Robocraft: The Slippery Slope

September 22, 2016

blue-hexagon-md

I have mostly been enjoying the use of the projection shield in Robocraft lately. In many cases, either I have drawn the attention of half the enemy team at once (there has been some stellar teamwork to focus fire and reduce my robot to cinders) or else I have mis-projected my shield, allowing the enemy to quickly run through, in order to attack me, unabated. So even though I think I am doing well, I’m still under-powered in this game, being frequently dominated by robots with more powerful weaponry. (Normally, the chaingun.)

One thing has become incredibly apparent. I may have already touched on this issue in a previous post. The slippery slope of loot-chest-quality. Of course, the winners of a match get better loot-chests. Better loot chests provide better equipment on average. Better equipment leads to more match wins. More match wins lead to better loot-chests. Do you see the feedback loop? Bottom line: Winners win more, Losers are left in the dust, and the “equipment gap” just keeps widening.

Of course, the saving grace in all this is the limited CPU power per robot, which effectively limits how many weapons you can attach to a single robot. Therefore, you won’t find any robots with fifteen shotgun cannons on it, even though there are undoubtedly players with fifteen shotgun cannons in their inventory. The hard CPU limit in the game currently keeps robot size to a reasonable maximum.

So enemy robots can still only have probably a maximum of two chainguns each, along with other equipment. Of course, that’s more than enough to put a halt to my advance, especially if half the enemy team gangs up on me. Ganging up is a definite known-good tactic that I myself have used. The difference being that I am using relatively weak “machine-gun” lasers that take a while, instead of the overwhelming chainguns.

So here I am, still winding up on winning and losing teams at random, not really able to make more of an impact, though my tactics of hunting towers instead of robots appears to yield good dividends. I wish I could win more, or at least be a better contributor than average, but I am not skilled enough or practiced enough to simply be a better contributor. Therefore, I think I am just about as good as I can be. I shouldn’t wish for more. I don’t have time.

 

Advertisements