Login

russian armor

Balance Data Since The Patch

PAGES (16)down
7 Jul 2015, 12:49 PM
#181
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

Not what this thread is about, so I'll just leave this here...





That video is just painful, jesus christ the poor micro of people sometimes :foreveralone:
7 Jul 2015, 13:12 PM
#182
avatar of samich

Posts: 205



Much as I agree with the sentiment of Dusty that the game should be balanced for good players you can't just balance for the top 200 players.

You coin dota2, cs:go and starcraft as games that balance for top players but thats only true to an extent.

I'm L.eagle rank in cs:go, I definitely enjoyed the balance changes to the weapons back in 2013, im definitely not top 200.

Dota2, not sure on my rank but I was top 1% of players when the stats all got leaked last year, I definitely benefited from the recent patch changes (-lone druid aghanims buff :S), I'm definitely not top 200.

I'm a big silver rock star Starcraft professional though so ill not comment on that.

Fact is, game needs to be balanced for people who know how to play it reasonably well, that is a lot more then the top 200 and it definitely does not just include AT. I agree the stats are skewed but in 3v3 and 4v4 there is an inbalance and it does effect people who are good enough to legitimately complain about it.
7 Jul 2015, 13:31 PM
#183
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Jul 2015, 13:12 PMsamich


Much as I agree with the sentiment of Dusty that the game should be balanced for good players you can't just balance for the top 200 players.

You coin dota2, cs:go and starcraft as games that balance for top players but thats only true to an extent.

I'm L.eagle rank in cs:go, I definitely enjoyed the balance changes to the weapons back in 2013, im definitely not top 200.

Dota2, not sure on my rank but I was top 1% of players when the stats all got leaked last year, I definitely benefited from the recent patch changes (-lone druid aghanims buff :S), I'm definitely not top 200.

I'm a big silver rock star Starcraft professional though so ill not comment on that.

Fact is, game needs to be balanced for people who know how to play it reasonably well, that is a lot more then the top 200 and it definitely does not just include AT. I agree the stats are skewed but in 3v3 and 4v4 there is an inbalance and it does effect people who are good enough to legitimately complain about it.




Thing is, top 200 is actually not a very high rank for 1v1. I'd rate top 200 as average/above average players, because of coh 2s very low playerbase. Yes, coh 2 should be balanced for people who know how to play it reasonably well. I'd say that anyone in the x <500 range generally knows how the game works


This is strictly speaking for 1v1 though. In 2v2+ the matchmaking is just a catastrophy so you could have some top 10 player stuck in 10000 ranks in randumbs :snfPeter:



Also , leaderboards, relic plz :snfPeter:
7 Jul 2015, 14:50 PM
#184
avatar of Tatatala

Posts: 589

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Jul 2015, 13:31 PMBurts




Thing is, top 200 is actually not a very high rank for 1v1. I'd rate top 200 as average/above average players, because of coh 2s very low playerbase. Yes, coh 2 should be balanced for people who know how to play it reasonably well. I'd say that anyone in the x <500 range generally knows how the game works


This is strictly speaking for 1v1 though. In 2v2+ the matchmaking is just a catastrophy so you could have some top 10 player stuck in 10000 ranks in randumbs :snfPeter:



Also , leaderboards, relic plz :snfPeter:


Which is where the problem lies. How can CoH2 ever hope to enlarge its player base, when new players just get stomped. Constantly. Forever, until they quit?




We can only dream that relic could implement the kind of balance changes those top titles do. Most of the balance changes in this game are moot anyway, due to lower skilled players constantly getting matched to high skilled players, due to population issues. How can relic solve the population issue? By designing the game around only the top 1%? It's laughable.

Relic has been listening to the "pro's", whilst trying to implement their own design flavours for how long now? Where is CoH2 currently at?

Let us not forget it was the "pro's" who said to change certain units to call in's when the game was still in alpha. Now it's the pro's shouting about how bad call in's are. Granted, it's not all the same "pro's", but the lesson is there to be learnt.

Long story short, the "pro's" aren't game devs.


