DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Player rank and stats

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] Player rank and stats

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 23 post(s)
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 2185	Posted - 2014.08.21 13:08:00 - [121] - Quote There's a lot of factors to consider and talk over in this. But at the beginning i would want to consider measuring my candidate predictors over various win conditions. For example, do our three candidates(WP/s, WP/D, K/D) differentiate more when we look at skirm vs. ambush vs. dom? Do they vary if we filter for long duration matches vs. short duration matches? Or for: high clone count/MCC destruction vs. low clone count/MCC destruction? Likewise one could investigate the candidate predictors under other victory or loss conditions to try and tease out differences in behavior. Presumably the matches we are trying to predict for are not all types of wins but rather the ones that are nail-bitingly close and impossible to call for either side until the victory/defeat screen loads. PSN: RationalSpark
ZDub 303 Escrow Removal and Acquisition Negative-Feedback 3217	Posted - 2014.08.21 13:38:00 - [122] - Quote Slept on it, and one last bit of feedback for you Rattati. I'm not sure if its possible at the moment (i.e. requires a UI update) but... if you could somehow show players their own -¦ score that would also be a big driver for personal performance. In games like SC2 and Hearthstone and primarily pvp games like those, watching your own -¦ score rise and fall from game to game is a huge driver for better performance. If this could make it into the character sheet perhaps? Its something to consider at least. B C R U are letters, not words - Wierd Al Yankovich

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5577	Posted - 2014.08.21 13:44:00 - [123] - Quote ZDub 303 wrote: Slept on it, and one last bit of feedback for you Rattati. I'm not sure if its possible at the moment (i.e. requires a UI update) but... if you could somehow show players their own -¦ score that would also be a big driver for personal performance. In games like SC2 and Hearthstone and primarily pvp games like those, watching your own -¦ score rise and fall from game to game is a huge driver for better performance. If this could make it into the character sheet perhaps? Its something to consider at least. I can see if it can be displayed on the leaderboard! "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2186	Posted - 2014.08.21 13:49:00 - [124] - Quote ZDub 303 wrote: Slept on it, and one last bit of feedback for you Rattati. I'm not sure if its possible at the moment (i.e. requires a UI update) but... if you could somehow show players their own -¦ score that would also be a big driver for personal performance. In games like SC2 and Hearthstone and primarily pvp games like those, watching your own -¦ score rise and fall from game to game is a huge driver for better performance. If this could make it into the character sheet perhaps? Its something to consider at least. This would probably encourage gaming the system though, but you do have a valid point. There's definetly a tradeoff. If matchmaking was based on WPs/death this becomes much less of a concern though. Best PvE idea ever!
ZDub 303 Escrow Removal and Acquisition Negative-Feedback 3217	Posted - 2014.08.21 14:11:00 - [125] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I can see if it can be displayed on the leaderboard! o7, its low priority and no one will be that upset if you can't get it in but it would be kind of cool. I won't lie, my inner troll would love to lord it over some people on the forums lol. Vell0cet wrote: This would probably encourage gaming the system though, but you do have a valid point. There's definetly a tradeoff. If matchmaking was based on WPs/death this becomes much less of a concern though. I think I agree with Rattati though, people will game the system no matter what. Its a facet of human nature. Although, do you think people would try to game the system to get a high -¦ score? If so.. then they elevate themselves in matchmaking to a point where they are against (theoretically) skill enough players to equalize whatever metric is used. If you think they will use it game themselves downwards... that will happen whether or not you can see your own -¦ score. B C R U are letters, not words - Wierd Al Yankovich
Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2186	Posted - 2014.08.21 14:26:00 - [126] - Quote ZDub 303 wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I can see if it can be displayed on the leaderboard! o7, its low priority and no one will be that upset if you can't get it in but it would be kind of cool. I won't lie, my inner troll would love to lord it over some people on the forums lol. Vell0cet wrote: This would probably encourage gaming the system though, but you do have a valid point. There's definetly a tradeoff. If matchmaking was based on WPs/death this becomes much less of a concern though. I think I agree with Rattati though, people will game the system no matter what. Its a facet of human nature. Although, do you think people would try to game the system to get a high -¦ score? If so.. then they elevate themselves in matchmaking to a point where they are against (theoretically) skill enough players to equalize whatever metric is used. If you think they will use it game themselves downwards... that will happen whether or not you can see your own -¦ score. Fair point. If -¦ becomes a point of pride, then it could actuall reduce the number of players trying to sabotage matches. It's hard-to-say. I still think WPs/death is the way to go for matchmaking, after sleeping on it, which would bypass this entire problem. Best PvE idea ever!
ZDub 303 Escrow Removal and Acquisition Negative-Feedback 3219	Posted - 2014.08.21 14:30:00 - [127] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: [Fair point. If -¦ becomes a point of pride, then it could actually reduce the number of players trying to sabotage matches. It's hard-to-say. I still think WPs/death is the way to go for matchmaking, after sleeping on it, which would bypass this entire problem. I've always agreed with you on that though, I was talking purely -¦ score though. How its calculated is another topic, of which I have posted my thoughts as well (that WP/D seems a fundamentally better metric than WP/s, despite the statistics saying otherwise). B C R U are letters, not words - Wierd Al Yankovich

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5578	Posted - 2014.08.21 14:36:00 - [128] - Quote 90 degree turn guys I am wondering where the overlap of squads and skill lies. Let's discuss in 2 categories, where A is a beast and B is "normal" Will a single A win 3B's or even 6B's 1A vs 2B 1A vs 3B 1A vs 4B 1A vs 5B 1A vs 6B 2A vs 4B 2A vs 5B 2A vs 6B 3A vs 5B 3A vs 6B 4A vs 6B Please answer with your gut, Y/N on each. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5578	Posted - 2014.08.21 14:38:00 - [129] - Quote ZDub 303 wrote: Vell0cet wrote: [Fair point. If -¦ becomes a point of pride, then it could actually reduce the number of players trying to sabotage matches. It's hard-to-say. I still think WPs/death is the way to go for matchmaking, after sleeping on it, which would bypass this entire problem. I've always agreed with you on that though, I was talking purely -¦ score though. How its calculated is another topic, of which I have posted my thoughts as well (that WP/D seems a fundamentally better metric than WP/s, despite the statistics saying otherwise). it has a lower correlation because of the low Mu bump in the chart, prompting my redline sniper theory. Any thoughts on that? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2186	Posted - 2014.08.21 14:47:00 - [130] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: ZDub 303 wrote: Vell0cet wrote: [Fair point. If -¦ becomes a point of pride, then it could actually reduce the number of players trying to sabotage matches. It's hard-to-say. I still think WPs/death is the way to go for matchmaking, after sleeping on it, which would bypass this entire problem. I've always agreed with you on that though, I was talking purely -¦ score though. How its calculated is another topic, of which I have posted my thoughts as well (that WP/D seems a fundamentally better metric than WP/s, despite the statistics saying otherwise). it has a lower correlation because of the low Mu bump in the chart, prompting my redline sniper theory. Any thoughts on that? I confess to not fully understanding this. Are you saying you suspect redline snipers have a higher WP/death than their -¦ or lower WP/death than their -¦? Logic would dictate they would have a higher WP/death than their -¦, which means they're going to be matched against better opponents and it will be harder for them to pick off low HP players. Best PvE idea ever!

Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2186	Posted - 2014.08.21 14:54:00 - [131] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 90 degree turn guys I am wondering where the overlap of squads and skill lies. Let's discuss in 2 categories, where A is a beast and B is "normal" Will a single A win 3B's or even 6B's 1A vs 2B 1A vs 3B 1A vs 4B 1A vs 5B 1A vs 6B 2A vs 4B 2A vs 5B 2A vs 6B 3A vs 5B 3A vs 6B 4A vs 6B Please answer with your gut, Y/N on each. These groups are squadded right? 1A vs 2B Y 1A vs 3B ? 1A vs 4B N 1A vs 5B N 1A vs 6B N 2A vs 4B Y 2A vs 5B ? 2A vs 6B N 3A vs 5B Y 3A vs 6B Y 4A vs 6B Y Best PvE idea ever!
