead to a whole spectrum of outcomes. I don't think the outcome "surface" is smooth in the starting parameters, and therefore I think even a 20% increase in accuracy/dodging may (sometimes) fail to counter this. Also you assume that players can play consistently well. I think their ability depends on many factors including the situation. Maybe all of this balances out in practice and the phenomenon is not always present. Again this is a bit of a theory so you may well indeed be right, or perhaps elements of truth to both ideas.

    You think that strong players get victimised. Well perhaps this explains k1llsens strategy to hide away to avoid that happening. So by this interpretation hes not being selfish, it's by nessecity.

    You raise good points about the long-mid rockets, indeed the probabilities might be comparable for both behaviours. I had a theory that including time into the equation made the real time weapons much higher probability.

    Anyway no need to go around this again I think we will have to agree to disagree mate

  10. #10
    Senior Member Lorfa is a jewel in the rough Lorfa is a jewel in the rough Lorfa is a jewel in the rough Lorfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Kepler-22b
    Posts
    8,655
    Quote Originally Posted by ecsplos1v View Post
    Thanks for the long reply. Seems that none of my psychology concepts are getting traction with you.
    It's not that I don't believe that psychology plays any role, but if this is large CA we're talking about I mean it usually doesn't get to that point cognitively for the majority of players.

    A slightly weaker or different starting position can lead to a whole spectrum of outcomes.
    To a point.

    I don't think the outcome "surface" is smooth in the starting parameters, and therefore I think even a 20% increase in accuracy/dodging may (sometimes) fail to counter this.
    Large CA can be pretty random in pubs. The more random a game type the less psychology applies imo.

    The less random, the more psychology applies, but at the same time skill differences also have more of an effect and can overshadow the psychological aspect.

    Also you assume that players can play consistently well. I think their ability depends on many factors including the situation.
    No I agree with this, it's just within a certain margin. A tier 3 player won't have a "cypher day", and cypher won't have a tier 3 day unless he's somehow handicapped.

    To get less general, players can handle some situations better than they can handle others. Psychology cannot make them play better or worse past a certain margin though imo, barring certain extreme psychological states that would be exceedingly rare.

    Maybe all of this balances out in practice and the phenomenon is not always present. Again this is a bit of a theory so you may well indeed be right, or perhaps elements of truth to both ideas.
    Psychology is a factor, it just doesn't have such a large effect in something like large CA.

    You think that strong players get victimised. Well perhaps this explains k1llsens strategy to hide away to avoid that happening. So by this interpretation hes not being selfish, it's by nessecity.
    There are many possibilities. He could be testing settings and so trying to get certain aim situations. He could be hardly paying attention. He could be extremely focused and trying to do exactly what he's doing in an effort to win. I mean it's CA..

    You raise good points about the long-mid rockets, indeed the probabilities might be comparable for both behaviours. I had a theory that including time into the equation made the real time weapons much higher probability.
    Discussions regarding weapon balance can go on for a while.

    You can even do really well using the shotgun only in a 1v1 CA on Forgotten, since you can shoot from a lot of awkward angles and still get some damage while having room to run away. If the enemy tries to get close to you they run the risk of a point blank shotgun blast. Probably the SG isn't more powerful than the other weapons in that scenario, but it's weird how effective it can be.

    Also strange is scenarios where the GL can dominate the other weapons, since it can hit a player in some cases where the other player simply cannot hit back, and these are places you cannot hit with any other weapon. (prox mines could do something similar, but let's not go there.)

    Probably the weapon balance could be improved somehow, but the fact that these anomalies exist seems to indicate that it's at least not bad and manages to maintain some strategic depth to the game.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts