Player Card Worth and Community

Does this actually mean buggger all?

I have been playing since pretty much release and had to deal with every damn meta that has come out. so my rank has had high and low times. Some games I play against players who are far far blow my skill level and then the next game I have to struggle the whole game through-

but the in game chat differs, against the less skillful its all GLHF. Its mostly on the tougher games where dialogue breaks down, teammates start tweaking and blaming each other for being noobs, the other team is calling me a arty noob for using demo charges... like wtf?(whose the noob?)

Lately in the steam forums it becoming more common place for people to post player cards as a means to discredit arguments, pretty much naming and shaming them with rank scores.

"you don't know what your taking about look at your rank"

I think this has to stop.

It feels like our remaining player base has split into 2 types, the elitists who think they know everything cause they over-play and the "noobs" who need to L2P as put by the ones who think they know best.

I think the "Elitist" players attitude with this game pisses me off more than a bad loss.

Which bring me to a suggestion. instead of just a player vs player mode, a casual and competitive mode would be good. weed out the ones who just want to have fun and put the elites against people of equal skill and competitive mind set.

I think that would be a good start cheering people up

+1 mate.

I made a Soviet redesign thread and missed out that T-70 would have come too early with my changes. I got flamed to death, no discussion happened there besides T-70 and that thread eventually got locked. What was the catchphrase? "You should go play 1v1 and until you do you have no say on faction design, you don't understand it" That's putting it mildly of course. And what happened after that? I went ahead, made the minimod with those changes, found out through experience that T-70 was overpowered in a 1v1 environment (I had no 1v1 games until then) if it came early, and I hotfixed my minimod, fixing that issue completely. Was it worth the flaming? No. Could the redesign minimod have been more elaborate had the thread gone on? Probably yes.

I apologize in advance if my post draws in the "lol butthurt noob you know we were right you're dumb for reason x" crowd to your thread, I just wanted to mention how I fully agree and how this affects me.

You shouldn't need to be rank 100 to have an opinion and to put something up for discussion.

Who are you playercardless scrub and what are you doing on our glorious master race forums?

But seriously, yeah, everyone and his dog has an opinion on this game, and usually how many games they played doesn't factor in as much as what faction they prefer.

Playercards are a cool option - but that's just it, an OPTION - and if you do not have one you should not be discredited.

Does this actually mean buggger all?
Lately in the steam forums it becoming more common place for people to post player cards as a means to discredit arguments, pretty much naming and shaming them with rank scores.

Don't expect anything at all of ANY steam forum game.

PD: and if you hang out here, you end up knowing who is worht of having a discussion with and who are just here to flame/troll, who are the fanboys, who are the biased, etc.

Lets say you have an issue and you need to hire an expert to help you solve this issue. Are you going to hire the guy with the credentials and experience to fix it or the guy who just started out?

No one is saying that opinion is discredited, but players with skill, experience and the credentials typically have a heavier weighted opinion due to the attributes I stated above.

Who are you playercardless scrub and what are you doing on our glorious master race forums?

But seriously, yeah, everyone and his dog has an opinion on this game, and usually how many games they played doesn't factor in as much as what faction they prefer.

Playercards are a cool option - but that's just it, an OPTION - and if you do not have one you should not be discredited.

It is fine unless someone who is like rank 1000 blaming another players as noobs or idiots, playing only one faction, no idea how the game is blablabla.

In broad strokes yes, it means something. There is a very, very good chance that a rank 100 player is better than a rank 1000 player. On the other hand, there is a far lesser chance that a rank 10 player is better than a rank 100 player. The rank 10 player is still probably better, but at the tops of ladders it's generally more about how many games you play and less about your raw talent, especially in a game like CoH2 where the playerbase is tiny and there's a very small chance of a good player meeting someone as good as or better than him in an automatch game.

Unfortunately, the truth, regardless of rankings or ladders or whatever, is that the vast majority of players really have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to the nuances of balance. When you're at a level where it's hard to differentiate between player error and balance flaws, your opinion is going to be less relevant than that of a player who is at a level where those issues actually affect games more heavily, and where players have less potential to be upwardly mobile skill-wise.

Players with a greater understanding of the game, and who therefore have achieved greater success against others, are necessarily going to be listened to most closely than players with less knowledge and less success. That's just a fact of life. As for ladders, while they don't provide a complete picture of player skill, they are definitely useful so long as you have an understanding of their shortcomings and know what they represent.

I have pretty much zero interest in reading balance discussions nowadays, the meta has been stale for like six months and everybody knows what the OP and UP stuff is and what the general problems with the game are.
Only low rank players are still talking about it or making 25 pages topic like "SUPER FACTION OVERHAUL REDUX!!11".

In broad strokes yes, it means something. There is a very, very good chance that a rank 100 player is better than a rank 1000 player. On the other hand, there is a far lesser chance that a rank 10 player is better than a rank 100 player. The rank 10 player is still probably better, but at the tops of ladders it's generally more about how many games you play and less about your raw talent, especially in a game like CoH2 where the playerbase is tiny and there's a very small chance of a good player meeting someone as good as or better than him in an automatch game.

Unfortunately, the truth, regardless of rankings or ladders or whatever, is that the vast majority of players really have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to the nuances of balance. When you're at a level where it's hard to differentiate between player error and balance flaws, your opinion is going to be less relevant than that of a player who is at a level where those issues actually affect games more heavily, and where players have less potential to be upwardly mobile skill-wise.

Players with a greater understanding of the game, and who therefore have achieved greater success against others, are necessarily going to be listened to most closely than players with less knowledge and less success. That's just a fact of life. As for ladders, while they don't provide a complete picture of player skill, they are definitely useful so long as you have an understanding of their shortcomings and know what they represent.

I don't know. Whenever i watch a replay of top 10 players and top 100 ish players i notice a huge difference in micro and general play skill.

High level players absolutely know the ins and outs of the game better than lower level players.

However, I am much more annoyed by people purposefully warping discussion due to faction blindness than I am by the inexperienced people thinking they know everything. The latter group has some excuse; the former, none.

There already is a competitive mode and non-competitive mode. Automatch and custom games.

I don't know. Whenever i watch a replay of top 10 players and top 100 ish players i notice a huge difference in micro and general play skill.

there is a far lesser chance that a rank 10 player is better than a rank 100 player. The rank 10 player is still probably better

Top 1000 vs. top 100 and top 100 vs. top 10 are very, very different.

There already is a competitive mode and non-competitive mode. Automatch and custom games.

Tournaments are played on custom games, therefore tournaments are non-competitive. gg 1v1 plebes.

Let's say it differently: if you got nearly the lowest ranks possible, do you really think balancing is the reason why you lose games?

Does anybody really think playtime matters, at all? Isn't it more a good argument against yourself if you can't adapt to slight changes after so many hours?


For me the playerbase consist of three types:
- the actual Pros
- the huge amount of casual players, with some tryhards in between, who all accept input and improve over time - some sooner, some later
- the ignorant noobs, who know everything better, but do the same f'ing mistakes for 1000 hours, and got ranks as low as they get. And of course then spam the forums with "mates are stupid, this is OP, Relic fix whatsoever"

And the last kind should start topics like "how can i resolve issue x", not "issue x is OP!".

That's pretty much the breakdown of every community of every competitive game in existence.

And playtime definitely matters at the top of the ladder, but not really anywhere else.

High level players absolutely know the ins and outs of the game better than lower level players.

However, I am much more annoyed by people purposefully warping discussion due to faction blindness than I am by the inexperienced people thinking they know everything. The latter group has some excuse; the former, none.

This, exactly.

See reddit.com/r/companyofheroes for an explanation why we let the better players determine balancing/bug/gameplay issues.

Lets say you have an issue and you need to hire an expert to help you solve this issue. Are you going to hire the guy with the credentials and experience to fix it or the guy who just started out?

No one is saying that opinion is discredited, but players with skill, experience and the credentials typically have a heavier weighted opinion due to the attributes I stated above.

I have pretty much zero interest in reading balance discussions nowadays, the meta has been stale for like six months and everybody knows what the OP and UP stuff is and what the general problems with the game are.
Only low rank players are still talking about it or making 25 pages topic like "SUPER FACTION OVERHAUL REDUX!!11".

High level players absolutely know the ins and outs of the game better than lower level players.

However, I am much more annoyed by people purposefully warping discussion due to faction blindness than I am by the inexperienced people thinking they know everything. The latter group has some excuse; the former, none.

You guys are right in saying that the better players should be listened to more. My gripe is that that's exactly what I am trying to do. I make a thread, ask players what they think and act accordingly (such as with my T-70 fix) and ask them to playtest or even just give their opinion, and what I got in that thread was pure flaming.

"SUPER FACTION OVERHAUL REDUX" doesn't mean I think I know better than anyone else, it means I have a basic concept of how the faction should have been to maximize its options while remaining balanced, and ironing out kinks of which is up to people who want to contribute to it. I don't play 1v1 and T-70 is a nonfactor in 2v2 so I assumed it would not be a problem. Evidently I was wrong but saying that like Cruzz did back in that thread was fine, I saw my mistake. What's not fine is all the flaming I got for it.

It's also just rude to say that I learned absolutely nothing about my faction..

But kamk has a point in saying that people more often than not point out balance issues that are really just issues with them. However, sometimes there is a basis in that, being that they simply perform better with other factions. I personally blow with USF and I would never make a thread suggesting a buff to anything they have and expect to be taken seriously, but it should mean something that a larger variety of tactics work better for me when playing one side as opposed to another which I have played for longer, like Soviets. I simply have much more fun with Ostheer and OKW than I do as Soviets and far less frustration, so can you really say that claims are baseless?

"SUPER FACTION OVERHAUL REDUX" doesn't mean I think I know better than anyone else, it means I have a basic concept of how the faction should have been to maximize its options while remaining balanced, and ironing out kinks of which is up to people who want to contribute to it.

nothing against you and your topic, or the ideas it contained, I just think that with the levels of activity and engagement Relic has manifested it is very naive and delusional to think about massive overhaul topics (especially when there's 3123213 more around mostly made by low rank players where nobody agrees with each other).

nothing against you and your topic, or the ideas it contained, I just think that with the levels of activity and engagement Relic has manifested it is very naive and delusional to talk or even talk about massive overhaul topics (especially when there's 3123213 more around mostly made by low rank players where nobody agrees with each other).

You're completely right, so that's why I took the matter in my own hands and made a mini-mod. Discussion goes absolutely nowhere until people play and find out. I know this firsthand because I thought T-70 coming 55 fuel earlier would actually be okay. That's flat out dumb and I did not have the capacity to imagine that being an average 2v2 player who has never seen anyone not get disappointed by their T-70 purchase until I tried it in the first place.

Theorycrafting can only go so far.

However, I am much more annoyed by people purposefully warping discussion due to faction blindness than I am by the inexperienced people thinking they know everything. The latter group has some excuse; the former, none.

Is ignorance an excuse?