[Relic blog] Game Balance: The State of 1v1 for ESL

Everyone's opinion on how fun/enjoyable the game is matters.

Everyone's ideas on how to fix the game matter, unless they're insane.

Everyone's opinions matter but Relic has no responsibility to incorporate all our opinions into their game.

Not everyone's win/loss statistics matter when it comes to estimating the current state of balance. That isn't to say that lower ranked players don't matter, just that you have to balance from the top down. Looking at the win/loss statistics of the upper echelon of players is going to provide a more accurate representation of the current state of balance.

+1

I t There is also an argument that the game could be more successful (as a game) if it were less balanced at the very top but more balanced and fun for a larger, lower-ranked, community.

I know that would be an unpopular opinion on these forums.... But 1000 or even 5000 players aren't going to pay for a Relic to stay in business.

That wouldn't be my argument. Mine is for a bit more similarities in the factions that would allow for easier balancing (or at least less imbalances). And for more strategic choices like tech trees instead of commanders, and global upgrades. But that ship has probably sailed.

See, this is where you're horribly wrong.
...
Balance is based on complicated relations between game mechanics, units performance, army concept, its performance alone and in team games against usual opposition, the popularity of units or the lack of it, but it most certainly isn't based on anyone's opinions.
...
Because that is how it works, always did and always will.

According to you, the balance of the game should be around the top players. But then again, if only the expert should be involved in such matter and the opinion of the "poor" slobs does not matter, what make you an expert on how to balance a game?
Why do you write as if you are an expert on this field? Do you work for Relic on the balance department? Have ever worked on any game on the balance department? Have you followed some sort of college course on how to balance games? Have you read some book about?

Or is it that everything you write is, just the opinion of non-expert and should be treated the same way, you want to treat the opinion on anyone bellow rank 300?

Honestly, they should only take the stats of the top 50 players but given how small the player base is that's statistically questionable.

Above 250 - your understanding of the game is competent.
Above 50 - your CPM and multitasking are competent.

I used to play 1v1 - but I hit my skill cap due to age a long time ago. At a certain level there's no amount of clever play or surprises that will put your opponent off-balance enough to make up for slow retreats or generally low CPM/multitasking.

if they make it only top 50 it would not tell nothing because right it will be only about what faction they play most cause they get matched against themselves like 1/10 times.

othertime it is noobashing and then rlic graf will look like 90 % for every faction that is played there a lot. I no one there play that faction it will be low

Coh doesn't have a matchmaking system that puts players against people of a similar skill level.

All of your statistics are meaningless because of this.

its not coh2 system problem it is low playerbase problem. Im in top 100 and if they dont match me constantly against top 500 after 10 minutes i will need to wait sometimes 1 hour to get a good match. And no one want to loose 1 hour only for waiting for match

Ok. I'm not a 1v1 player, but thread got derailed to discussing general balancing problems, so here is my opinion on that:

CoH2 not really have THAT much problems with faction power balance on top tier players skill level, but it certainly have problems with "ease of use" of certain factions.

Just my 2 cents.

I'll copy my answer from the other thread: "Is the game balanced?"

Yes IF we consider small amount of strats.
No IF we consider how limited some factions have to play.

CoH2 not really have THAT much problems with faction power balance on top tier players skill level, but it certainly have problems with "ease of use" of certain factions.

Bingo.
Most of the complains of those above (arbitrary number) top500 are mainly this.

Which is exactly why these stats and ratios should ONLY be top 250 vs top 250. Any large margin outside of that group is moot data, but possibly including another 250 (top 500) would be a good control.

If Relic wants to use such data to justify the current balance to ESL, at least make it valid ffs.

This is the point, it should be top 250 vs top 250, then we will see op okw real win rate

According to you, the balance of the game should be around the top players. But then again, if only the expert should be involved in such matter and the opinion of the "poor" slobs does not matter, what make you an expert on how to balance a game?
Why do you write as if you are an expert on this field? Do you work for Relic on the balance department? Have ever worked on any game on the balance department? Have you followed some sort of college course on how to balance games? Have you read some book about?

Or is it that everything you write is, just the opinion of non-expert and should be treated the same way, you want to treat the opinion on anyone bellow rank 300?

I believe it is a rule of cross-examination, Vipper, that you should never ask questions to which you do not know the answer, otherwise you may get a horrible shock !

According to you, the balance of the game should be around the top players. But then again, if only the expert should be involved in such matter and the opinion of the "poor" slobs does not matter, what make you an expert on how to balance a game?

The balance should be centered around people who can play and don't make mistake every 2nd move and decision they do. For coh2 its pretty much top 200-300 players.
You know, the people who actually are capable enough to play the game in the intended way-applying correct strategies and necessary levels of micro and awareness to pull them off.

Why do you write as if you are an expert on this field? Do you work for Relic on the balance department? Have ever worked on any game on the balance department? Have you followed some sort of college course on how to balance games? Have you read some book about?

Or is it that everything you write is, just the opinion of non-expert and should be treated the same way, you want to treat the opinion on anyone bellow rank 300?

Glad you've asked this, because in fact, I am game designer(don't confuse with dev-the mistake we all make here when addressing relic, devs just code, designers do the ideas, math and data part).
Not for relic obviously, but it doesn't matter(no, its not mobile time and money grabbing craps, but proper PC games), I work with both, player feedback as well as hard data, consult my opinions and decisions with other game designers and take feedback from QA team if there is any.
I can verify player feedback with actual data and let me tell you this: about 99% of player feedback is useless player whining about stuff they don't know anything about, but that 1% is valuable input worth listening to and at times even following, just like relic does.

Glad you've asked this, because in fact, I am game designer...

I am Glad to learn that, any games we might have heard of that you have worked on? Any of them RTS?

Not for relic obviously, but it doesn't matter...I can verify player feedback with actual data and let me tell you this: about 99% of player feedback is useless player whining about stuff they don't know anything about, but that 1% is valuable input worth listening to and at times even following, just like relic does.

And when you communicating with your game's player data base and getting this feedback are you acting so obnoxiously, insulting others, acting as "Mr.Know it all" and never admitting you have made mistake, as you are in the forums or are do you have better manners showing respect to them and thanking them for there feedback even is useless?

Katitof New relic game Designer

The balance should be centered around people who can play and don't make mistake every 2nd move and decision they do. For coh2 its pretty much top 200-300 players.
You know, the people who actually are capable enough to play the game in the intended way-applying correct strategies and necessary levels of micro and awareness to pull them off.



Glad you've asked this, because in fact, I am game designer(don't confuse with dev-the mistake we all make here when addressing relic, devs just code, designers do the ideas, math and data part).
Not for relic obviously, but it doesn't matter(no, its not mobile time and money grabbing craps, but proper PC games), I work with both, player feedback as well as hard data, consult my opinions and decisions with other game designers and take feedback from QA team if there is any.
I can verify player feedback with actual data and let me tell you this: about 99% of player feedback is useless player whining about stuff they don't know anything about, but that 1% is valuable input worth listening to and at times even following, just like relic does.

For the record, so is Derek Smart.

The game should absolutely be balanced top down when it comes to skill level but when lower rank players are struggling vs certain factions/units/strats/etc. it isn't necessarily always a L2P issue. Sometimes this is instead an ease of use problem. If it takes substantially more skill to counter a tactic than the tactic itself takes to execute then ostensibly the game is balanced at high skill levels but unbalanced and potentially unfun at lower skill levels.