Relic: All About Balance!

Jump back to quoted post1 Apr 2015, 10:21 AMTones

I mean wasn't the KT supposed to be "legendary status" and top of the chain back in it's time?

Jump back to quoted post1 Apr 2015, 04:14 AMBasilone

Numbers are a terrible way to balance. Majority of the players are bad. Any statistics taken from this majority is not representative of what is happening between players that are good (good meaning players that both understand the game and have micro skills high enough to put it in practice).

Jump back to quoted post1 Apr 2015, 08:23 AMIpKaiFung

Hah, I found making developers butthurt after dumpstering them using lame flavour of the month strats made them make changes pretty quick. Especially if you dumpster them on live stream.

Hi Peter and the Kubel, Truck Pushing, Ostheer Strafe Spam, Stuart Stun Rounds, Pak Stalling and various other strats he nerfed the shit out of because he got owned in one game.

He would go on about data and all that jazz 24/7 until he actually played a game, got mad and made rage changes.

Jump back to quoted post1 Apr 2015, 02:34 AMniutudis

Show Spoiler

Jump back to quoted post1 Apr 2015, 01:50 AM☭ Калашникова ☭

They are pulling a blizzard in other words,

"We know whats fun and whats not fun and you will enjoy how we change the game"

A lot of company's have been taking this approach lately, Namely Riot and Blizzard.

A individual who immediately comes to mind is a gentleman named
Jay Wilson. He was the head developer of Diablo III at release.
Who made the game 'Fun' their own terms (The dev team) and ending up making one of the worst gaming disasters of recent history.
(A lot of BS came down from on top too, And i feel like its happening in this case as well)

Ironically he worked on CoH before being hired by Blizzard.

I know SEGA has got you guys by the balls but from a consumer standpoint
who is interested in this game i would hope you guys would at least make your beta's public and communicate with us more.

Some balance changes like in LoL for instance last year there was a huge nerf on a champion in the game called Pantheon.

But because the beta and dev's were in communication with the community it avoided a disaster.
(Edit: not a beta but a public PTR)

(Not sticking up for riot they have many things that are non viable but at least they try.)

Please please communicate with the community, The people who play your game. You will get more data from us then you ever will internally.

Jump back to quoted post1 Apr 2015, 10:21 AMTones

There is so much pressure from the community to do it in a way they perceive to be the "right" way or, as some mentioned, a way that is not truly beneficial or indicative of where the game should go due to that player's skill level. This as opposed to sticking to a set of goals/objectives the game developers envision for the game and delivering a product the way it was intended...I played COH1 back in the day for quite a while but admittedly not involved with the community at the time, was it as heavily influenced by the community as COH2 is now?

The opinions appear to be so wide and varied from the community I don't know how they can really please anyone. I don't know if this was beat to death already, but I have heard a lot of negative feedback about the current state of the KT as it compares to the IS2...I mean wasn't the KT supposed to be "legendary status" and top of the chain back in it's time?

Jump back to quoted post1 Apr 2015, 01:25 AMnigo

We are more intently focused on making changes and adjustments that will have a positive impact on our entire game-playing population, not just a dedicated but small minority of our player base. This can sometimes mean that while it may seem obvious to some that a certain change is necessary, it may not be our top priority nor even a good idea in terms of changes to make.

Jump back to quoted post1 Apr 2015, 15:37 PMCookiezNcreem

You only have to do this for 10 games..

You could possibly be very gifted at games like coh and beat some one that's top 200 or even top 10.

You may have been good at COH1 and are better than your typical newb who may be totally new to RTS.

That's why it's like that.

It could be a better system, sure, that could be said about a lot of things,but I mean come on, of all things to write a wall of text about..

Jump back to quoted post2 Apr 2015, 14:12 PMniutudis

The thing is, it´s not 10 games it is 160 (10 games for each faction in each gamemode).

Sure someone could be the new bobby fisher of coh2 or something like that, but it´s not a good idea to design the matchmaking around a minority.

I´ve seen worse and better matchmakingsystems. In 1vs1 this is not a real big deal, still a terrible introduction for new players because yo have to go to the forums to find out why you are placed against topten players (I was mostly shopping on amazon after i knew about the "placement"-matches, alt+enter...), but in teamgames it´s a realy annoying way to match up teams.

Jump back to quoted post2 Apr 2015, 14:32 PMgokkel

Well with that calculation you could say it is a virtually endless amount of placement games, because there is also a different placement for every different team constellation for arranged teams

Jump back to quoted post1 Apr 2015, 12:29 PMElSlayer

Majority of players don't really care about good players. They want to have a good time. And if they do - they pay money to make it even better.

Sorry for disappointing you.

Jump back to quoted post2 Apr 2015, 16:10 PMniutudis

Head-desk-head-desk-head-desk....

You must be kidding!? No, seriously you are kidding, right?

Why did they call it "ranked" and not "random" ?

Jump back to quoted post2 Apr 2015, 05:17 AMRMMLz

That's true, you can't make everyone happy. But the main concern of many of us here is the so-called QA. Look at the amount of bugs introduced to the game with the new patch, or the PTRS disaster (which destroys MGs and PAKs before killing the crew). People should stop crying for balance like this, yes. But we have the right to put them under pressure for technical problems.

Jump back to quoted post2 Apr 2015, 16:28 PMgokkel

No I am serious, there is one ladder for random teams and one ladder for premade teams, but the ranking is for every premade team constellation. So lets say there are 5 players who are friends with each other (A, B, C, D, E) who play 3v3 in changing constellations, you are player A so you have the following constellations:

A, B, C
A, B, D
A, B, E
A, C, D
A, C, E
A, D, E

All these teams have their own rank, and to get their own rank they need to go through placement in this exact constellation first And that is just for 3v3. If you play Allies and Axis you need to double the amount again, because Axis and Allies Ladder are also seperated.

edit: Oh yeah, for the random team ladders you don't have a seperation between Axis and Allies but for every faction.