Spademan The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 3162	Posted - 2014.08.21 14:59:00 - [132] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 90 degree turn guys I am wondering where the overlap of squads and skill lies. Let's discuss in 2 categories, where A is a beast and B is "normal" Will a single A win 3B's or even 6B's 1A vs 2B A wins 1A vs 3B B's win 1A vs 4B B's win 1A vs 5B B's win 1A vs 6B B's win 2A vs 4B A's win 2A vs 5B A's win 2A vs 6B B's win 3A vs 5B A's win 3A vs 6B A's win 4A vs 6B A's win Please answer with your gut, Y/N on each. My gut tells me that it'd be about 3 "Normals" to every 1 "Beast" I am part shovel, part man, full scout, and a little bit special. Official Time Lord of the Scout Community
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 17302	Posted - 2014.08.21 15:01:00 - [133] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 90 degree turn guys I am wondering where the overlap of squads and skill lies. Let's discuss in 2 categories, where A is a beast and B is "normal" Will a single A win 3B's or even 6B's 1A vs 2B 1A vs 3B 1A vs 4B 1A vs 5B 1A vs 6B 2A vs 4B 2A vs 5B 2A vs 6B 3A vs 5B 3A vs 6B 4A vs 6B Please answer with your gut, Y/N on each. I don't think it can be quantified that simply. There are such a huge number of possibilities in fights that it really can vary wildly depending on what's done. As someone who'd consider myself an 'A' category player (Last I checked my KDR was over 5) I know that it's not because I can take 5 people in a straight fight, it's because I avoid straight fights and look to give myself an advantage like flanking. That said, I would say with the high tier players it's not just a tactical sense that sets them apart but against randoms people can and will win against multiple targets in a straight fight. So in a straight fight, with everyone's gear equal, if you classify B category players as your average blue dot (I may be a little bit derisive of the qualities of the average blue dot) and A category players as killing machines who really know their stuff and are talking to each other, I'd say it'd go something along these lines: 1A vs 2B - A wins 1A vs 3B - Could go either way 1A vs 4B - B wins 1A vs 5B - B wins 1A vs 6B - B wins 2A vs 4B - A wins 2A vs 5B - A wins 2A vs 6B - Could go either way 3A vs 5B - A wins 3A vs 6B - A wins 4A vs 6B - A wins I think it's an unfair way of thinking about it like this though. Some 'beast' players according to your ranking system might well be top quality logis, in which case they may be much less likely to win a 2v1 but would help a lot if paired with another A grade player. And fights don't always happen straight on. Once you get a group of people who know what they're doing together, the force multiplier is staggering. When you can have scans, a logi, and a bunch of competent slayers then randoms just have no chance at all. Communication can have a drastic effect on a match. Immediately, people squadded up are much more likely to get flanking attacks while teammates distract the opponents, get intel so they themselves don't get flanked, as well as getting all the other bonuses of squad support. If you said that the A players were highly skilled but soloists (even when there are several in the same fight) and the B players were of average quality but working together, I'd say those matchups would go much closer to this: 1A vs 2B - A wins 1A vs 3B - B wins 1A vs 4B - B wins 1A vs 5B - B wins 1A vs 6B - B wins 2A vs 4B - A wins 2A vs 5B - B wins 2A vs 6B - B wins 3A vs 5B - I'd favour A 3A vs 6B - I'd favour B 4A vs 6B - Could go either way Those are just my estimations though and they're definitely not anything approaching rock paper scissors levels of certainty. As I said, things can change wildly in a fight and there are a huge number of factors. Couple of questions I have though. Would this ranking system contribute to a harsher jump from academy matches to normal matches? Newbies coming from the academy with a background in shooters will probably have an inflated KDR and high score when they come out of the academy. If they immediately get thrown into really high ranking matches I imagine that'd be extremely offputting. Would there be a way to 'buffer' those newbies against it? So, for example, if the way you did it went off the last ten matches done, could you have newbies automatically created with ten zero scoring matches? So then they get their high scoring couple of matches which takes them out of academy but because they have a buffer of at least 5 zero score matches they don't get immediately thrown to the wolves. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. 'Lucent Echelon' - Gallente FW channel
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 4381	Posted - 2014.08.21 15:12:00 - [134] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Please answer with your gut, Y/N on each. 1A vs 2B - Y 1A vs 3B - N 1A vs 4B - N 1A vs 5B - N 1A vs 6B - N 2A vs 4B - Y 2A vs 5B - N 2A vs 6B - N 3A vs 5B - Y 3A vs 6B - Y 4A vs 6B - Y * Beasts exclude vehicles. For each ADS or HAV, "A Team" odds improve by no less than 50%. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 2284	Posted - 2014.08.21 15:32:00 - [135] - Quote Anything is possible, but if you're looking for consistent result averages? 1A vs 2B Yes 1A vs 3B Iffy 1A vs 4B No 1A vs 5B No 1A vs 6B No 2A vs 4B Yes 2A vs 5B Yes 2A vs 6B Iffy 3A vs 5B Yes 3A vs 6B Yes 4A vs 6B Yes I'm assuming encounters are in rapid succession or all together. 2-1 is infinitely doable when the targets cater to your strengths. 3-1 is tricky and 4-1 odds are pretty much the point where you're just getting focused down. But all of these scenarios can be beaten by a "Beast" player. Hell I've done some obnoxious things in the past at a rate of 6-1. It just doesn't happen often. There are outliers who CAN consistently beat 3-1 or 4-1 normal players, but they are outliers who crack the curve hard, and are the beast hiding among beasts.
ZDub 303 Escrow Removal and Acquisition Negative-Feedback 3219	Posted - 2014.08.21 16:03:00 - [136] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: ZDub 303 wrote: Vell0cet wrote: [Fair point. If -¦ becomes a point of pride, then it could actually reduce the number of players trying to sabotage matches. It's hard-to-say. I still think WPs/death is the way to go for matchmaking, after sleeping on it, which would bypass this entire problem. I've always agreed with you on that though, I was talking purely -¦ score though. How its calculated is another topic, of which I have posted my thoughts as well (that WP/D seems a fundamentally better metric than WP/s, despite the statistics saying otherwise). it has a lower correlation because of the low Mu bump in the chart, prompting my redline sniper theory. Any thoughts on that? Hm... I think your theory is correct. The question then lies... do redline snipers affect WP/D more than afk farming affects WP/s? The statistics would say the former, and I agree your theory is correct. Its probably not only redline snipers but anyone with that kind of preservationist mentality... which we can just lump into the 'redline sniper' catagory just fine. Just considering though, since you are sharing this information with the community, there will, as a result, be a section of the community that is already thinking about how to break your mechanic. Vellocet has also recognized this, and I do believe the feedback is more that WP/D is more robust against 'gaming the system' than WP/s would be. I can tell you (from experience) that afk farming is infinitely easier and more enjoyable than trying to increase your death count without generating warpoints. You could also, possibly, make it so that suicides are not counted as a death in the -¦ calculation whereby someone must actually spawn in and run themselves into reds over and over to decrease their -¦ score. This would result in a zero-sum (ish) kind of system where someone dropping their -¦ would result in several opponents receiving a slight bump in their -¦. Just a thought here... Can you remove the section of that correlation that you believe is caused by redline sniping and look at how the correlation coefficient changes as a result? B C R U are letters, not words - Wierd Al Yankovich
