Relic should rely less on community balance advices

Well...every single USF ballistic gun except Greyhound 37mm and Bulldozer 105mm have 0.75, so that hardly says much about sherman stabilizer.

too bad that who actually won the war doesnt relate to whom ppl prefer to play at all, eh?
you feel the urge to express your opinion on quality when lemon was talking mere looks (which actually influence player preference)

you made this thread
11/10 faceplams

I made it to 11!

COOL!

I would add that it is entirely possible to be a fanboy and to want balance.

I also would add that it is preferable that the game be balanced towards 1v1 and 2v2 than 3v3 and 4v4.

I reject the notion that doing that precludes the ability to balance across game formats and over the course of the game. To use the "it's impossible" response is to give in to a lack of will, work and imagination since we all know that the problem exists.

And that the excuse that it isn't possible is false is shown by the new changes coming up. Extending the (or even including?) a mid game, extending the CPs for heavies and limiting their #, all should extend the time it takes to get to late game, which in itself helps the balance.

The part that is missing is that there isn't as much reward to allies (USF in particular?) to holding out in late game. Ost will have more and more uber vehicles, and perhaps T4. OKW will have vet5, but in COH1 (ok, I know it is all I know well) at least rewarded good late game US play with vet3, and vet3 US units really were very powerful, and for a reason. If you lost your vet3 you couldn't replace it. You had to build a new vet0 and it had to survive in a late game battlefield environment.

So Relic has made some changes. Others are either the inclusion of more "late game" units (perhaps besides Pershing). Or they could even add more veterancy to US units? That vet could kick in pretty late. It might include some sort of global unlock? I am not a game designer. God knows I have enough to do. But why is vet5 limited to the faction whose basic infantry are supposed to be old men and boys or already grizened vets of other fronts?

If I was a dev or part of the relic staff, I would give a shit about balance suggestion made by the community. I would just study the intern game and match statistics and maybe be in contact with the progamers and top players. Most of the rest is subjective bullshit and fanboy wishes.

I personally (as a not highskilled CoH2-player) try to get a long with every patch and not to flame about it, because as long as there are players who are far better than me there is room for personal improvment (beside a possible not optimal balance)

I would just study the intern game and match statistics and maybe be in contact with the progamers and top players. Most of the rest is subjective bullshit and fanboy wishes.

this is how relic balances the games for the most part.

If I was a dev or part of the relic staff, I would give a shit about balance suggestion made by the community. I would just study the intern game and match statistics and maybe be in contact with the progamers and top players. Most of the rest is subjective bullshit and fanboy wishes.

I personally (as a not highskilled CoH2-player) try to get a long with every patch and not to flame about it, because as long as there are players who are far better than me there is room for personal improvment (beside a possible not optimal balance)

the assumption that progamers and top players arent biased is ludicrous.

and again it does not take a pro to spot terrible game design (plane crashes, flamers exploding on first casualty, etc)

this is how relic balances the games for the most part.

that cant be, can it? why is OUR (insert one faction) so bad then and THEIR (insert the other faction) always gets buffed?!?!?

Yes, probably they should only rely in ingame data.

Crashing planes and exploding flamers are not really balance issues, but rng "bugs".

Yes, probably they should only rely in ingame data.

Crashing planes and exploding flamers are not really balance issues, but rng "bugs".

yes, because every company that ignores its costumers' input is having a huge success, right??

ehm. yes a plane crashing and wiping 3 squads doesnt affect balance at all...

edit: assuming that a state of balance derived from mere data would be perfect is the second ludic fallacy in this thread (keep it up). there are simply to many unknown unknowns behind that type of data
(see the communitys reception of PQs statement about pgrens and why they were nerfed)

I did not say that it doesnt affect the game. But specific gameplay changes (increase/decrease cost/buildtime/cooldown/damage/armor/healh/..., nerf/buff unit/faction, ...) is not the same. You cant please everybody. And in comparison to other "competitive" games CoH2 has a big fan boy factor. So yes they should at least give a fuck about customer wishes according to balance wishes. (not about content wishes for example).

€: And you think browsing threads at coh2.org will give a better overview which balance changes are necessary. Dream on.

I did not say that it doesnt affect the game. But specific gameplay changes (increase/decrease cost/buildtime/cooldown/damage/armor/healh/..., nerf/buff unit/faction, ...) is not the same. You cant please everybody. And in comparison to other "competitive" games CoH2 has a big fan boy factor. So yes they should at least give a fuck about customer wishes according to balance wishes. (not about content wishes for example).

€: And you think browsing threads at coh2.org will give a better overview which balance changes are necessary. Dream on.

i never said it was the same.
i said it doesnt take a pro to spot TERRIBLE GAME DESIGN (which greatly affects balance). most of the fine tuning (note: most != all) is better left to the ppl who work at relic
but then there are incidents where mere data cant be relied upon and a decision should be made with the communitys opinion in mind.

actually i can eliminate the ones that arent needed by checking who advocates them on coh2.org...
if one of the many infamous fanboys on here advocates a certain change, you better stay away from also doing it, because its probably a terrible, terrible idea to implement said change

anyways... i dont want to start something here. it would be futile.
i do agree that a huge part of the proposed changes from the community are crap, but some, even if proposed by non-progamers, are actually good

I think Relic after analysing enough data will be able to tell which pros are good and which are biased. If you go with the wind and look at every forum post out there you'll just confuse yourself, so it's best that most feedback comes from private testers instead of a new player ranging about USF mortar HT OP because they lost a Grenadier to it.