UKF on Life Support

Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2015, 20:02 PMAchtAchter

It's not competitive because
1. The maps are not designed in a competitive way.
2. Core game mechanics (map control, positioning, well mixed army force) play less of an role
3. There are not enough "competitive/ good players".

When I played those modes extensively for a 6 month period (stopped about 1-2 months ago) there were hardly any players I'd call good. I consider myself a mediocre 1vs1 / 2vs2 players, yet me and my team were kings in those modes. Holding #1 for axis & allies because most games were over before 15 minutes, I can only recall about 3 deserved losses (all other loses were due drop hack or bugsplat) and those were also only against those teams that hold 1-3 position. Even those players that were top 20 ( I had always elo running) were just bad and checking their playercards often revealed ranks 500+ in 1vs1 & 2vs2.
Again it's not about ranks, its rather about understand and excelling in core game mechanics, those mechanics which are necessary to master when understanding balance.

Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2015, 17:09 PMiTzDusty

This is just getting funnier and funnier.

1) You still think 4v4 takes individual skill compared to 1v1s and 2v2s. What are these "skills"
I've made the claim that individual "skill", such as APM and map awareness, is irrelevant. Otherwise, CPU expert would be the lead balance authority and Adolf Hitler would have been more correct than Albert Speer.

2) You still think that 4v4 is somehow magically able to be balanced on the same level as 1s and 2s, when it clearly isn't considering the permutations of match ups and the game mechanics that are diluted the more players you add into the game.
I don't just think this. I've explained how it is possible. Because you have clearly intentionally missed my argument, let me restate it in brief; the number of permutations possible is not the only factor in determining whether a game can be balanced. Otherwise, Chess would be a terribly imbalanced game. Factors such as heuristics which assist in human logic allow us to eliminate a large number of redundant permutations. This is why the vast majority of chess literature focuses on less than 0.0000...1% of possible chess positions, as heuristics and logic allows us to eliminate the other 99.9999...9% of positions out of hand.

3) You still somehow believe that the skill required to use all factions to their best ability is not a consideration for balancing.
As you have defined "skill" as things such as technical skills, such as APM and map awareness, then I do not believe APM is a relevant factor in determining balance for all factions. Otherwise, CPU Expert would be the lead balance authority.

4) You continue to bring up irrelevant sports and academia.
These things are not irrelevant, because I am not making arguments about game balance. In my posts, I have never stated that Faction A/B/C is UP or OP, or that unit X/Y/Z is too cheap/too expensive, etc. Instead, I am demonstrating that your arguments about game balance are ungrounded, and bring these examples to reveal the flaws in your argument. In brief once more, because you clearly have missed the point; your entire argument relies on your authority as a 1v1 player, and nothing else. Appeal to Authority is a well established logical fallacy that is considered, among other things, by academic researchers.

If I were making arguments on game balance and citing Isaac Newton, then yes, my ponits would be irrelevant. But that's not what I am doing.

5) You keep saying "APM," when my "APM" is probably incredibly low compared to what would be needed in a game that is truly dictated by APM (to get to a certain level) like SC2. APM =/= Micro. Again proving that you don't have a clue about what you are saying.
This is nonsense. There is no definition of micro that does not involve APM. I'd like to see you micro with 10 APM.

My judgements are superior to the average 4v4 player, because again (and this is getting very old to repeart), the average 4v4 player sticks to one faction or side, has mediocre micro, and has mediocre game mechanic understanding. This really isn't hard to understand.

Furthermore, unless you wish to claim that blobbing has a higher APM requirement than 'smoking and flanking', then the APM requirement for 1v1 games is higher than 4v4 games. This is exactly the point you make in the above post.

6) Looking at a clock and seeing a "4 minute Luchs" doesn't mean anything if you can't understand exactly why it is coming out at 4 minutes. This isn't some mid game 20 minute resourcing consideration, this is the sub 5-minute mark, if you aren't aware of what it exactly takes to get that out in that short of a time, and aren't abusing the situation by looking at it and saying "wow, these nerds probably built fuel caches and lack field presence, lets exploit that," its the mark of a terrible player.
None of this changes the fact that a Luchs came at 4 minutes. The argument now is whether or not a Luchs should or should not come at 4 minutes. Hypotheticals based on unsubstantiated claims, such as "oh bet erf yoo joost poshed erm herder denn het er no looks" are irrelevant, because they are unsubstantiated claims. If it really were so easy to push a player who was Luchs rushing, then nobody would Luchs rush.

