Posts: 367
Topic is so absurd that doesnt even worth reply.
Last tourney axis won almost all games at the end of it. In the final without any counterplay. Such a faking allied dominanc
Posts: 1617
Game design. Why USF and SU are design as early aggresive factions which lack lategame while Axis depends on positioning and surviving early on to later win with a better late game.
Aggresive tends to result on you having the initiative and the other faction been on the defensive/reactive.
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1
It's one of those reasons why snipers are problematic design wise. In a RTS like CoH2, being able to bleed your opponent of ressources constantly without suffering damage in return is a big deal. Whereas ordinary infantry combat and vehicular clashes often involve both players sacrificing something, with the better player coming out on top.
Posts: 168
Maybe others player have to improve before being affected by "imbalance" ? you can replace imbalance in everythread ( in this patch ) by "he outplayed me but i like to whine and blame the world", it works grealty
Posts: 862
Game design. Why USF and SU are design as early aggresive factions which lack lategame while Axis depends on positioning and surviving early on to later win with a better late game.
Aggresive tends to result on you having the initiative and the other faction been on the defensive/reactive.
Posts: 297
Posts: 742 | Subs: 1
So what you are saying is that everyone else other than the top players are stupid fools and that's the exact reason why imaginary''imbalance'' this doesn't affect them?
Posts: 578
So Relic should cater to their whims and whines? What's the better message: make changes based on scrubs getting frustrated facing the cluster-fuck that is 4v4? Or make changes based on good play, where all units are used to a greater potential?
What do these different approaches imply? One implies that if you whine and cry enough, that annoying rifleman blob or Elefant that you just can't beat will be nerfed so you can continue your (inferior) strategies. It implies that you don't need to self-improve. that you don't need to change because the game changes for you.
The other implies that, with practice and effort, you can overcome that rifle blob or Elefant with smart positioning, traps, flanks, etc (read: micro). It implies that you need to overcome obstacles yourself. This is how every game, ever, works. Video games are different, they have the unique opportunity for rapid and constant updates to improve gameplay to achieve "balance;" but they still share in common with any form of game or sport that you win by improving your skills, not changing the rules.
Perhaps you are content in wallowing in self-pity and incompetence when faced with obstacles. Fine. That's your choice. But how does changing the game to balance your skill level effect others? Especially at the highest level of play.
I don't think Relic would agree with that style of balancing (particularly since they have shown continued support and drive to make a competitive, while deep, RTS game). I know for a fact Blizzard doesn't balance their games like that either. Think about the effects of your wants before you go around claiming that thousands of people don't matter. They have every opportunity to play better (even slightly) each game. And if they just don't possess, or never will possess, the skill to play - well that's their problem.
In fact, I don't even know why I post here - community forums are always full of scrubs and other jack offs whining and complaining about everything when they have very little perception and awareness of what the game is truly like. It was like this in DOW2, It was like this in SC2 (still is), and still in CoH2 (and there it will always likely remain).
Why do you think Blizzard and Relic form private groups specifically inviting competent and skilled players on balance input? But even still, the crying of forums demanding change can even influence developers too, as these smaller communities skew the perception of balance with a lack of high skill players telling both players and developers otherwise.
/rant
Posts: 2487 | Subs: 21
This is hilarious. First it was top 200. Then it was top 150. Then 100, then 50. Now we're at top 20...
Vindi and all you other coh "pro's". If you're really right, and balancing should only be based upon the top players, then most of you should also be disqualified from talking.
Why? Because you always get rekt by the best players (all the time, every time), so, using your own argument, you are not in a position to talk about the game, as you're simply not good enough at the highest level.
Basically, using your own gauge, the only players that should be listened to and post are (in no particular order):
Barton
Luvnest
Helping Hans
Jesulin
Jove
Paul.a.D
There would be others, but they aren't around anymore it seems. The rest of you need to get out imo (based on your own criteria), until you start consistently beating that list of players with Allies (as they are clearly better players than all of you, thus showing an imbalance). This includes the OP.
 |
|
|
68 | ||
 |
|
|
48 | ||
 |
|
|
17 | ||
 |
|
|
9 | ||
 |
|
|
178 | ||
|
|
|
|
14 | ||
 |
|
|
4 | ||
 |
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
