Balance Data Since The Patch

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

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 ), 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.

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 ), 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



Also , leaderboards, relic plz

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



Also , leaderboards, relic plz

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.

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.

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.

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?

.

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...

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

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...

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.

-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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.