point handicap for free for all?

[unbalancedbutfair]

two negative aspects of free for all are 1. 1v3, when the players see a gold or higher ranked person in the loading screen so they all gang up on that one person. Not really a free for all. 2. newbie curbstomp, where new players just get destroyed.

Obviously we don't want to change the weapon/legend balance, but in freeforall it's point based. Why not give really good players a handicap, so that multiple skill levels can fight on more even ground?

[RocketMan]

Originally posted by unbalancedbutfair:

two negative aspects of free for all are 1. 1v3, when the players see a gold or higher ranked person in the loading screen so they all gang up on that one person. Not really a free for all. 2. newbie curbstomp, where new players just get destroyed.

Obviously we don't want to change the weapon/legend balance, but in freeforall it's point based. Why not give really good players a handicap, so that multiple skill levels can fight on more even ground?

You mean a handicap...such as 1v3?

[Tinfoil hat theorist :^)]

FFA it's literally in the name

[unbalancedbutfair]

the 1v3 "handicap" only happens because they know they are screwed. If each person had a chance to win alliances like that would fall apart.

[RocketMan]

Originally posted by unbalancedbutfair:

the 1v3 "handicap" only happens because they know they are screwed. If each person had a chance to win alliances like that would fall apart.

So it balances itself out then.

[unbalancedbutfair]

If you consider a 1v3 and "every man for himself" as the same thing then yes it does.

I'm saying that if you used a point handicap where n00bs get more points you create a situation where each player has a chance to win. That changes the incentives to keep all the players fighting for themselves and lets different skill levels fight on more equal basis. y'know, like a "free for all". But hey it destroyed golf and go, so it's obviously a horrible idea.

[RocketMan]

Originally posted by unbalancedbutfair:

If you consider a 1v3 and "every man for himself" as the same thing then yes it does.

I'm saying that if you used a point handicap where n00bs get more points you create a situation where each player has a chance to win. That changes the incentives to keep all the players fighting for themselves and lets different skill levels fight on more equal basis. y'know, like a "free for all". But hey it destroyed golf and go, so it's obviously a horrible idea.

I dont rea!ly get what you're saying.
But no, new players dont really need handicap. Ffa's are the worst way to learn the mechanics of the game. Even in classic smash you couldnt just pick up and go. You spammed the buttons as you tried to figure out what did what.

[unbalancedbutfair]

I'm saying that in other games where players of different skill wish to play together, point handicaps (or bonuses) have been used to keep the game functioning as if they had the same skill level. If you played golf with Tiger you'd just lose. Zero chance of winning. With handicaps, the better you are the bigger the handicap, so that if Tiger doesn't do as well as he should and you had a great game for you, you would win.

FFAs aren't competitive, just fun so the "it will keep n00bs from learning" argument doesn't attach. Right now skill level differences kill fun, this seems to me a simple fix that can't hurt anything and may help new players decide to keep playing.

[RocketMan]

Originally posted by unbalancedbutfair:

I'm saying that in other games where players of different skill wish to play together, point handicaps (or bonuses) have been used to keep the game functioning as if they had the same skill level. If you played golf with Tiger you'd just lose. Zero chance of winning. With handicaps, the better you are the bigger the handicap, so that if Tiger doesn't do as well as he should and you had a great game for you, you would win.

FFAs aren't competitive, just fun so the "it will keep n00bs from learning" argument doesn't attach. Right now skill level differences kill fun, this seems to me a simple fix that can't hurt anything and may help new players decide to keep playing.

But a point handicap wont address the skill difference.
Youll still see yourself die over and over again. What fun is that?

I dont think an artificial approach is the best way to handle this, if anything it sorts itself out as players learn and get more experience.

This could also be handled by sorting players via 1v1 rank. But even then youll have smurfs.
There's no real solution

[unbalancedbutfair]

Doesn't fix skill imbalance but would give the weaker players an acheivable goal instead of an impossible one. Also it encourages a nice "every man for himself" instead of "get the giant!"mentality. Similar to how the points incentivize aggressive instead of conservative play.

[RocketMan]

Originally posted by unbalancedbutfair:

Doesn't fix skill imbalance but would give the weaker players an acheivable goal instead of an impossible one. Also it encourages a nice "every man for himself" instead of "get the giant!"mentality. Similar to how the points incentivize aggressive instead of conservative play.

It's the opposite that occurs.killing the weakest player and targeting the guys with low health is what makes the giant. Killing the giant does nothing but knock a couple points from him.

Ffa's with lives are where the giant is teamed on.

[Tinfoil hat theorist :^)]

FFA, Free for ALL

It's not about matchmaking, it's about being for ALL
I don't like FFA, mostly because it's not about skill. You could stand in a corner charging a sig hoping someone gets thrown in your direction. If someone just read an opponent perfectly and got a skilled gimp, you could then throw a weapon in the skilled players face for a free kill.

FFA is not skilled at all, it's random, chaotic and only for fun