IgniteableAura Pro Hic Immortalis 1604	Posted - 2014.08.21 16:25:00 - [137] - Quote Basically I agree with what others are saying on a 3:1 odds. I think Arkena makes an important point. But if what you want is "100% chance of B level players winning a fight against A level players" it would be about a 3:1 odds. 2:1 is a 65% or lower. The racial preferences have less effect at higher odds, so at 2:1 it really depends on what roles the players are doing. Having a dedicated logi and heavy together would probably take out one or two level A players, even if the logi and heavy are level B. My Youtube Biomassed Podcast
Beren Hurin Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 2455	Posted - 2014.08.21 17:08:00 - [138] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 90 degree turn guys I am wondering where the overlap of squads and skill lies. Let's discuss in 2 categories, where A is a beast and B is "normal" Will a single A win 3B's or even 6B's 1A vs 2B 1A vs 3B 1A vs 4B 1A vs 5B 1A vs 6B 2A vs 4B 2A vs 5B 2A vs 6B 3A vs 5B 3A vs 6B 4A vs 6B Please answer with your gut, Y/N on each. The hockey stat "adjusted plus/minus" is an attempt to solve this problem. You can effectively look at a player's w/l rate both as a function of his squad's average mu and the opposing team's average/median mu. I would imagine that there are high performing players whose performance is unrelated to squad quality, but also those who are significantly boosted by squad quality. What it sounds like you are looking for is a weighting function that can account for a player's mu. IOW what is the 'strength' of a mu that is 1,2,or 3 standard deviations from the mean? You have to account also for players below the mean as well when balancing the team. Does a -1 sigma mu teammate cancel out a +1 sigma mu player? Do you need 3 x -1 sigma mu players to counter a +3 sigma mu player? Sigma mu would be a number of standard deviations that a player's mu is from the total population's average mu.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 4074	Posted - 2014.08.21 17:12:00 - [139] - Quote Let's discuss in 2 categories, where A is a beast and B is "normal" Will a single A win 3B's or even 6B's 1A vs 2B [Yes] 1A vs 3B [Maybe] 1A vs 4B [No] 1A vs 5B [No] 1A vs 6B [No] 2A vs 4B [Yes] 2A vs 5B [Maybe] 2A vs 6B [Maybe] 3A vs 5B [Yes] 3A vs 6B [Yes] 4A vs 6B [Yes] Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2186	Posted - 2014.08.21 17:14:00 - [140] - Quote Beren Hurin wrote: Sigma mu would be a number of standard deviations that a player's mu is from the total population's average mu. Either that or the name of a very lame fraternity. Sorry I couldn't resist. You actually make some good points. Best PvE idea ever!

Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 1580	Posted - 2014.08.21 17:16:00 - [141] - Quote I'd also say a 2.5/3 to 1 ratio. But I'd add a modifier for those working together in a squad. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
Soulja Ghostface 2627	Posted - 2014.08.21 17:21:00 - [142] - Quote In new eden, isk is more important than death. Average Isk destroyed, isk gained and isk lossed should come into equation. Bring These Back Tanker Turned Ads Pilot
IgniteableAura Pro Hic Immortalis 1606	Posted - 2014.08.21 19:07:00 - [143] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: I'd also say a 2.5/3 to 1 ratio. But I'd add a modifier for those working together in a squad. Kevall, I agree with a 2.5:1 ratio, but do we always want the B players winning (3:1)? I think a 2.5:1 would be better as it allows some leeway into winning the engagement. We don't want to make it so A list players are always losing engagements. My Youtube Biomassed Podcast
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 17331	Posted - 2014.08.21 22:09:00 - [144] - Quote IgniteableAura wrote: Kevall Longstride wrote: I'd also say a 2.5/3 to 1 ratio. But I'd add a modifier for those working together in a squad. Kevall, I agree with a 2.5:1 ratio, but do we always want the B players winning (3:1)? I think a 2.5:1 would be better as it allows some leeway into winning the engagement. We don't want to make it so A list players are always losing engagements. I'm a little dubious of the idea that A list players would 'always be losing engagements' if they couldn't win a 3v1. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. 'Lucent Echelon' - Gallente FW channel