7 Jul 2015, 14:53 PM
#185
avatar of kamk
Donator 11

Posts: 764

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Jul 2015, 13:12 PMsamich
Much as I agree with the sentiment of Dusty that the game should be balanced for good players you can't just balance for the top 200 players...
Fact is, game needs to be balanced for people who know how to play it reasonably well, that is a lot more then the top 200 and it definitely does not just include AT. I agree the stats are skewed but in 3v3 and 4v4 there is an inbalance and it does effect people who are good enough to legitimately complain about it.

Let's say it differently: the actual balance has to be done for and by the top players.
But (!), counters have to be intuitive and approachable by players with a decent skill level.

Just take your own CSGO example into consideration: the recent AWP nerf was certainly not done because of all those Pro snipers on Silver & Nova level.

3v3 / 4v4 is a completely different matter, and i still say that at least 3/4 of all large team games are screwed by MM itself - for both sides, atm. mostly for decent ATs and Axis randoms though.
7 Jul 2015, 15:03 PM
#186
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8


Long story short, the "pro's" aren't game devs.


Devs came up with stock elephant and doctrinal ISU.
Devs came up with 1240hp, 60 range panther with 7+ speed that turned into 2500hp 60 range panther at vet2.
Devs came up with 251 flame halftruck with firepower of 2 KV-8.

And that is just the opening of the list.

Devs don't lack their brain farts either.

Also, what you expect is impossible.

You can't and won't have a game with gameplay balanced around bads and good players equally.
You should NOT balance a game with bads taken into account unless your creating single player game.
7 Jul 2015, 15:06 PM
#187
avatar of Tatatala

Posts: 589



Devs came up with stock elephant and doctrinal ISU.
Devs came up with 1240hp, 60 range panther with 7+ speed that turned into 2500hp 60 range panther at vet2.
Devs came up with 251 flame halftruck with firepower of 2 KV-8.

And that is just the opening of the list.

Devs don't lack their brain farts either.

Also, what you expect is impossible.

You can't and won't have a game with gameplay balanced around bads and good players equally.
You should NOT balance a game with bads taken into account unless your creating single player game.


Agreed. It all makes for a jolly good time eh? :D
7 Jul 2015, 15:42 PM
#188
avatar of samich

Posts: 205

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Jul 2015, 14:53 PMkamk

.


I didn't say you should consider the pseudo silver and nova level players. I said you should be considering the players who can actually capably play the game at a reasonable skill level.

i.e. the awp/scout changes did positively effect a lot more people then the top 200 cs:go players. It impacted tens of thousands of players who were having problems with the awp over performing and the scout under performing.


No decent game only balances for the very top players and says "f*ck you" to its active player base. They try to balance for as much of the players as possible whilst maintain perfect (in an ideal world) balance at the very top.

If they didn't they'd get a declining fan base with a rapidly stagnating set of very good players with no fresh competition and a lot of very bad players...
7 Jul 2015, 15:52 PM
#189
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7

Game should be balanced only for top because other loses are not from imbalanced content but of players mistakes in build order and bad micro.

Im talking only for 1vs1 perspective
7 Jul 2015, 16:00 PM
#190
avatar of Tatatala

Posts: 589

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Jul 2015, 15:42 PMsamich


If they didn't they'd get a declining fan base with a rapidly stagnating set of very good players with no fresh competition and a lot of very bad players...


Sounds familiar...
7 Jul 2015, 16:28 PM
#191
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

Game should be balanced only for top because other loses are not from imbalanced content but of players mistakes in build order and bad micro.

Im talking only for 1vs1 perspective


This times 100, it's reeeeally hard to take discussions seriously when half the people talking in them are using anecdotal evidence revolving around something behind good/OP when it could be them repeating a mistake.

For instance; you could make the AT strafe on CAS sound an air raid siren every time It came in but a certain quality of player would still refuse to move their shit. Bad micro and unit positioning being punished should be a priority, same with rewarding good micro and unit positioning.
7 Jul 2015, 16:56 PM
#192
avatar of kamk
Donator 11

Posts: 764

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Jul 2015, 15:42 PMsamich
-snip-

I think we missunderstand each other. Balancing is one thing, approach to meta / counters / etc is something else, and perceived balance another part.
As i said before: the counter has to be more intuitive and approachable. There's no point in over- / under-buffing by public demands.

There's no such thing as a plain Top200 in COH2 to begin with. 22 ladders of 200 players is more like it. Relics Alphas usually seem to consist of mainly Top1000 players from all modes (with lots of strays from lower ranks), so there's that. I'm also quite certain Relic is aware of these statistics.