7) Knowing what the "code" for units do, and what their practical effects are, are two different things. Just because a player knows what a mine does, that a t34 has terrible scatter, etc, does not make them competent enough to look at patch notes that consist of these "code" numbers and claim they know what the effect will be. Being able to tell what units do superficially does not mean someone has an intrinsic understanding of the mechanics. Admittedly I knew FAR less a year ago than I do now, though the nature of 1v1s and 2v2s, and the indisputable fact that they take more individual skill (I mean really, where is your argument for the "skill" that 4v4 takes, I keep hearing it but you don't explain it, which is why its preposterous at best) force you to learn these numbers, or at the least be aware of hidden mechanics/ones that are not superficial, to stay competitive at the top level.
I fail to define "4v4 skill" because you continually fail to define 1v1 skill. Your definition, quoted above, is contradicted by you yourself when you claim that my claim about APM is irrelevant.

Furthermore, consider the following;
T-34 scatter sucks.
Patch notes:
T-34 scatter increased from X to X+2

OMG WHY RELIC IT SUCKED ALREADY

The fact that I have no idea what the scatter value means is irrelevant. The numbers don't actually affect my understanding of the values. I see the English word 'increased' and know that the T-34 has been made even more useless than it currently is.

What exactly do you consider a 'hidden' mechanic? If a mechanic is so well hidden that it has no effect on the game, then it is irrelevant. Otherwise, I can see it throughout the course of gameplay.

Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2015, 17:09 PMiTzDusty

This is just getting funnier and funnier.

1) You still think 4v4 takes individual skill compared to 1v1s and 2v2s. What are these "skills"

Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2015, 17:09 PMiTzDusty

2) You still think that 4v4 is somehow magically able to be balanced on the same level as 1s and 2s, when it clearly isn't considering the permutations of match ups and the game mechanics that are diluted the more players you add into the game.

Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2015, 19:31 PMiTzDusty

Show Spoiler

Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2015, 21:49 PMvoltardark

As i said many time in the past, balance should be worked from 4vs4 to 1vs1 and not the inverse.

When you want to balance something like a game, you must always take in consideration the worst case scenario. (for COH2 it's 4vs4 then 3vs3 to 1vs1)

When you do the inverse, you always amplify the problems/bugs and shit will hit the fan.(the situation we are in)

When 4vs4 is balanced, all other formats will be.

The best best players available should always be used as they will detect/used all tricks possible they can think of.

Thanks.

• Factions based on resource handicaps will be less handicapped where resources are more plentiful, cutoffs are harder to achieve and team resource sharing is possible.
  
• Factions with late game advantage are strong in direct proportion to average game length and inversely proportional to probability of game ending before late game is reached.
  
• The advantage conferred by forward retreat points increases proportionally with the size of the map.
  
• The degree of micromanagement required for perfect unit preservation increases with higher player counts and larger maps, as more engagements occur, more firepower is concentrated in tighter spaces, and you need to scroll across more ground to get where you want to look.
  

Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2015, 22:48 PM5trategos

Fun fact.
4v4 was as close as it's ever been to balanced for the months of October-November.

1v1 wasn't.
Your argument fails.

Too many game mechanics break down or disappear in team games to the point where the two groups aren't really playing the same game. That's the best that can be said about the discrepancy between the two, in my opinion.

I don't know which is harder to balance, but they're different enough that they should be handled separately in many aspects.

Thanks.

Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2015, 13:55 PMcr4wler

Because there are maps for multiple game modes (that dont add sectors depending on players) so people would get he pitchforks because pacing is slower in higher player games (alao true for 4v4 btw... doesnt have 4 times the ressources)

Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2015, 07:42 AMBananenheld

On a sideNote: can someone go for #1 rank 1v1 from these 4v4 heroes? It takes the same skill so shouldnt be a problem :^)

Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2015, 07:42 AMBananenheld

On a sideNote: can someone go for #1 rank 1v1 from these 4v4 heroes? It takes the same skill so shouldnt be a problem :^)