SponkSponkSponk The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 1013	Posted - 2014.08.21 23:17:00 - [145] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Once you get a group of people who know what they're doing together, the force multiplier is staggering. This is the crux of the matter. Squads improve the performance of each squad member in a way that increases geometrically as squad size increases, with a bias towards propping up weaker players rather than letting an already-good player excel. Dust/Eve transfers
ZDub 303 Escrow Removal and Acquisition Negative-Feedback 3220	Posted - 2014.08.22 01:58:00 - [146] - Quote Gear and SP are going to be a strong bias in this 'A vs B' debate as well. Is the A player always using proto? Are the B players always in STD gear? How much average SP would each type of character have? I'm not sure you can made an absolute quantity with this... if anything 2-3 is probably appropriate... B C R U are letters, not words - Wierd Al Yankovich
SponkSponkSponk The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 1014	Posted - 2014.08.22 04:37:00 - [147] - Quote ZDub 303 wrote: Gear and SP are going to be a strong bias in this 'A vs B' debate as well. Maybe, maybe not. I suspect that gear choice will largely be a reactive thing; you'll have your favourite suit for the occasion, and only up-suit or down-suit based on what's happening (i.e. if you're rolling with a strong squad, you'll up-suit to proto because you die less often so why not?, and if you're getting crushed already, you'll down suit accordingly). If you're someone who always runs $TIER no matter what, then that's reflected in your stats already. Dust/Eve transfers

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 5592	Posted - 2014.08.22 07:21:00 - [148] - Quote Don't worry about the A/B thing too much, I was just wondering. Maybe I should have put it differently. If you want to win a battle, would you prefer the squads of A or B on your team 1A vs 2B - 1A 1A vs 3B - 1A 1A vs 4B - 4B 1A vs 5B - 5B 1A vs 6B - 6B 2A vs 4B - 2A 2A vs 5B - ? 2A vs 6B - ? 3A vs 5B - 3A 3A vs 6B - 3A 4A vs 6B - 4A what I am trying to see is when does relative quality outweigh the "multiplying" power effect of a squad "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Haerr Legio DXIV 1221	Posted - 2014.08.22 07:52:00 - [149] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Don't worry about the A/B thing too much, I was just wondering. Maybe I should have put it differently. If you want to win a battle, would you prefer the squads of A or B on your team what I am trying to see is when does relative quality outweigh the "multiplying" power effect of a squad Are you considering the negative morale effect of having many badberries on a team? I have seen very decent players say fuck it and do silly shit when there are to many badberries on their side. It gets especially bad when you see ~3-4 Starter Sniper fits (Speaking of which can you just delete the Starter Sniper fits?) in the same location as the reaction is "our team is X men down, we can't possibly win". Any how: 1A vs 2B - 1A 1A vs 3B - 1A 1A vs 4B - 4B 1A vs 5B - 5B 1A vs 6B - 6B 2A vs 4B - 2A 2A vs 5B - 5B - Depending on the rest of the team... (Assuming the rest of the teams is C players...) 2A vs 6B - 6B 3A vs 5B - 3A 3A vs 6B - 3A 4A vs 6B - 4A
Vell0cet Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 2193	Posted - 2014.08.22 08:05:00 - [150] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Don't worry about the A/B thing too much, I was just wondering. Maybe I should have put it differently. If you want to win a battle, would you prefer the squads of A or B on your team 1A vs 2B - 1A 1A vs 3B - 1A 1A vs 4B - 4B 1A vs 5B - 5B 1A vs 6B - 6B 2A vs 4B - 2A 2A vs 5B - ? 2A vs 6B - ? 3A vs 5B - 3A 3A vs 6B - 3A 4A vs 6B - 4A what I am trying to see is when does relative quality outweigh the "multiplying" power effect of a squad It would really help to have a "user story" for A and B. There are some players who are so good just having them on your team virtually guarantees a win unless there is a very solid squad on the other side. Best PvE idea ever!



Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.