IMO, you have to start the balance in RTS top down mainly due players experience. A top RTS player will see certain meta way before it becomes common. They're also the ones that can break the whole game by perfecting certain strategies.
But, sure, there has to be another step, meaning "is this feature intuitive, approachable, and not too frustrating for the larger crowd".
Your "balance" is just a lack of intuitive and approachable counters, with screwed up MM.

And another but: apropo MM, as i said a hundred times now, even a perfectly balanced COH2 will have lots of perceived imbalance if MM isn't on par - and that's one of the main reasons why the 3v3 / 4v4 random stats look so weird.
There were even plenty of posts claiming Ostheer is super OP now in random 2v2, just because their win ratio was very high for two days - plenty of Top players said "nope, it's quite fine", and guess how it looks like today?

So, i would look at these statistics very carefully, not interpret too much into them regarding actual balance, and instead ask for reasons why people think certain units are not approachable for them.
Sadly the forums are full of topics and replies claiming xyz has to be "downright OP", instead of "this unit is not very practical to use for me", or "why the fuck do i constantly face people way above my skill level".

Well, hope you get my point.
7 Jul 2015, 17:09 PM
#193
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484

Since Relic knows majority of players play 3v3+ games, can they at least try to attempt balance larger game modes with separate patches? A good example could be income distribution between players.
7 Jul 2015, 17:09 PM
#194
avatar of iTzDusty

Posts: 836 | Subs: 5

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Jul 2015, 13:12 PMsamich


Fact is, game needs to be balanced for people who know how to play it reasonably well, that is a lot more then the top 200 and it definitely does not just include AT. I agree the stats are skewed but in 3v3 and 4v4 there is an inbalance and it does effect people who are good enough to legitimately complain about it.


This is where I think my point is a little misunderstood.

The game should definitely have balance changes that benefit people that reasonably understand game mechanics, which can be even the top 3000. The problem is that a lot of players that might be in that top 3000 may play a single faction and have a bad reaction to changes affecting that faction (Anything from the KT nerf to the B4 nerf ). They might knee jerk to many changes (again, the B4 nerf) which, while it was obviously overdue, definitely affectTed the majority of allied top 500-3000 players since that was a huge crutch they relied on.

The problem with CoH2s balance is the historically slow patch rate that let's OP things be OP for a while. At least in CS, when things like the AUG got stupid OP and people abused it to climb ranks, there wasn't any complaints because it was fixed in days, and "CT only" players, if that ever existed in CS, didn't have time for that to become the norm.

Basically, as long as people continue to play one faction/side more or less exclusively, any balance changes are going to piss them off, and in the top 500-3000 these players exist in fairly decent numbers. The game needs to be balanced to players that play all factions fairly equally, as only then are they players that reasonably understand the game mechanics.
7 Jul 2015, 17:17 PM
#195
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

Another thing that makes balance discussions impossible is people love to refuse to post replays to get advice meaning everyones just operating on faith that the player is legit having an issue when they could be simply making micro mistakes.

I got a lot better at the game when I starting watching my own replays and asking for advice.
7 Jul 2015, 17:42 PM
#198
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

i think the 3v3 and 4v4 tabs on the coh2charts at least prove that axis is easier to play in 3v3+.

the problem i see is axis is easier to play no matter your skill level in 3v3+. equal skilled allies team v. axis team = axis win imo.
7 Jul 2015, 17:52 PM
#199
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

i think the 3v3 and 4v4 tabs on the coh2charts at least prove that axis is easier to play in 3v3+.

the problem i see is axis is easier to play no matter your skill level in 3v3+. equal skilled allies team v. axis team = axis win imo.


3v3 and 4v4 in general will remain gimmicky and awful as long as the are only 3 VP's. Axis are the kings of defensive play, so it just ends up were it becomes impossible for allies to push past the MG walls backed up by (eventually) super heavy TD's.

If there were say....5 VP's so you had to spread your shit more things might be more interesting.
PAGES (16)down
3 users are browsing this thread: 3 guests

Livestreams

New Zealand 56
unknown 10
unknown 1
Germany 1

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

924 users are online: 924 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
10 posts in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50016
Welcome our newest member, GiovannidfRoach
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM